Part of a series: Cassie Edwards 1: The First Post | Cassie Edwards 2: Savage Longings | Cassie Edwards Part 3: Running Fox | Cassie Edwards Part 4: Savage Moon | Cassie Edwards Part 5: Savage Beloved | Follow-up: Penguin (Part 1?) | Official Statement from Signet | AP Article Contains Response from Edwards | RWA Responds to Allegations | A centralized document for the Cassie Edwards situation
I went back to my review of Savage Moon, and looked at the following passage, which I joked was “CSI:Shoshone”:
“See the dried material on the very tips of the sharpened stone arrowhead?” Soaring Hawk said, pointing toward it. “The points of these arrowheads have been dipped into a mixture of pulverized ants and the spleen of an animal that has been allowed to decay in the direct rays of the sun,” Soaring Hawk said grimly. “This rotten mixture combined with rattlesnake venom is the deadliest of weapons.”
Saleratus & Sagebrush: People and Places on the Road West By Robert Lee Munkres uses an identical passage and cites its source as The Shoshonis: Sentinels of the Rockies, by Virginia Cole Trenholm and Maurine Carley, published by the University of Oklahoma Press in 1964.
Both books reference a work by John G. Bourke, which I haven’t identified or located.
Wow. This thing brings up like 900 google entries.
And so much debate.
Keep up the good work everyone. Spirited debate, that’s the ticket.
Its too bad that CE sucks so hardcore, because a Loretta Chase plagarism debate would go an entirely different way. And we’d be crying.
just don’t snark so hard at each other that you start to cry anyway. Because if I was Cassie Edwards, I would totally be crying.
Although if I were Cassie Edwards I would deserve it.
Pursue the facts, and cut the lady a break.
I’m no fan of Cassie Edwards, or of plagiarism, but neither am I comfortable with the witch hunt tone of these postings. Is Candy disillusioned by Edwards, or by romance in general? She’s complained about the genre being too predictable and seemed to dislike JR Ward partly because her books are popular. Is this like high school, where everything commercial isn’t cool?
I visit this web site often and I think you bitches are geniuses with snark. But lately I haven’t been feeling the Love.
Wow. I’m just reading all of this, comments included, for the first time. First, I’m sorry and maybe (probably) no one is arguing this, but plagiarism is not ever ever ever okay. Glad we cleared that up.
Second, I have a confession. I don’t read the reviews. I come here because it’s amusing and it’s a blog about something a care about (writing and romance novels) and did I mention it’s amusing? So, I don’t know if Cassie Edwards gets bashed in the reviews or not, but… while it would suck to feel like there’s a whole blog devoted to how bad you are at your job, people are entitled to their opinion when they pay to read your work. Even if they hate you. Even if they’re kinda bitchy about it. Or seriously bitchy about it. If you’re still selling books and people love you enough to come to that blog and defend you, you’re still okay, I think.
Also, we’ll call this Second-subsection 2—I think it would’ve been very untrue to themselves and what this blog is about to discover something of this magnitude and NOT post it.
Third, I don’t see how it’s anything less than hypocritical to write 100+ comments collectively on how the Smart Bitches have every right to say a thousand times that Cassie Edwards isn’t the best writer and then slam anyone, even if she’s a writer and even if she’s well known, for speaking their minds. I think, if anything, this site is about saying what you think and it doesn’t matter if it’s fair or pretty or popular. It’s what you think. We’re all saying what we think. And good for us.
I’m no fan of Cassie Edwards, or of plagiarism, but neither am I comfortable with the witch hunt tone of these postings.
What, exactly, strikes you as a “witch hunt tone”?
So—Edwards’ middle name isn’t Claire, is it?
Just checking.
Manon:
HAAAAAAH!!
Nice.
Oh. My. Lord.
I’m going to go read some Nora now, and make my heart feel better.
(In English majory, writerly terms: puke. Copying = Vengeful Wrath. CSI: Cassie Edwards and her rabid fangirls are making me *headdesk* more often than is good for me)
I’m no fan of Cassie Edwards, or of plagiarism, but neither am I comfortable with the witch hunt tone of these postings. Is Candy disillusioned by Edwards, or by romance in general?
