You know those people who will say, in two different sets of inflections, “I’m sorry, but….”?
There’s the “I’m sorry, but…” where in you apologize sarcastically for having a negative opinion, and the “I’m sorry, but…” wherein you apologize half-assedly and then defend yourself in the same breath, thereby negating your apology.
Enter Judith Griggs. Well, she’s reentering. She’s kind of refusing to leave the stage at this point and someone needs to carry her off. (ETA: It appears she’s taken down her website entirely. There is a a Google cache, the text of which is what I’m addressing here.)
First there was the Statement I mentioned when I looked at What All Went Wrong and How The Trainwreck Might Have Been Less Trainwrecky.
Now, there’s a now-removed Statement on the Cooks Source website. With bonus whining!
Monica Gaudio never gave her a chance. Facebook didn’t return her phone calls. She had a lot of phone and email traffic saying what a shitty thing she’d done and they were MEAN.
I need some cheese to go with all that whine. No, I am not asking for recommendations, thanks. I like smoked cheeses, and I got me plenty of smokin’ right here. You need to huff something to make sense of these sentences:
“I took the site down becuase someone threatened to go to all the distribution spots and destroy the new issue, also to protect my advertisers.”
“Monica I am so sorry for any harm I caused you. I never ment to hurt anyone, and I think I did a nice job for you, but the fact remains that I took this without asking you and that was so very wrong.”
“Honestly, some of you have been pretty mean.”
“If my apology to Monica seemed shallow it was because I was angry about the harm she has inflicted on others on behalf of her own agenda. ”
“To one writer in particular, Monica Gaudio, I wish you had given me a chance.”
Wow, you can lay those statements as stones and use them to cross the Nile, huh?
Here’s what sets of my temper: you know WHY the internet got so pissed off? WHY it was writers among others who were livid that someone’s research and work was taken without permission and printed by someone else for profit? Because intellectual theft happens, and it blows, and sometimes, if it happens to you, there’s very little you can do about it except YELL. Intellectual theft through plagiarism happens to people so often with so little satisfaction that the only weapon that’s useful is loud public hollering about it, especially when the person responsible can’t give a decent apology what with all the condescension.
If Griggs could demonstrate for one small moment that she understand copyright, plagiarism, and ethics, maybe she’d be able to say, “I’m sorry” without any qualifying or contradictory remarks.
Her “I’m sorry but” behavior continues in interviews she’s done as well. She admits to Gazettenet.com’s Dan Crowley that she ran Gaudio’s article without permission, but then professes sympathy for anyone “who has bad publicity.” She then laments that the magazine may not survive and insists she’s “trying to protect her advertisers.”
What utter self-important malarkey. That magazine’s business model was based on ripping off writers who weren’t compensated for their work, or even informed their work was being republished for profit. Theft: not a good business model.
As I said earlier, sometimes, social costs are the ones that can be accrued fast and spent even faster. At this point, with all this “I’m sorry but,” Griggs is overdrawn. When someone who has more than an inch and a half of wrong on the hem of her dress clutches her pearls and insist she’s the victim, it’s exhausting to listen to. In the words of the great ethicist and public relations advisor Ne-Yo, “you know you’re only sorry you got caught.”
In the face of an entire Google Spreadsheet of more than 160 pieces of material lifted verbatim and republished in Cooks Source, Griggs maintains that people were mean and she should be pitied, while continuing to demonstrate a complete lack of understanding as to how plagiarism and copyright work.
The more Griggs makes this discussion about her hurt feelings and the less about her extreme and blithe violation of copyright and ethics, the less respect I have for her. Not that she was worried about my respect, but my GOSH, woman. Stop talking.
I’m relieved that it appears that she has.
@anony miss: “But she never meant to be a bad person, she just did something that bad people do. Do you know what I mean?”
No stoning here. We can usually disagree without getting out the pitchforks of rage. Unless someone tells me that “You bitches have gone too far.” Then I can’t type because I’m giggling too hard.
I absolutely know what you mean. And I think it’s kind of awesome that you have compassion in a big storm of rage. Really, that’s a good thing!
