Bitchin' Blog Posts
Cassie Edwards V: But Wait, There’s More.
by SB Sarah | January 08, 2008 | Tuesday at 4:57 pm | 89 CommentsNikki the Super Badass Researcher contacted me yesterday upon realizing that she had a Cassie Edwards in her possession, and she had access to Google, and she had an hour to spare:
I must admit, it was worse than I feared. My “evidence” file grew to six—6!—pages in Word. The worst part? I have an unsettling feeling that these are not the only questionable sections—simply the only ones I could locate via Google. There’s one passage in particular about the male sage grouse’s mating ritual, of all things, that’s extremely suspect.
One last thing, which I thought was deliciously ironic. The heroine’s name in this book is Candy.
I just made a noise I cannot transcribe accurately, but it was somewhere between a choke and a snort.
Now for the Official Findings.
There were three texts heavily, shall we say, “borrowed” from:
THE MYTHOLOGY OF THE WICHITA by George Amos Dorsey, published in 1904
Available at Google Books
Available in its original form at Archive.org.CADDOAN TEXTS PAWNEE, SOUTH BAND DIALECT by Gene Weltfish, published in 1937
Available at Google BooksINDIAN BOYHOOD by Charles Alexander Eastman, published in 1902
Available at Google Books.
Available in its original form at Archive.org.I had to get a bit tricksy when searching CADDOAN TEXTS because it’s only available for viewing snippets via Google—not full text. Luckily, the search function provided enough phrasing to recreate the relevant passages although attempting to verify the scans of the actual words wasn’t possible due to the limited view restriction. I’m confident the search function is accurate, however, and no weirdness thanks to OCR occurred in those sections.
Examples positively identified are pasted below along with their corresponding counterparts in the source material. There are several damning sections, the lengthiest one located on pages 213-214 (yes, it spans two pages) and covers nearly four paragraphs.
I’ve placed the Oddly Similar sections in bold so I hope it carries over to your email programs. Also, I’m pretty sure I caught all my typos but I may have missed one or two. If so, apologies but Y’ALL! My fingers are tired.
.
Here’s the side by side that Nikki found and emailed us. Big hat tip and curtsey to Nikki, because this is above and beyond. In many, many ways.
SAVAGE BELOVED
Published by Leisure Books, May 2006
ISBN: 0843952733
Page 84
“There is an ancient legend telling that when the plants fail to come up, the Wichita people will cease to exist.”
[...]
“When the first shoot of corn comes up, an old woman goes there to perform a rite of thanksgiving over the plant,” he said. “She rubs the plant with her hands in blessing, saying, ‘Oh, big bow,’ which means corn stalk. Then she rubs a baby with her hands in a similar fashion, passing on the blessing from the plant to the child.”He paused, smiled at Candy, then said, “Everyone is happy at the sight of the first plant.”
CADDOAN TEXTS PAWNEE, SOUTH BAND DIALECT by Gene Weltfish
Page 39
When the first shoot comes up an old woman goes there to perform a rite of thanksgiving over the plant. She rubs the plant with her hands in blessing, saying, “Oh, big bow.” Then directly she rubs the baby with her hands in a similar manner, passing on the blessing from the plant to the child. Everyone is happy at the sight of the first plant. There is an ancient legend that states that when the plants fail to come up, we will all cease to exist.
SAVAGE BELOVED
Page 122
At one side she saw a bed with a mattress made of slender willow rods and coverings of buffalo hide.
Hanging down in front of the bed was a long curtain of buffalo hide, which she could tell could be raised or lowered at will. The half-lowered hide seemed to be painted with war scenes.
THE MYTHOLOGY OF THE WICHITA by George Amos Dorsey
Page 5
The beds consist of mattresses made of slender willow rods and coverings of buffalo hide. Over the bed and hanging down in front, is a long curtain of buffalo hide, which can be raised or lowered at will; this is often painted with war scenes.
SAVAGE BELOVED
Page 172
“The tattoo on my right arm, that mark in the form of a small cross, is a symbol of the stars and represents a well-known mythical hero among the Wichita. He is called Flint-Stone-Lying-Down-Above, which in my language is spoken as Tahanetsicihadidia, the guardian of the warriors.
THE MYTHOLOGY OF THE WICHITA by George Amos Dorsey
Page 2
On the back of each hand is tattooed a small design resembling the bird’s foot. This is made immediately after the boy has killed his first bird. Up and down the arms and across the breast may be found additional marks in the form of a small cross. [...] These crosses are symbols of the stars and represent a well-known mythical hero among the Wichita called “Flint-Stone-Lying-Down-Above” (Tahanetskihadidia), who, as is told in one of the myths, is one of the guardians of the warriors.
SAVAGE BELOVED
Page 175
“Three concentric circles are tattooed around one nipple of each Wichita woman. These concentric rings prevent the women’s breasts from becoming pendulous in old age.”
THE MYTHOLOGY OF THE WICHITA by George Amos Dorsey
Page 3
The nipple is also tattooed, and around it are three concentric circles. [...] They are also told that the concentric rings about the breasts prevent them from becoming pendulous in old age.