To be honest? Finding out how pervasive the unattributed usage is has disillusioned me about the process of romance publishing, yeah. How long has this been going on? For fuck’s sake, it was dead easy to check this shit.
More than 100 books published. More than 100. Sweet Baby Jesus in a Jesus-shaped sidecar.
It’s also triggered some of my OCD tendencies and I’ve felt the urge to grab allllll the Cassie Edwards novels evah and run to the library so I can confirm exactly how bad it is. If being thorough means I’m a witch hunter, then I’m grabbing my scales and the nearest available mallard and seeing if each Edwards novel weighs as much as the duck.
She’s complained about the genre being too predictable and seemed to dislike JR Ward partly because her books are popular.
I kind of feel like I’m in the middle of a game of Zendo, except instead of attempting to inductively reason logic rules, people are attempting to read into my motivations and my preferences. Have at it. I will tell you if your guesses have or have not the Buddha nature.
Your guess about why I didn’t enjoy Ward’s BDB books does not have the Buddha nature.
Your guess that I’m disillusioned with the genre in general also does not have the Buddha nature.
I know this is completely off topic, but what happened to the “recent comments” list? I always used it to keep track of who was weighing in on what thread, and today I’m really lamenting its loss, what with three threads going simultaneously (not to mention those wonderful instances where someone reignites an old thread with just one new comment).
Good lord. Shooting the messenger much? What do Candy’s reading preferences have to do with Ms. Edwards’ suspected plagiarism? If we don’t like the tone of a message, we get to attack the messenger instead of addressing the issue? As though the method by which a misdeed is laid bare invalidates the misdeed itself.
I love the Smart Bitches and the website but I’m no “fangirl”—today’s my first day posting—and I sorta kinda really resent the implication that if I disagree with someone like Ms. Crusie (“this [Crusie’s opinion] will enrage SB fans”) it must be because I’m an overzealous SB defender. Calling out this site for its Cassie Edwards mockery may be a valid point in a different context, but it’s in really poor taste in this discussion—whether or not it’s the intent, it deflects the attention away from the real issue and then points the finger at someone wholly unrelated to the plagiarism matter. I’m very uncomfortable with the whole “blaming the victim” vibe in some posts, not to say that we or the SBs are victims, but calling a well-thought-out, calmly laid-out analysis of factual evidence a “witch hunt” smacks of shooting the messenger.
Oh, Jenny Cruise, how far you have fallen…
http://jennycrusie.blogspot.com/2006/06/whats-bugging-me-now.html
To be honest? Finding out how pervasive the unattributed usage is has disillusioned me about the process of romance publishing, yeah. How long has this been going on?
Oh, come now, Candy. It’s got nothing to do with romance. Publishing, sure, but ROMANCE publishing, specifically? The most recent cases I’ve heard about have been literary fiction. It’s clearly spread generously around for all genres to share.
And I am all about personal responsibility. It’s about the plagiarist (sp?) first. Her publisher a distant second. Both you and Sarah read Cassie Edwards and didn’t pick out the copied parts as being (more) off. It seems as though ALL the writing may have been bad enough to throw off the scent.
(And what did happen to the recent comments list???)
I applaud the Smart Bitches for making this public. This is dynamite investigative journalism and they’ve handled the matter very professionally.
As for how picked-upon Cassie Edwards is, please remember the only victims here are the people whose books were plagiarized. Getting reviewed, positively or negatively, is part of being a published author. Having your words stolen is not.
And as jb excellent comment points out, it’s irrelevant whether Ms. Edwards gets a raw deal on SBTB. The SBs’ low opinion of Ms. Edwards’ writing did not drive the woman to start plagiarizing.
If it seems as though CE is being picked on perhaps the problem is that, while searching for an appropriate synonym for “friggin awful”, her name was the only one to come to mind.
Solution: the smartbitches need to find authors that are as bad as or worse than CE. Then, when they want to insult a book, they dont just to drop the Edwards bomb, there’ll be a plethera of other authors to allude to during a scathing review. Instead of “It was bad, but not as bad as Cassie Edwards”, there’ll be “It was bad, but not as bad as ___” Imagine the possibilities!!