From my point of view, I counter every one of her “but” with an “if.” I’d accept that she was sorry IF she hadn’t done it 160+ times. I’d accept that she was sorry IF she didn’t turn around and blame her accuser some more and seek pity. I’d accept she was truly cognizant of where she went wrong IF she, well, demonstrated that she was!
@deb: Not quite the same thing. This is stealing + profiting off the theft. It’d be like me downloading a copy of a book, then switching it around barely (maybe I’d put in a “but!”) and then selling it under my own name for profit. AND THEN insisting everyone is mean for telling me I did it wrong.
Comparing this outrage to voter turnout or charitable donations is … crap what’s that called. I haven’t had coffee. Oh – a red herring. Yes, voter turnout sucks. But deciding that the issue of copyright infringement and intellectual theft isn’t as important in your eyes as it is in the perspective of those who reacted doesn’t make your issue more important. Copyright and intellectual theft are important issues, and so is voting. No buts about either. We’re only talking about one here. John Leguizamo talked about voting here about a week ago. Don’t make me post that video of him wearing the stars-and-stripes banana hammock again!
My favorite bit is when she told an interviewer that she “didn’t really understand copyright”. This from a woman claiming to have been a professional editor for 30 years (see her Now Notorious e-mail to Monica)…
Or is my favorite bit her not recognizing the first half of the apple pie recipe article was in medieval English and “correcting” it?
Decisions, decisions….
ICopyright infringement is wrong. To me, there are not buts. Profit makes it worse, I agree, but the violation is still there. The sense of violation is there. This is what makes Ms. Griggs response so egregious, she ignored that completely. This is what you protested. I get that. The sense of violation of the content creator still exists if you use non-attributed work for personal use. That doesn’t change.
Sarah, the issue to me is very important. When artists, musicians, authors give up the work because of that violation, we all lose. We are losing more as our economy forces those who no longer make the cut in terms of sales, go back to the office. So yes, this is very important to me.
I no longer have the joy of hearing a musician (fiddler) I value very highly play new tunes, as he no longer records. He wrote beautiful tunes, played them brilliantly. He opened up his home to younger musicians to teach them not only the music, but the culture as well. If he continues to compose, I can not hear him play. His body of work is now limited to what he had recorded in the past. He gave up due to piracy/copyright infringement. His generosity was rewarded with being violated by the audience who loves his music and him.
Yes, this is very important to me. I would love to see the change of attitude where respect of our work is held as important in every case, not just the most egregious.
Deb, I agree with you about stealing music/books/etc. In my stupid youth, I downloaded songs without paying for them. I have never done so since I realized what it does to the artists and I am truly sorry for ever having done so. I get what you’re saying. I just don’t think this is the time and place to discuss it. Not that we can’t (or shouldn’t) go off on tangents in a blog post, but thats such a huge issue on its own. It would really need its own post and discussion. Personally, I think its great that the internet power can be harnessed for good. I don’t know anything about Monica Gaudio but its quite possible that she doesn’t have the money to fight the theft of her work in any other way. The fact that the internet community has stepped up and made noise about it is amazing. It gives me hope that one day the internet community will do the same thing about pirated music and books, and voting.
Deb—I’m with you. I can’t stand people who LOVE a writer/musician/painter so much they just HAVE to have their book/music/art—free. I can’t count the number of times I’ve been told that “FILLINNAMEOFGROUP has huge amounts of money” to which my response is “they won’t if people keep downloading their stuff illegally”. Just as I can’t count the number of times I’ve had someone come up to the reference desk and ask why NAMEOFAUTHOR hasn’t had a book out in two years. Because, I say, they weren’t selling well, and they don’t have another contract. “Oh, but I just LOVE her books! I can’t wait for them to come in at the second-hand bookstore or the library.” They can’t seem to get the fact that the publisher doesn’t give a rodent’s rear end that you liked the book, the publisher cares whether you BOUGHT it. Sigh.