SAVAGE BELOVED
Page 179
“For it is now the Moon of the Strawberries, when bears are seeking green sedges, or roots, anthills, and berries, and when buffalo sharpen and polish their horns for bloody contests among themselves.”
INDIAN BOYHOOD by Dr. Charles Alexander Eastman
Page 54
“I was once an interested and unseen spectator of a contest between a pair of grizzly bears and three buffaloes—a rash act for the bears, for it was in the moon of strawberries, when the buffaloes sharpen and polish their horns for bloody contests among themselves.”
SAVAGE BELOVED by Cassie Edwards
Page 180
“Four of them represent the four world quarters, or gods, while the upward peak is symbolic of Man-Never-Known-On-Earth, or Kinnekasus, the Creator.”
He gestured toward the entranceway. “And the door of all homes of my people is placed on the east side so that the sun may look into the lodge as it rises, while the small circular opening overhead is placed there not only for smoke to escape through, but also so that the sun may look into the lodge at noon, and at night, the star gods are thought to pour down their strength into our homes.”
He then gestured toward the fire pit. “The fire’s place in all my people’s lodges is considered sacred,” he said. “There offerings are made, food is cooked, and medicine is heated.”
THE MYTHOLOGY OF THE WICHITA by George Amos Dorsey
Page 5
The four projecting poles outside stand for the four world quarters or gods, while the upward peak is symbolic of Man-Never-Known-on-Earth (Kinnekasus), the Creator in Wichita mythology. It is said that a door is placed on the east side that the sun may look into the lodge as it rises, and that the west door is so placed that the sun may look in as it sets, while through the small circular opening overhead the sun may look in at noon. The south door is still retained that the god of the south wind may enter. The fireplace is considered sacred, for here offerings are made, the food is cooked, medicines heated, etc.
SAVAGE BELOVED
Page 213-214
Each was emptying her bag, dumping the corn into one big heap. The pile soon became so high that it looked as if wagons had been used to haul it instead of the simple carrying bags.
“The next step is to build a long, narrow ditch with mud embankments along each side against which to lean the corn,” Two Eagles explained.
[...]
“They will build a big fire and throw the ears into it,” Two Eagles said. “The women will take turns reaching their hands in and out of the flames to turn the ears over. They are skilled at doing this, and no one ever burns herself. When the wood burns down, the naked ears are left to roast in the coals. Sometimes the ears roast all night, as this gives them a delicious flavor, but today the women will just leave the corn in until the sun begins lowering in the sky. Then whatever husks remain on the corn will be removed and the women will proceed to cut the kernels from the cobs. For this purpose they will use a clam shell, but kernels from small-grained ears are removed with a knife.”
[...]
Candy saw some of the women spreading large hide covers over the ground, then pegging them down tight until they were smooth.
[...]
“The kernels of the roasted corn will be spread out there,” he said. “The blue corn will be separated into three groups by size, small medium, and large. Then they will be winnowed and put into sacks made of tanned hide. After each sack is full, the women will beat upon it with a long stick to make sure that the grains are settled compactly into the bag. They will place a lid inside the bag and pull the drawstring closed. After all the bags are filled, there will be a big pile of them.”
CADDOAN TEXTS PAWNEE, SOUTH BAND DIALECT by Gene Weltfish
Page 40
Then they would dump them into one big heap. The pile would be so high that it looked as if wagons had been used to do the hauling instead of the simple carrying bags. The next step was to build a long narrow ditch with mud embankments along each side against which to lean the corn.
Then they would build a big fire and throw the ears of corn into it. One would have to stick one’s hand in and out of the flame repeatedly to turn the ears over, but one would never burn oneself. When the wood has burned down the naked ears are roasted in the coals. The corn would be left to roast all night as this gives it a delicious flavor.
Kernels from small-grained ears were removed with a knife. Large hide covers were then spread out upon the ground and pegged down tight so that they would be very smooth and upon these the kernels were spread out to dry.
When the kernels were dry they were winnowed and put into sacks made of tanned hide. After each sack was full they would beat upon it with a long stick to make sure the grains settled compactly into the bag. Then they would place a lid inside the bag [...] pull the drawstring. After we had filled them there would be a big pile of bags.
SAVAGE BELOVED
Page 220
Still in their pods, the beans had been spread out upon a hide pegged to the ground. When the beans had dried, they were beaten with a stick to release them from the pods. Finally the beans were winnowed and then packed in bags.
[...]
The first step was to peel the pumpkins. Then some were cut spirally into strips from top to bottom, while others were cut into rings and hung on a cross-pole to dry.After the whole pumpkin had been stripped, there was a disc left at the bottom, which was known as the “Sitting One.” The pumpkin pieces were then left to dry for about a day. Afterward, the women gathered again to complete the process. The pumpkin strips were braided and formed into mats, which were left out in the sun to dry.
CADDOAN TEXTS PAWNEE, SOUTH BAND DIALECT by Gene Weltfish
Pages 40-41
The beans in their pods would be spread out upon a hide which was pegged to the ground and when they were dry would be beaten with a stick to release them from the pods.
[...]