So, while I try to check for crap level before purchase, I’ll nominate the worst romance novels in my house for the F (or at least D) list:
A Pirates Pleasure by Heather Graham
Close Encounters of the Sexy Kind by Karren Kelley
And I say these are bad not as an insult to their fans, but as a personal opinion.
Who said plagiarism was like mind rape? Was is La Nora? Can’t remember. But it’s so true.
And for those who think there’s bashing going on in here, just *breathe*. Forget the emotional and stick to the facts: someone wrote something, then someone else stole it and sold it.
I have a lot more to say about righteous bleeding hearts who’d want everyone to always be agreeable and nice (or else!), but it wouldn’t be polite.
Oh, come now, Candy. It’s got nothing to do with romance. Publishing, sure, but ROMANCE publishing, specifically? The most recent cases I’ve heard about have been literary fiction.
I’m not denying that plagiarism happens in all varieties of writing, both commercial and non-commercial, and the two biggest cases to have broken the scene in the past two years have been Viswanathan (YA) and Ian McEwan (lit fic). But have they been nearly as pervasive and, well, easy to find as this particular case? As Sarah said in one of these comment threads (is it this one?), I often feel like there’s this “slap on the man-titty and HEA, and they will come” attitude towards romance. It happens to other genres, too, but because romance is such a huge cash cow, we readers are milked the worst.
Gah. How’s that for an amazing mixed analogy? It’s 2 a.m., and I still have work to do. CRY. I’ll see if I can be more articulate after some sleep. My statement still stands. My faith in individual romance authors and editors is not necessarily affected, but my faith in the industry as a whole has been shaken somewhat
today
by Kate’s discovery and the further things uncovered by all three of us.
You can’t blame Romance publishing for this. Edwards has been read for years without anyone catching this. Her publisher isn’t required to google her books to see if it’s original material. She, like all of us, signed a contract stating it was.
The plagiarist is to blame. Not the publisher, the editor, the reader, the authors being copied, the person or persons who discovered the copying or the bookseller who sold the books.
The plagiarist is to blame. Period.
When I was plagiarized (yes, I called it mind rape) I heard a lot of comments about it being because Romance novels were all the same, that the ensuing publicity damaged or demeaned the genre and industry.
Bullshit.
An individual copied another individual’s work and called it her own. It happens, unfortunately, in all areas of writing. I don’t hear acadamia being blamed when it happens there, or literary fiction being tossed into the mix of causes when it happens there.
But when it’s Romance, the genre and its publishers once again become targets. That’s not right.
If one must be disillusioned by this recent discovery, be so with the individual, and not the platform used.
Nor, she says going on, do I see this as a witch hunt. I got that term tossed at me, too, when I went after Dailey. An important line was crossed, and bringing that fact to light doesn’t make it a witch hunt.
Too often, far too often, in cases like this people point fingers at the victim or at those who blow the whistle.
Baffles me.
I haven’t read any CE so I have no opinion of her writing. As a reader, period, I feel insulted by writers or publishers who would do this. It doesn’t matter if it’s Edwards. It doesn’t matter what the genre is. I was shocked to see how the excerpts followed the text from the old books word for word. I would be shocked no matter who the author was.
I do have a technical question. Since these texts were written in 1902 and it’s public domain, would she be in any trouble legally? Other than looking really, really bad?
Candy, I’m back because this is bugging me. Why should the fact that Romance is a successful genre (cash cow) mean the industry is in any way responsible for the actions of a writer within that genre?
While I grant you that the offending passages appear to have been easy to find, no one—including readers—found them before. In my case Dailey had plagiarized me for years before it was caught—by a reader. And it took some work on my part to go back and find all the other books involved.
No one had looked before, no one had noticed. That’s no one’s fault.
Romance, the genre, the industry, wasn’t to blame. But boy, did it take some knocks along with me because of this person’s actions.
I hate to see that happen again.
Copying needs to be taken very seriously, by writers, publishers, readers. And the blame for that offense needs to stay where it belongs, or once again, the issue becomes fractured and clouded.