I’m thinking maybe the Griggsing definition needs an additional usage added to it. I’m not clever enough, but I’m sure someone else could come up with something vis a vie the non apologetic apology.
spamword: march47.. If she’d had a mother who made her march 47 times to the bathroom to wash her mouth out with soap everytime she did something like this, Judith Griggs wouldn’t be in this situation.
@Deb:
1. I voted
and
2. No, I have never copied, borrowed, or illegaly downloaded anything. Ever.
why do you assume that everyone who “ganged up” on Judith Griggs did not vote and has stolen? That’s some amazing hyberbole right there.
I’ve heard that sort of thing called a “fauxpology” around teh intertubez.
@Randi—moi aussi.
Randi, I too voted, and do not copy, borrow, etc. I also do not assume everyone who protested were guilty on a personal level. I indicate only that IF, those who have copied, etc., and protested, are being hypocritical. I did use the word “if” in my second point.
May I ask what is wrong with borrowing (ie: Library) or going to the used bookstore or even swapping books among family members? Sorry that comment really irked me and it does not really pertain to this discussion. What about readers rights? We do have them you know. We are taken advantage of as well.
Dear Miss/Mrs. Griggs;
With genuine empathy in my heart, I offer one piece of advice that I learned as a child and teen whenever I tried to deny/excuse some stupidity that I was, in fact, willfully guilty of; shut up.
Or as the fair Bitches (and possibly some gentlemen-Bitches) that have gone before me put it; stop digging yourself a hole. Eventually you’re going to reach the molten core and the movie The Core has me convinced that if such a thing were to happen, somehow you’d manage to annihilate everything on earth. Which would then give you bad PR amongst the Martians and the Venusians and the quirky, loud-music-at-2 AM annoying Mercurians. This is not something you need.
Obscurity at this point is what you should be aiming for.
Sincerely,
Nouvel
why do you assume that everyone who “ganged up” on Judith Griggs did not vote and has stolen?
Because Deb is so very, very concerned. O look at all the concern she has. She isn’t trolling for responses, no she is not.
One more point before I move away from this subject. I just can’t stand people who are so superior in their beliefs to think that a library/used bookstore is a way for people to get “free” stuff from artists/author’s they really like. Without library’s/used bookstores/borrowing among family and friends and general word of mouth authors/musicians and artists would not be where they are in popularity and more than likely would sell very little if anything at all. When certain people make this complaint they are choosing to be ignorant of that fact. Be careful in making assumptions there are many shades of gray. It’s just not black and white.
The only issue I had with the way people reacted was the personal threats and sexual comments (or sexual threats and personal comments) on facebook. That was WAY out of line for me and threatened to derail the whole thing but thankfully humour and intelliguence won out.
Oh dear, I suddenly find there’s another Deb commenting here, so I’m the “Different Deb” (although all my comments on other posts have been as “Deb”).
Anyway, my two cents, for what it’s worth: Griggs’s whole response reminds me of those old Mary Roberts Reinhart-type books in the gothic vein that included a phrase such as, “Had I but known what awaited me at Belle Mansion, I would never have gone there.” And so Griggs seems to be saying, Oh, if only I’d known the backlash I was going to experience by plagiarizing, I never would have done so.
As Rhett tells Scarlett when she tells him she’s sorry for causing her husband’s death because she’s afraid she’s going to Hell for it: “You’re in the exact position of a thief who isn’t sorry that he stole, but is terribly sorry he’s going to jail.”
Oh fer Fox Sake. The whole point of the protest in question, is to voice your concern. In that case, I’m cool with being labeled a troll.
I get the difference of shades of gray. I’m 56, my view points are reflective of my age. However, I can tell you, regardless of age, when your stuff is lifted without permission/attribution, it just plain sucks. Hugely sucks. It sucked enough for the actual author of the piece in question, to raise the issue in the first place. Yes, money was involved which compounds the suckiness, but the sense of violation isn’t diminished that much when it’s just for personal use. Been there, had it done to me at work, it sucks. So yeah, I will question the real concern when I see stuff being lifted, however innocently, troll that I am.