The first step was to peel the pumpkins. Then if it is decided that braided pumpkin mats are to be made, the pumpkins are cut spirally into strips from top to bottom. Other pumpkins are cut into rings and hung on a cross pole to dry. After the whole pumpkin has been stripped there is left a disc at the bottom which is known as “Sitting-one.” The pumpkin is then left to dry for about a day when it is in the proper stage for braiding and for the stringing of the bottom discs. After they are braided, the pumpkin mats are left out in the sun to dry.
SAVAGE BELOVED
Page 231
“The moon is the special guardian of Wichita women, for the moon is a woman and possesses all the powers that women desire. It was the moon taught the first woman on earth and gave her power. She instructs women as to the time of the monthly sickness, informs them when they are pregnant, and when the child is to be born. She has told them that after birth the child must be offered to her by passing the hands over the child’s body and raising it aloft to the moon. At that time the moon is asked to bestow her blessings upon the child, that he or she may grow into power rapidly, for she, herself, has the power to increase rapidly in size.”
MYTHOLOGY OF THE WICHITA by George Amos Dorsey
Page 19
The Moon is the special guardian of the women, for she is a woman and possesses all the powers which women desire. She it was who taught the first woman on earth and gave her power. She instructs the women as to the time of the monthly sickness, informs them when they are pregnant, and when the child is to be born, and has told them that after birth the child must be offered to her by passing the hands over the child’s body and raising it aloft, offering it to the Moon, at which time she is asked to bestow her blessing upon the child, that he may grow into power rapidly, for she herself has the power to increase rapidly in size.
SAVAGE BELOVED by Cassie Edwards
Page 340
“That star in the north is known as the ‘Ghost-Bear,’” Two Eagles said. “It is said that a man who was traveling in the far north came upon another man who said, ‘This is my burial place. I live in the far north. If you accept whatever I offer you, I will give you power. You shall have power over the herbs to cure people, for I am a medicine man. If an accident should happen, or if sickness should arrive, I will give you a way to heal. In your doctoring you should look to the sun, for my powers are derived from him. Before you begin doctoring, offer me smoke.’ The man was then informed that it was the Ghost Bear who was talking to him, and upon looking again, he saw that it was a Ghost Bear. The man looked back and the Ghost Bear had become a star.”
MYTHOLOGY OF THE WICHITA by George Amos Dorsey
Page 18
Next in importance is a star in the north known as the “Ghost-Bear.” This star is of comparatively recent origin, for it is said that a certain man who traveled in the far north saw a human being standing before him, who said to him: “This is my burial place. I live in the far north. There I live. Should you like some of my power, and should you accept whatever I offer you I will give you power. You shall have the power over the herbs to cure people, for I am a medicine-man. If an accident should happen, or if sickness should arise, I will give you a way to heal, and in your doctoring you should look to the Sun, for my powers are derived from him. Before you begin doctoring, offer me smoke.” Thereupon the man was informed that it was the Ghost-Bear who was talking to him, and upon looking again he saw that it was a Ghost-Bear. The man looked back and the Ghost-Bear had become a star.
Filed: News
Jen said on 01.08.08 at 05:41 PM
Good lord. I will be very upset if something isn’t done about this by the publishing industry. Part of me wants Edwards to be publicly humiliated, but I’m worried non-romance readers will mistake her for the rest of the romance world.
And that would be a damn shame.
monimala said on 01.08.08 at 05:51 PM
Just when I thought my jaw couldn’t drop any further, it has unhinged to the point where I could swallow a water buffalo.
Pitchfork? Check. Torch? Check. Utter disappointment at Ms. Edwards for more than just the horrible depiction of Native Americans? Check.
Diana Castilleja said on 01.08.08 at 05:56 PM
I agree with Jen. I can almost see this going “Oh they ALL must do this then”. This is a shame, but I’m willing to bet on works as old as the ones she “borrowed” from, more than she has done it.
Kimberly Anne said on 01.08.08 at 06:11 PM
Dear heaven, more? Although the theft of even one piece of work is reprehensible, this is off the charts. How much more monstrous can this get?
I want to ask how no one caught this before, but these are obscure and unknown texts for your average reader. I’ve certainly never heard of any of them (that may just mean I’m a slouch, though)!
Yes, Karen and Candy and Nikki found them with very little initial digging, but how many people are actually going to do that digging? Most people will just roll their eyes and think, “sucky book, bad writing,” and move on. They’re not going to question the integrity of the author based on wildly uneven style. Hell, if they’re anything like me, the blocks of expository text just get skipped over.
This is just a long-winded way of saying, “Way to go, Bitches,” for uncovering this and not being afraid to speak out. Hopefully all romance doesn’t get tarred with this nasty brush.
Jane said on 01.08.08 at 06:11 PM
Maybe we need to have homework assignments and every reader can take a book until all 100 have been assigned and investigated.
Emt said on 01.08.08 at 06:13 PM
I think your concern is missplaced, Jen. There are plenty of examples of authors plagarising that have not backlashed on to the respective genre. For example: J.K. Rowlings was accused of plagrism, but it had no effect on childrens books as a whole. Like wise James Brown faced several lawsuits but religious fictions is a strong as ever.
JaneyD said on 01.08.08 at 06:21 PM
Has any of this been sent to Publisher’s Weekly? Seems it would make for an interesting story.