Why is it than when I lose internet access for a couple days you Bitches always post something that makes the webernets go crazy??? Last time it was swan hat.
I really have nothing to add to this thread. Plagiarism is wrong.
Not Candy, but—
Most plagiarism in romance is found by readers cross reading. I would have likely read the sources but not read Cassie Edwards—I think the presence of the Google book search is going to make this type of checking easier from now on.
I’m not denying that plagiarism happens in all varieties of writing, both commercial and non-commercial, and the two biggest cases to have broken the scene in the past two years have been Viswanathan (YA) and Ian McEwan (lit fic). But have they been nearly as pervasive and, well, easy to find as this particular case?
Candy, I’m going to argue that the Visnawathan case was that pervasive and easy to find because she had been unwise enough to plagiarize not from a contemporary who had a popular, not to mention, current, series. Add to that the sheer publicity awarded to Visnawathan due to her age and the size of the contract… I think that yeah, it was pretty easy to document this one.
Speaking of plagiarism, Missy Chase Lapine has brought suit against the Seinfelds—against Jessica for plagiarism and against Jerry for slander, I believe. It’ll be interesting to see how this shakes down.
Sorry, meant to write, “plagiarize from a contemporary.”
Extra word in there due to lack of caffeine. Sorry.
Nice work! I wasn’t as aware of the publishing world when the Roberts/Dailey scandal went on, but I’m fascinated to see what happens next. As someone who had been plagiarized in school (and both of us got punished because I couldn’t prove she stole from me, just that both of us had the exact same thing on an essay) I have a very strict view on plagiarism, to the point that some of my professors say I’m a little trigger happy on the citations when I’m writing a research paper. But all it would have taken was some credit at the end, and some indication that those parts of the novel came from another book (not good writing, but at least she would have been honest) and she would have been FINE. And the book probably would have sold just as well.
Really, if you do your research take that extra moment to credit the person. But of course, I’m preaching to the choir because most people here seem to be in agreement.
Good job bitches! Keep up the good work!
Holy craptastica.
The power just came back on and I find this.
Thank you SmartBitches for bringing this to light. I’m blown away by not only how often, and in how many books that the plagiarism occurred, but that it was so damn blatant word-for-word without a thought.
I write historicals and do a lot of research too, but even I know that just because it’s research doesn’t mean you can slap it in a book undigested.
Plagiarism is never right. But I have to also agree with La Nora. You can’t shake down the publisher, or hold them accountable for every book they ever produce to be original or accurate (can you say James Frey?). The author is responsible for the content being original and accurate material. That’s the contract.
As for the comment on the sisterhood of romance writers. Yeah, it’s neither a myth nor your imagination.
While it benefits the newer writers when they are just starting out, it also hobbles the genre in being taken seriously by media, the general public, literati and the like, especially in events like this where there is a clear right and wrong (the act of plagiarism).
Part of the genre’s willingness to close ranks comes from the genre being so pervasively populated by female writers. Women natural tend to try to seek unanimity vs. a hierarchy (note: see Dr. Deborah Tannen’s books on how men and women’s conversational styles differ and how impacts who gets heard, what gets done and who gets credit – just citing my sources.) As a result, you attack one (even if it is legitimate) and everyone feels the pinch (whether they should or not).
Another case in point…if you think the romance genre isn’t going to feel this as a bitch slap, go get another mocha and wake up. A sisterhood that stands up together also gets beat by the media together.
The mass opinion becomes if one romance is full of plagiarism, it stands to reason (in the mind of the media) that all of romance is full of inaccuracy, lousy writing, and supports the ideal that it was a sub-form of writing to begin with.
The plagiarism is bad. No two ways about it. But there’s a sideffect that’s even worse because it impacts not only the people she stole from, but also every other romance writer out there.
This is no longer a matter of one book. It’s a matter of the genre’s image. It takes ten positive impressions to neutralize one negative one (U. of Southern Calif. communications dept. research study a few years back.)
One author’s inability to be professional puts a ding in the whole genre’s image.
And perhaps that’s what really pisses me off most. Because she can’t do her job, other people will believe none of us can.
The negative impact this will have on our already tattered reputation as readers and writers of romance was the first concern I had when I started reading what SB had uncovered.