Just so I’m clear, I haven’t at anytime, accused anyone or questioned anyone here. Just raising my viewpoint like everyone else.
@Brandi I don’t think Deb is trolling, but she is missing the point.
@Deb I understand the issue of piracy is important to you. We’re not disagreeing with that. We’re pointing out that it’s a different issue from the one we’re discussing. We’re discussing worm-ridden apples, not not rotten oranges. It isn’t the same thing.
Gemma, thank you. No I’m not trolling here. I like this website, have participated in other discussions. I enjoy lively debates.
Yes, it’s possible I am missing the point. The anger and frustration with this ridiculous publisher is fully justified. My b/w view questions though, how “you” can protest the business model of plagiarism on the one hand (with the subsequent but, and then sorry excuse of an attempted apology) when “you” innocently lift from someone else. Both situations are dead wrong. Griggs herself indicated she was innocent of wrong doing because her material had been lifted from the “public domain” aka the Internet. She was wrong. Just as creative from one site is lifted and placed in another site without attribution is also wrong. Both require the apology and reparation.
I have been following this since author Jim C. Hines (a friend of Monica’s) broke it on his LJ. I have a stunning lack of sympathy for Judith Griggs, but I do pity her. I understand how one can be so self-centered as to honestly believe that all one’s self-created problems are actually someone else’s fault. Been there, done that, didn’t work out very well, eventually got my head out of my aft. It is possible to outgrow the emo-teen attitude, even at a late age… but it’s difficult, because you have to realize the problem is YOU, not everyone else.
That being said, I’d like to point out that Ms Griggs life is not “ruined forever”. This is the Internet, and the Internet has the collective attention span of a hyperactive 6 year-old on a sugar rush. Next month, Griggsy will be completely forgotten… if she keeps her mouth shut and her fingers away from the keyboard.
Honestly, Monica, anyone who introduces me to Ceiling Cat (thanks to KTT) can’t be *all* bad.
Library books are not “free,” I pay for them with my tax dollars. And late fines. Lots and lots of late fines.
The primary reason this story has blown up and people are reacting with such outrage isn’t just the theft itself – it’s the ridiculously offensive response Griggs first sent to Gaudio. From my understanding, Gaudio did give Griggs a chance, by first contacting her privately when she discovered the theft. If Griggs had responded normally and complied with Gaudio’s wishes, it’s unlikely the story would have gone any further than Gaudio’s personal circle. Griggs unquestionably brought all this on herself.
There have been so many comments on this and the previous discussions of this topic that I am not sure if anyone has said it before, but I was struck by the good quality of the original article by Monica Gaudio; interesting topic, carefully researched and sourced, with historical material and modern adaptation and interpretation clearly differentiated, and well written. It was definitely not in need of any editing!
‘Ment’? How many decades did she say she spent as a ‘professional editor’?
She’s still under the delusion that she did Monica Gaudio some kind of favour. That her editing was of some value. That her unauthorised reproduction was of some worth. Aside from the ethical and copyright issues, where the hell does she get off assuming that Monica wanted her help or needed it? If someone took one of my free stories from my site, ‘edited’ it, and reposted it elsewhere, gratitude would not be the foremost emotion in my mind, or would I feel the slightest need to acknowledge the ‘nice job’. Griggs is incapable of understanding that what she did wasn’t just theft, it was an egregious insult. Nowhere do I see an apology for her malbrained assumptions and her arrogance.
But then, I doubt she has any idea how arrogant she is. At this point we have to understand we’re dealing with someone of Palinesque levels of self-deception and lack of understanding, and realise she’s incapable of delivering an apology or compensation that any thinking human being would consider adequate.
So best we can hope for is that she shuts up, closes down her little rag, and goes away, never to trouble anyone again. (This is also my hope for Sarah Palin, and is probably just as unlikely to be satisfied.)
Ann Somerville’s comments put me in mind of one of my favorite lines from one of my favorite movies: Annie (Susan Sarandon) in “Bull Durham” remarks, “The world is made for people who aren’t cursed with self-awareness.”