Teddy Pig said on 01.08.08 at 06:28 PM
As an enraged SB fan I find this lacking in gleeful delight. Needs more cow bell!
Sandra D said on 01.08.08 at 06:31 PM
The sheer magnitude of this astounds and disgusts me. I honestly don’t know if I’ve read any of her work or not but I still feel ripped off as a reader. And another thing, if she’s done so much research and is even quoting it pretty much word for word, how come she still manages to portray Native Americans so very badly?
Abney said on 01.08.08 at 06:37 PM
I think the problem is that the people (in the many examples cited) doing this “copying†have probably rationalized that it isn’t plagiarism.
What lead me to this thinking is I was in an off-line discussion with a friend and she said that she thought plagiarizing only occurred when you copied word for word. Yeah she is a college educated professional, before anyone asks.
I think that part of the problem is our culture has adopted an “it’s okay if you just put it in your own words†mentality. Which I think stems from a contemporary fluidity with what words mean. But that is another rant.
My point is we just don’t see plagerism as really stealing really. Just kinda borrowing stuff that doesn’t matter.
That is the ONLY explanation my mind could come up with to some of the responses defending CE. That what she did was only sorta of plagiarizing and the folks who had the bad taste to mention it were only doing so to be mean.
So she should get a pass because her feelings got hurt… whatever dude.
One of the interesting points that came up during my off-line conversation was the fact that we couldn’t recall ever seeing a bibliography or sources cited in other historicals, with the exception of some mention in forward or acknowledgements.
But the truth is that I usually don’t pay attention and maybe that is what those who engage in this behavior are thinking or counting on.
That no one is going to notice.~A
Rosemary said on 01.08.08 at 06:46 PM
All I can think of is that this whole thing wouldn’t have been an issue if she would have just CITED HER DAMN SOURCES.
Jesus, people. How hard can it be? I’ve written more than my fair share of papers in my lifetime, and they all had a fucking ‘BIBLIOGRAPY’ page or 5 at the end. Why can’t fiction authors do that? IS IT THAT DAMN HARD? I’m not even picky. You can use your preferred format. MLA, APA, whatever.
Ugh. C’mon.
Gwen said on 01.08.08 at 06:49 PM
Couple of thoughts today on this topic…
Wonder when Edwards originally published some of these works and if any of them predated the academic tomes. (Probably not, but would be interesting to state.)
and
I found a mention of someone else plagiarizing Edwards on a discussion forum talking about, of all things, Sasquatch (http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=21116&st=350), post #356: “...When I embarked on finding the source of Jan Carter’s “dictionary†of Sasquatch words, and I found Rides the Wind, I thought I’d found the single source in a plagiarized fashion. But I also found a phrase in a Cassie Edwards book called Savage Fire. Being the owner of several Edwards books, and one new one, I decided to start reading them over again. They’re good books so that was not a challenge for me. I started with the newest acquisition, and sure enough, page after page was revealed to me with definitions written phonetically as with Rides the Wind. This book was first published in 1986. One particular definition stood out. It was spelled identically to Cassie’s definition. Jan’s definition was translated to mean, “True Friends, that is what you two have proven to be.†Cassie Edwards, who spent many months researching languages as a true author should, defined the exact same sentence as “Partners in Crime, that is what you two have proven to be.â€...”
Interesting, no?
Sara said on 01.08.08 at 06:50 PM
I’ll admit that I would dearly love to know what kinds of conversations are happening at the Cassie Edwards Fan Club message boards: http://cassieedwardsfanclub.homestead.com/InfoPage.html
Alas, there’s a $13 registration fee, and my cheapness outweighs my curiosity.
Victoria Dahl said on 01.08.08 at 06:52 PM
I’m no expert on citation, but I’m not sure a bibliography would’ve been enough here. Wouldn’t the copied (exactly) text have to be in quotes or italices?
Sara said on 01.08.08 at 06:54 PM
Agreed, Victoria. She needed to cite her sources and reword the information into her own words. Lifting verbatim or almost verbatim without quotes and attribution is a no-no.
quizzabella said on 01.08.08 at 06:55 PM
Wow. Sweet baby Jesus and the orphans, has the copy/paste mouse click ever been so abused before? I don’t have feelings for Cassie Edwards one way or the other, but it’s sad that as Jen pointed out (look! credited another person’s work CE - watch and learn), that this will reflect badly on the romance genre as a whole. There are so many writers out there who actually take the time to research their work properly.
Gwen said on 01.08.08 at 07:00 PM
I don’t think this will reflect negatively on the romance genre any more than the Janet Dailey/Nora Roberts incident did.
I wasn’t reading romance then, but I think Dailey-gate only bothered romance fans. I don’t recall that it meant a lot to me and my fellow murder mystery and thriller fans. A small blip on the literary radar, fortunately (or unfortunately, depending on how you look at it).
Well. It probably bothered Dailey’s publisher. I imagine her sales took a hit since romance is such a fan purchase-driven genre.