It made me sick to my stomach because we don’t need any more bad press, we get enough as it is, but there is no doubt in my mind that such blatant disregard for the written word has to be exposed and dealt with in the harshest way.
And that’s precisely why Ms. Crusie’s attitude rankles so much. Attacking the messenger, deflecting the focus from what’s really important here (blatant plagiarism by a woman who has published close to 100 books in the genre) and using her ‘weight’ as an author to try to make her position a more valuable one than that held by non-authors is just disgusting.
Especially, if we read the impassioned, dare I say, bitchy, comments that Ms. Crusie posted on her blog with regards to plagiarism. I’ll quote Ms. Crusie here. This is from
http://www.arghink.com/2006/06/18/whats-bugging-me-now/
Please all read Ms. Crusie’s complete comment on plagiarism, if you haven’t already. The below excerpt is just the most pertinent to my point.
start quote
“Or do they not even think about “everybody elseâ€? Does “everybody else†not exist for people like this, bound as they are by the parameters of their own needs? Are they astounded when people object to their thefts? “Why yes, I did take that,†do they say when confronted with the proof of their pilfering, “is that a problem?†Well, yes, you conscienceless bitch, it IS a problem. Okay, what really bugs me is that people like this steal the work of others and then giggle self-consciously and say, “Oh, sorry about that. No hard feelings, ‘kay?†Hand me that hard feeling, Mabel, I’m gonna use it to beat some moral integrity into that there dumbass plagiarist.”
end quote
I wish she had remembered her feelings on this topic before posting her comment on how CE is abused as a “whipping boy and scapegoat” by SB, thereby trivializing the magnitude of what SB has uncovered about CE’s unprofessional conduct.
Because her attitude and post are de facto supporting CE’s theft and will
open the genre to even more ridicule by the media and romance detractors.
GrowlyCub
While I absolutely agree that the plagiarist is the one to blame, I cannot help thinking that the publisher has some responsibility as well.
After all, aren’t editors supposed to help authors make their books the best they can be? And shouldn’t glaring style inconsistencies have been noted and addressed by the editor?
Maybe I’m naive, but we don’t buy books directly from authors, we buy them from publishers and there are many people who lay eyes on a manuscript before it’s sold to the public. We pay for that ‘added value’ of proof reading, fact checking and editing for flow and readability, so I really do feel publishers have some input and responsibility about the final output.
GrowlyCub
~After all, aren’t editors supposed to help authors make their books the best they can be?~
You could blame the editor in part for the books being poorly written—but remember Edwards has many, many fans who would disagree.
This side says crap, the other side says just fine and dandy. It’s not the publisher’s job to decide who’s right. The books sell, they reach their audience. That’s the publisher’s job.
You just can’t blame an editor for a writer copying. They’re not responsible. The copier is. I would also imagine, any editor—after a writer’s been around 25 years for 100 books—would assume (and way back along the way as well) that the change in style and voice was, indeed, the particular author’s style.
Again, to me, pushing the blame, or part of it onto editors, publishers, detracts from the issue. The writer who copies another’s work and calls it her own is at fault. Completely.
“any editor—after a writer’s been around 25 years for 100 books—would assume (and way back along the way as well) that the change in style and voice was, indeed, the particular author’s style.”
I too suspect this is why/how those passages slipped under the editor’s radar.
And that’s precisely why Ms. Crusie’s attitude rankles so much.
FWIW, I don’t think Crusie and/or Rich are okay with plagiarism here or elsewhere. And I think anyone has a right to say that mocking Cassie Edwards bothers them. But I totally agree with you that the tone of the comments here (and I include Rich with Crusie for reasons that may become apparent in a minute) appears to bypass what I think is the heart of the issue.
Now I suspect that both Crusie and Rich would respond that they don’t even see that it’s necessary to explain how against plagiarism they are—that it should be an obvious thing, especially given the link you provide to Crusie’s blog.
In general, though, I think it’s clear that there’s a certain culture of silence on this issue that needs to be cracked, and that perhaps it’s never too obvious to talk about what plagiarism is and why it’s a pernicious presence in any writing community, negatively impacting authors and readers alike.
As to the hand slapping of the SBs for mocking Cassie Edwards, though, while I’m not an adept mocker myself, I found Crusie and Rich’s stand on that outrageously ironic after this:
http://www.arghink.com/2007/09/27/you-have-not-got-a-clue/
http://www.arghink.com/2007/09/28/385/
Perhaps it’s time that we start talking about what our community values are relative to authors and readers, to start eyeballing some common ideas about what is or isn’t legitimate criticism and what is or isn’t the value of snark, etc. Because while I’m sure we all tread into the land of the double standard at times, I think some of the clarity this issue of plagiarism should yield is most definitely tainted by the IMO often strange notions of what’s okay and what’s out of bounds when discussing books, authors, readers, bloggers, etc. And IMO as long as that’s all bundled up together we’re going to keep having these boundary blurring discussions (and not in a good way, lol).
Wow. The you-know-what has hit the fan.
Thanks Jenny Crusie for wading back into the fray to clarify your opinion. I’m glad that you bothered to come back and risk the almighty wrath of the internet.
On the other hand, while I see your need to clarify your earlier comment (since some of us—myself included—were a bit peeved about it), it’s disheartening to me that you would (as many have already eloquently pointed out) direct the conversation away from Edwards’ plagiarism and focus it on how Edwards has been supposedly treated by this site.
The seriousness of plagiarism should be the focus of discussion—not an alleged vendetta against Edwards. Whether The Bitches took too much glee in bashing her awful writing is irrelevant because they often were not even her own words. If anything, The Bitches were unknowingly bashing the poor people that Edwards repeatedly stole from.
A very hearty thank you to the incredible Nora Roberts for reminding me that Edwards is the one who plagiarized, not her editor and publisher. I’m not an author, so I don’t know how fact-checking works and if it’s even done with romance novels, so I’m glad that you set the record straight for me in regards to the contract signed by an author stating that theirs is an original work. A part of me had been blaming the publisher for allowing this happen and, after your comment, I realized that they didn’t “allow” their author to plagiarize—they took Edwards at her word when she signed a contract stating her works were original and hers alone.
(I just realized that I look like a strange suck-up for commenting only about the comments left by famous writers. So, shout-outs to some great comments made by lori, GrowlyCub, Robin and, of course, Candy. You all made many great points.)
Copying needs to be taken very seriously, by writers, publishers, readers. And the blame for that offense needs to stay where it belongs, or once again, the issue becomes fractured and clouded.
ITA that the writer is ultimately the responsible party. But I do think there are industry and community elements here, as well. How many RWA chapters, for example, discuss plagiarism regularly and openly? How many authors talk about this issue or even KNOW what plagiarism is and how it relates to copyright infringement? How many authors using secondary research materials know what to acknowledge and what not to acknowledge, and how accessible is that information for them?
The culture of silence on this really scares me, almost as much as the strange transference of blame onto Candy and Sarah for reporting it (that whistleblower effect). Are people afraid that they may be doing it so they don’t want to talk about it? That just makes it more taboo, IMO, and once it is revealed, you get the strange dichotomy of pitchforks intermixed with denials of importance.
Since readers are so often the ones to catch plagiarism, clearly this is an issue that impacts the whole community, and as several people have already pointed out, it doesn’t do a lot for the already beleaguered reputation of Romance. NOT that I’m arguing at all with your premise that the editor and publisher shouldn’t bear responsibility for what the writer did (although I think this may speak to the overworked status of many editors), just that I think this is an issue of community importance and reflects community ethics, which IMO don’t seem to be discussed readily with much comfort.
I want to address the idea that our use of Cassie Edwards’ novels as shorthand for “badly written romance” is some sort of an egregious lapse of reason or manners. A few of the myriad posts I’ve read out there in blogs and commentary sites regarding the issue seem to support the idea that we ought to be chastened.
Hogwash, says I.
A friend of mine just emailed me that she went to CVS and lo and behold, on the slim bookshelf of the drugstore: three Cassie Edwards novels. I guarantee that if you go to the Super Stop n Shop, the A&P, or the Pathmark nearest my home, you’ll find her there, too.