What occurs over the next few weeks/months should be interesting. I wonder what the publishers/authors of the academic texts are doing right now…
Darlene Marshall said on 01.08.08 at 07:03 PM
A word or two on citing sources: Not all publishers of romance novels wish for authors to list extensive bibliographies or cite sources in the manuscript. It is, after all, a novel. I always try to include an author’s note regarding the historical accuracy of particular characters or scenes, or clarifying that while my book’s set in Florida, my setting of “Key Marquez” is a fictional amalgamation of a couple of real Florida sites.
And I always encourage readers to contact me if they want to know my sources. It’s fun to share, especially when you’re a history wonk.[g]
Sphinx said on 01.08.08 at 07:07 PM
For benefit of the Cassie Edwards apologists who may still be reading, and to wave some heat off the beloved Bitches and onto myself: my mood toward this discovery is pure naked glee unalloyed by pity or sympathy. This woman writes horrible books and portrays Native Americans in horrible ways—even if there were no Native Americans in her novels and she was writing about the Revolutionary War, they would still have plots made of sand and characters made of wood—and the fact that she clearly has the resource material sitting right there only serves to make her novels even more inexcusable. And why yes, Cassie Edwards did run over my dog.
(My confirmation word: red42. As in red-handed. As in how Cassie Edwards has been found. The only person I’d rather see this happen to is Laurell K. Hamilton.)
Kaite said on 01.08.08 at 07:09 PM
I’d give her the benefit of the doubt and say maybe she misinterpreted the whole “Plaguerism, what is it really?” thing, but sweet baby Jesus, her stuff is crap. The quotes you present are so stiff and unnatural in delivery, I cringe trying to imagine real people saying stuff like that.
Nope, not working. I can’t imagine humans speaking like that, even if they are uptight, rather pedantic Native American history professors with sticks up their arse.
Jenny said on 01.08.08 at 07:13 PM
<
>
I’m confused.
Maybe I’m just a product of this culture, but if you turn to source material for research, read it, incorporate it into your mental knowledge base, and then rewrite that information in your book in your own - or, more accurately, the character’s - words, how is that wrong? It would be like saying you can know the stuff but could never use it.
As to the lack bibliographies, part of that may lie with the publishers. Even authors who produce a list of their source material may not be allowed to include it. IIRC, Diana Gabaldon has said she was discouraged from including a bibliography with “Outlander” and her unease with that lack eventually led - after her great sucess and therefore increased clout - to the publication of the non-fic “Outlandish Companion”.
Note: I am *not* defending CE here, because obviously what she’s done goes beyond all questions of is-it-or-isn’t-it-plagiarism and propriety, and I think action should be taken.
But as an aspiring author in the throes of my own reasearch, I’m trying to understand what good it will do me if I’m not even allowed to state the information “in my own words.”
Mel-O-Drama said on 01.08.08 at 07:24 PM
I am glad I have never read a CE books because it looks like she has never written one… sorry, couldn’t help myself.
Mary Castillo said on 01.08.08 at 07:27 PM
Didja hear that Missy Chase Lapine filed a lawsuit against the Seinfeld’s (both!) for (vegetarian) plagiarism and character defamation?
Good for her! I bought her book on principle (and by the way, my son loves the food I’ve made from it so if you can’t get your kid to eat veggies, it’s a worthy investment!).
Anyway, if you own a CE book maybe you should petition the publisher for a refund.
Dragonette said on 01.08.08 at 07:30 PM
Sara:
$13 to register for her message boards? srsly? i guess i’m sheltered; i’ve never been asked to pay to post before. register, yes; pay, no.
Karla said on 01.08.08 at 07:36 PM
I think the most interesting thing about this is how old her apparent source books are. I have to wonder why she wouldn’t have used something a little more current for her information on Native Americans given that we know a lot of the earlier work was not as accurate as it could have been.
Sara said on 01.08.08 at 07:37 PM
$13 to register for her message boards? srsly? i guess i’m sheltered; i’ve never been asked to pay to post before. register, yes; pay, no.
Actually, the $13 is an annual membership fee to join her fan club, which boasts a host of benefits, one of which is the message board on the fan club website.
Sphinx said on 01.08.08 at 07:37 PM
To Ms. Marshall: I for one adore it when the author of a book has read some of the same resource material I have! Pamela Kaufman appears to have read a great number of familiar sources for her Alix of Wanthwaite series, and, more recently, I recognised a lot of sources in Water for Elephants.
Anna said on 01.08.08 at 07:38 PM
Jenny, there’s a difference between incorporating information you’ve gathered and simply rewording that information. Technically – technically – one could argue that Ms. Edwards has several passages here which could be considered her own words because they’re not precise copies of the original. But it’s still plagiarism because the passages are so similar in structure and wording and whatnot, with no credit given or indication that she drafted those passages from scratch.
Not being Abney I can’t speak for her in the passage you quoted, but there’s a huge difference between using the information and using the text. This is a clear example of using the text.
Nonnie said on 01.08.08 at 07:39 PM
Jenny, I think in this instance it is clear to see that CE didn’t use her own words.
What I remember from when the nuns were smacking my classmates and me over the head with our English textbooks, you CAN reword it, but rewording doesn’t mean removing one or two words from the material. It means reworking it to get the point across without using the same exact words.
I think (and that’s always a bad thing) that the passage on page 49 of Savage Longings could have read:
If it had (rather than the way it was copied from The Cheyenne Indians, I don’t think we would have be having this conversation.
Lyvvie said on 01.08.08 at 07:39 PM
I think Katie’s right, it’s Plaguerism. Certainly seems like a plague. (I’m not sure if that was a typo or deliberate, but I love it)
I’m amazed at the level of eeriness. I’m impressed with the amount and speed of research and look forward to the ever unfolding of this story. Please let there be more unfolding!!
Spamword: quality65
Absolutely Top Quality!
Marianne McA said on 01.08.08 at 07:41 PM
“One of the interesting points that came up during my off-line conversation was the fact that we couldn’t recall ever seeing a bibliography or sources cited in other historicals, with the exception of some mention in forward or acknowledgements.”
Georgette Heyer had a huge bibliography at the end of ‘The Spanish Bride’ - though perhaps that’s an exception, as the story is based on a real life couple.
I’m fairly sure Heyer also tells the reader that Wellington’s lines in the book are all copied from his writings.
But even if most books don’t have bibliographies, you routinely read authors crediting other works they’ve quoted from or thanking those whose work they drew on - to quote from one book I own: ‘Anyone who has read into this time and place will realise how much the present work owes to…’
fiveandfour said on 01.08.08 at 07:52 PM
I recently read a couple of Susan Johnson’s books and enjoyed how she handled citations - superscript numerals in the text correspond to notes at the end of the books wherein she cites sources and/or tells little stories related to the historical bon mot at hand. I don’t see why that would be such a hard/horrible practice for anyone to adopt who wants to.
I’ve never read any Cassie Edwards, which is perhaps why I can’t get the thought out of my mind that it seems like she had the attitude that she was writing a 4th grade book report with each of her books. I get the feeling that she didn’t quite understand why such close quoting of source materials is considered so heinous. But perhaps accusing her of stupidity is too kind? I’ll be interested to see if/how she responds.
J said on 01.08.08 at 07:57 PM
Three cheers, bitches! I’m shocked that no one caught this plagiarism before and I’m doubly shocked that people are willing to accept the plagiarism as prose. Good gravy, people! I’m so flabbergasted that I can barely string together a coherent sentence!
Also, Emt: The JK Rowling incident is nothing like this one. The woman who was claiming that Rowling plagiarized her “had lied and altered documents to support her case” (from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/2268024.stm).
sazzat said on 01.08.08 at 07:59 PM
Beyond the fact that plagiarism is ethically wrong, this case highlights so many of the problems that plagiarism causes:
1) Sudden and obvious but inappropriate changes in authorial voice, leading to a disjointed narrative
2) Reliance on outside sources to word the story. Basic, factual information can easily be rewritten in an author’s own voice; direct quotations are a lazy way to present such information, and the author forfeits a chance to further develop the tone of her story. Even if she had cited her sources appropriately, the amount of near-direct or directly-quoted material requiring quotation marks would indicate that she has not put much thought into the conception or wording of the background information in her own book. The proper way to use sources in fiction that is not meant as a parody or pastiche is to read the source but to rewrite any unique inspiration from that source in your own language (not just rewording, but constructing new prose: you reference the other author’s idea, not their sentence construction), then indicate the sources of research in an acknowledgments section.
3) Reliance on sources that are easily accessible and thus, for the most part, outdated. This may be due to convenience, or maybe she deliberately chose sources that are out of copyright, but the antiquated language of her sources adds further to the inconsistent authorial voice. Also, much of the material she uses has been updated and/or corrected by more recent scholarship. The dated sources she uses contribute to the romanticized (and in my mind, offensive) depiction of cultures in her books.
Even beyond the question of morally right vs. morally wrong, plagiarism often, as in this case, means the work produced is shoddy on its own merits - not just because the audience has been notified of the plagiarism, but as a result of a writing process engendered by plagiarism.
JaneyD said on 01.08.08 at 08:02 PM
George MacDonald Fraser of the Flashman novels cites PAGES of sources for his works.
And he managed to not do any block/copy/paste jobs in any of his ripping yarns.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flashman
But that’s the difference between a GOOD WRITER and a hack.
How about someone slip this nugget to the New York Times?
Or are they still bleeding from their own “P” word debacle with that “reporter”?
What drugs are CE fans taking that they think she’s good? I want some!
Lola said on 01.08.08 at 08:12 PM
First: Gratz to the Bitches for garnering a mention on GalleyCat!
Romance Novelist’s Echoes of Earlier Authors Compiled
Second: I’m curious if anyone knows how lapsed copyrights would affect the legality of her appropriation of passages from certain texts. For example, two of the texts mentioned today with publishing dates in the early 1900s had lapsed copyrights prior to CE plagiarizing them. I am wondering if she’s gonna get out of answering for the text grabs because of lapsed copyright issues. Anyone have any idea? This whole thing is unethical as all get out. It makes me sad.
PattiR said on 01.08.08 at 08:13 PM
Holy Moses in a drifting waterproof reed basket!!! This is just NOT right.
Many other more eloquent people have stated how I (personally) feel about this whole affair (plagiarism = BAD) and not being a writer (just an admirer of their works) I still felt the need to post my feelings/reaction, such as they are.