Cassie Edwards, in short, is already romance shorthand. Should a grocery store, a drugstore, or any venue with a limited shelf space for romance need said romance to fill said shelf, she’s a go-to representative for the genre, alongside, often, Nora Roberts, Danielle Steel, and other authors with prominent name recognition. You can buy Edwards, Roberts, Steel et al at truck stops—at least, the one in Carlisle, Pennsylvania, that has a Wendy’s in it along with really spiffy clean bathrooms always does. Edwards is already shorthand.
Edwards novels are everywhere as representative of the romance genre. If she’s going to be representative of romance, then around here she’s shorthand for romance that represents the genre poorly, and for romance that is culturally offensive, shoddily constructed, and wanly plotted.
Let me wag the dog for a minute: whenever Candy and I have discussed the omnipresence of Edwards’ novels as representative of romance novels, one or the other says inevitably, “and she sells like gangbusters. What’s up with that?” Is she everywhere because she sells well … or does she sell well because she’s consistently everywhere?
If it’s the latter, the implication that anything and everything is good for a romance reader because we’re too dim to know the difference is yet again going to piss me off. I do care! I get pissed if 9 out of 10
dentists
readers would say that it’s bad and YET there’s more savage horror coming down the aisle! AAR won’t even review her novels anymore and YET here come the Running Wind, the Running Fox. The bowels, the nose, they runneth over.
Candy and I think Edwards’ novels are poor. We’ve said as much; her books are the standard of comparison when we suspect a book we’re reading would be graded near the F-level. So now that we’ve discovered that they’re not just poorly written but that a good portion of each was not written at all by Edwards in the first place, our repeated use of her novels as a standard of quality is suddenly a problem when we direct attention to a major, massive, potentially backlist-long use of uncredited potentially stolen sources?
The subtext of the admonishments is that we’re not nice enough to reveal something so horrible, that the bitchyness contined herein pollutes the enormity of what we’ve found. Shame on us. And yet again the Be Nice Or Else Muzzle of Romance is being waved in our direction – our credibility is called into question because we’re not sufficiently kind?
Lani Diane Rich said in a comment, “If you don’t like her books, don’t read them. There’s so much good romance out there. Why read someone whose books you hate?”
We read them and review them and discuss them because they are freaking everywhere. There is a lot of good romance out there. Is it outrageous for me to say that there might be more good romance out there if shelf space wasn’t already taken up by the culturally offensive shorthand that is the Savage/Running Edwards novel? It’s not an obsession on my part. As Candy said, it’s important to discuss the negative, to discuss the bad and why it’s bad in our opinion, particularly as we try to establish a traceable grading rubric that communicates our grading system. We love the genre, we love reading it, discussing it, and examining it for its own awesome, enjoyable sake. Part of that for Candy and I is bemoaning why there is so much bad when there could be so much more good, and trying to figure out why on earth there is that bad without end ad nauseaum forever and ever amen oh my God here comes another one.
I disagree with Rich and with Crusie’s perspectives that our beating a horse (into expensive shoes! HA!) somehow depletes the discovery of uncited sources of needed significance, but I profoundly appreciate their perspectives, as I’m sure they are shared by others who read but don’t comment (Hi lurkers! Hayadoin?). I know the discussion elsewhere has focused partially on the potential plagiarism, but also on the relative meanness of Candy and me in being the ones to say so.
Old joke or not, my position is and has been clear: Cassie Edwards’ novels are an affront to the genre, to the Native American community, and to me as a reader. Turns out they may also be an affront to many, many other people whose work was lifted uncredited and published under her name for her profit. If I’m extra double cheese mean for saying so, fine. It still needs to be said.
Some people I like a lot don’t like that Candy and I were the ones to say so. I understand your point, but I disagree. And I like that we can disagree without getting all bitchslappy about it. I’ll meet you at the bar. First round on me.
~I think this is an issue of community importance and reflects community ethics~
I couldn’t agree more with this. But the fact that it’s an issue of community importance doesn’t mean, to me, putting blame on the genre, the publishers or that community when one of its members copies.