WOW (told you I am not a writer). This is not a good WOW, but an ‘I’m feeling really amazed and confused’ kind of WOW.
Amazed on how CE took the descriptions from these other texts and authors, word for word, and used them in her books.
And (I’m assuming here) thought this was OK.
And kept doing it. (See Candy’s previous post RE: Over 100 books published)
Confused about this moral dilemma she doesn’t seem to have (maybe I am reading more into this than others). If she doesn’t think this is wrong, wrong, wrong, then maybe she doesn’t know the meaning of the word Plagiarism?
‘WOW’ just seems to sum it up for me.
I also wanted give kudos to the SB’s, Kate and Nikki who found all of this mess and did all the (tedious) work researching the facts.
Great Job Ladies!!
P.S. I am all for donating each of you a bottle of a pain reliever and antacid of your choice, for having to wade through all the muck.
Kerry said on 01.08.08 at 08:13 PM
Bing, bing, bing on point #3, sazzat. As a librarian, I can tell you the amount of information and old fiction and scholarship is nearly endless. It is the previous lack of access that allowed plagarism to go on undetected. Google Books making material out of copyright easily a) accessible and b) searchable is what blows this wide open now. That and those algorithm writing analysis tools.
Lola said on 01.08.08 at 08:17 PM
sazzat wrote:
Beyond the fact that plagiarism is ethically wrong, this case highlights so many of the problems that plagiarism causes:
1) Sudden and obvious but inappropriate changes in authorial voice, leading to a disjointed narrative
This bugs the hell out of me. How could her editor not see this? If a reader can simply pick up a book and immediately realize something is very wrong with certain passages, then how come an editor couldn’t pick it up? I am not saying that it’s the editor’s fault. But damn.
submit word: position46 (tried that last night!)
Jennifer Armintrout said on 01.08.08 at 08:19 PM
Holy plagiarism, Batman!
Author’s Note: For this comment, I paraphrased a popular catchphrase from the Batman mythology, copyrighted by DC Comics.
See how easy that was, Cassie?
At the same time, I can’t help but think of that popular paranormal romantic comedy book that takes several comedic lines sputtered by the heroine from an online dictionary of bizarre French phrases without acknowledging the source. It’s interesting how dumb some authors suspect readers of being.
Kerry said on 01.08.08 at 08:21 PM
The work being out of copyright doesn’t erase the issue of plagiarism—it means that there may be no one with rights to ask for monetary damages. Cassie Edwards’ systematic and widespread copying of source material is not covered under the doctine of fair use.
December Quinn/Stacia Kane said on 01.08.08 at 08:22 PM
Huge cheers to the Bitches and the Bitchery for exposing this. Man, this is…amazing. Terrible. Shocking.
I will say this for Ms. Edwards, though. At least she hasn’t shown up here to threaten everyone with “Wicca curses”.
Charlene said on 01.08.08 at 08:22 PM
George MacDonald Fraser, RIP. (He just passed away earlier this week.)
Katie W. said on 01.08.08 at 08:25 PM
I love you, Teddy Pig because your cowbell comment made me crack up. More cowbell!
But back to the seriousness of this topic. A real-life example that came to mind for me (that I don’t believe I’ve seen mentioned in the comments yet) was the two cases brought against Dan Brown over copyright infringement in
The DaVinci Code
. (Source: Dan Brown’s Wikipedia page)
Brown was accused of lifting ideas, not even actual words, from a particular source material that he not only acknowledged as a source but then used the two source material author’s names as an actual character in the book. (The authors were Michael Baigent and Richard Leigh, who wrote
Holy Blood, Holy Grail
and Brown named a character Leigh Teabing—Thanks Wikipedia—Teabing is obviously an anagram of “Baigent” and the character of Leigh Teabing actually references the Baigent/Leigh book in
The DaVinci Code
.)
But still they sued him for copyright infringement (in Britain) and they lost. Brown cited their work as a source and, as we are discussing, did not plagiarize by stealing their words, simply used the information given in their book in his own, unique, way.
So. Since Edwards never pulled a Dan Brown and not once bothered to acknowledge source material (if that’s a slight on the publisher because they didn’t want to bother publishing a bibliography then that would be interesting) BUT she did more than just use source material, as we’re all discussing. She flat-out plagiarized and THAT is inexcusable.
Has anybody attempted to contact the authors and pubs of the materials from which Edwards stole? I’ve got a slow day at work today and would be glad to use my time to try and track down some email addresses of some of these people. If it were me, and my non-fiction work, I would like to be notified that a beautiful phalanx of Bitches had uncovered a theft of my work.
Laura said on 01.08.08 at 08:25 PM
I don’t believe the romance genre will suffer because of this because romance readers/writers outed her. I think, based upon the comments before me, this has infuriated a lot of people.
All I want to know is what happens now? I’m no lawyer. This has to be brought to the attention of her publisher (if it hasn’t already) and some action must be taken. Whatever happens, Cassie Edwards needs to explain herself.
Victoria Dahl said on 01.08.08 at 08:34 PM
How could her editor not see this? If a reader can simply pick up a book and immediately realize something is very wrong with certain passages, then how come an editor couldn’t pick it up?