Why didn’t Sarah (or was in Candy) jump to plagiarism back when she reviewed the Edwards book? Because she simply thought the writing was Edwards’ style. If I’d read it, I imagine I’d have thought the same.
I would agree plagiarism is an industry problem—a writing industry problem. But not that Romance shares the blame for what Edwards apparently did.
I don’t know if RWA or MWA or any writer’s organization addresses the issue of plagiarism regularly. I know it has been addressed when the big P hits the fan.
Robin: Your comments are so incredibly well-thought out. Kudos for brilliantly clarifying your opinion.
And I think that we should use this scandal to HELP the reputation of Romance. I hope I can clarify my opinion as well as you have done yours.
This site obviously proves that smart, snarky women read romance and are not afraid to yell it to the rooftops. This scandal further highlights the fact that we are intelligent women who read romance because we enjoy it and because many of the writers are exceedingly talented. If The Bitches were not so intelligent, Edwards’ plagiarism might never have been found out. If we were the dolts that the “Literary World” would like to believe we are, then why should we care about a little stealing?
But we’re not dolts, and we DO care and, as intelligent readers, we have the right to uphold the standards and ethics of publishing. If we had spent our money on lead-tainted toys, no one would think it odd when we complained about buying a tainted product. So, why is it so wrong that readers are up in arms over all of this? We spent money on her books, under the assumption that they were original works of fiction, and it turns out they they were just as tainted as those lead toys. We have every right to be upset over this.
Oy. I’m meandering. Blame the DayQuil. I’m trying to say that we, as intelligent romance readers, could use this situation to show others that just because we read romance doesn’t mean that we’re idiots, and that just because we read romance doesn’t mean that we don’t deserve original works of fiction.
I sincerely hope this post makes sense.
Sarah, it was also said that I should be chastized during the Dailey business. That I had no compassion. I was mean. I should have been nice and forgiven her.
I say screw that.
Shooting the messenger, or poking at the victim only supports the wrong-doing, and clouds the issue.
Well said, Sarah!
I wonder if we’ll see an increase in discoveries regarding plagiarism, powered by google.
As a commenter on my blog put it – dope testing on-line.
FWIW, I totally don’t care if you beat Cassie Edwards’s savage dead horse into a expensive shoes or not. I think it’s hilarious…but then, I’m a black-hearted, soulless bitch. 🙂
But! If you want a new author to toss into the fray, may I nominate Fern Michaels? I read one of her books, and I was appalled. I can’t even…you know that’s several hours of my life that I am NEVER getting back. Lazy does not begin to cover that book.
On the other hand, it wasn’t blatantly racist…but she is as ubiquitous as Edwards.
Finally, on PA rest stops: along with really spiffy clean bathrooms
I consider myself something of a…hm. Connisseur sounds gross, so critic? Of interstate rest stops, and PA has some of the nicest ones I’ve seen. That’s my utterly irrelevant comment for the day.
(Spambot word: under29. Only for another five months…)
OFF TOPIC.
Just to warn you all.
snarkhunter: I second your nomination for Fern Michaels as our new whipping boy! Although aren’t “her” books actually written by more than one person? I believe I had read that somewhere (credible) and I’ve only read a few of her books but the two writers theory at least helps explain the complete shift in tone through-out “her” books. And glaring consistency errors. Personally, I’ve always thought Fern Michaels was worse than Cassie Edwards.
(And by “new whipping boy” I’m just trying to make a snarky joke. Even though I meant what I said about Michaels books… I hate ‘em.)
I know the discussion elsewhere has focused partially on the potential plagiarism…
*raises hand*
This would be me. As I said in my blog, I don’t know enough about the history with y’all disliking Edwards’ books and frankly, to me, it’s secondary. I am so, so, so against plagiarism—I can’t even begin to tell you how angry the Kaavya Viswanathan (Hey look, I spelled it right after the caffeine got into my system!) situation made me. And in the comments on my blog, someone else mentioned that John Irving had apparently also lifted passages wholesale from an academic text that he later went back and acknowledged.
It is a pervasive problem, not just in romance, not just in lit fic, not just in YA, but all across the board and down the line, into college and high school papers. Attention needs to be called to it, each and every time it happens. Just my .02