One person out of many thousands realized something was wrong. As I’ve said before both of our very Smart Bitches read these books without immediately screaming “Plagiarism!!!” Let’s not overstate the obviousness.
I can’t help but think of that popular paranormal romantic comedy book that takes several comedic lines sputtered by the heroine from an online dictionary of bizarre French phrases without acknowledging the source. It’s interesting how dumb some authors suspect readers of being.
This sounds like a very gray area to me. It’s a dictionary of French phrases, which means the phrases are public knowledge (in France). I don’t cite the dictionaries I use. At most this would’ve called for an acknowledgement (in a work of fiction), as far as I can tell. Is there something more damning about the example?
Kalen Hughes said on 01.08.08 at 08:48 PM
Man, I get a cold and miss everything. My jaw seems to be hanging permanently open this morning. Every time I think it can’t get any worse *BANG* it so gets worse.
My hat is off to the SBs for putting this issue FIRMLY in the spotlight where it BELONGS.
Abney said on 01.08.08 at 08:56 PM
Noonie makes an excellent point… because if she HAD reworded she wouldn’t have been found by using Google.
She MAY have come up when searching for the same topics, but not for the same words.
It was the fact, that her points of similarity were so exact which lead to her getting busted.
So the new rule is if you doubt the quality of you “rephrasing†then Google… if it comes back to you don’t take it for it is not yours ~A
rebyj said on 01.08.08 at 09:12 PM
As a reader, this situation and this author seems to perpetuate the misconception that romance readers are ignorant, borderline illiterate, bored housewives who have no life and romance authors aren’t “real” authors ,anyone could do it. It’s not “real” literature. It’s trash!
That view has irked me since I started reading romance at 12 years old.
I agree with a lot of commenters, it is ultimately the authors crime but gee whiz it is so MUCH by volume why the heck hasn’t it been caught before?
Toddson said on 01.08.08 at 09:21 PM
It probably hasn’t been noticed before because there wasn’t a crossover between the material - the people reading old academic material weren’t reading Cassie Edwards and vice versa. And, until now, no one searched for the language.
My college was very serious about plagairism and, my first year, everyone was very careful about citing sources and making it clear where specific information came from in writing papers. After that first year we were still careful about citing, but were more comfortable with what we were doing.
I think using the information is one thing, but lifting entire chunks of text is wrong.
I’m still boggled by the ferrets, though. (seriously - ferrets?)
Charlene said on 01.08.08 at 09:24 PM
Laura, I’m not a lawyer either, but whether she faces any legal repercussions from anyone but her own publisher depends on whether she plagiarized anything under copyright, and *that* depends on where the books were published, by whom, and in what year.
Plagiarism and copyright violation are two different things. Copyright violations can be unintentional (see George Harrison) or in good faith. Plagiarism can be neither.
Plagiarism can easily exist in the absence of copyright and copyright violation can exist in the absence of plagiarism. Sometimes people confuse the two because copyright laws can be used to stop plagiarism.
spinsterwitch said on 01.08.08 at 09:28 PM
Damn! That’s ballsy. No wonder her books were so bad, though. No one really talks like that.
snarkhunter said on 01.08.08 at 09:32 PM
I’d just like to underscore KatieW’s point. The Dan Brown case is probably one of the most relevant here—his author’s note was sufficient to give credit for his borrowings from the source text.
Had Edwards done two things: 1) learned the art of the graceful paraphrase/rewrite and 2) added an author’s note saying where she got some of her ideas, or even put the book in the acknowledgments, we would not be having this discussion.
It’s not that she needs a detailed bibliography. She needds to learn to rework ideas and give credit where credit is due.
But what can we expect from someone who capitalizes on the racist myth of the “noble savage”?
monimala said on 01.08.08 at 09:32 PM
I have to agree with Toddson about there not being much crossover audience with the material. Unless you were writing an academic paper on the poor representation of Native American peoples in modern American fiction vs. the historical representation in modern American prose, it’s not something that would come up easily.
Honestly, who reads a Cassie Edwards book that CLOSELY? How many reviewers missed what The Bitches and Co. stumbled upon? Especially after 100 of them! After the fourteenth savage runs off with a white-breasted maiden with flowing hair, you know the formula and you just accept it all on a surface level and keep thumbing through the pages.
Which may be what CE was banking on.
--E said on 01.08.08 at 09:41 PM
The saddest part (IMO) is that it explains a lot about why CE’s books are so poorly written. Anyone with a sense of prose, with an ear for dialogue, and with a head for plot- and character-development could never snick sentences wholesale.
Real fiction writers don’t write that way. The characters and narrators have their own voices, and the writer who isn’t tuned to that is just typing, not writing. Even media-tie-in novelists “feel” their characters instead of constructing them from parts. (Or at least the MTI novelists I know say that.)
I don’t think I could plagiarize passages if I tried. Aside from all moral issues, it just wouldn’t feel like writing.
A ways back, Jenny said: Maybe I’m just a product of this culture, but if you turn to source material for research, read it, incorporate it into your mental knowledge base, and then rewrite that information in your book in your own - or, more accurately, the character’s - words, how is that wrong? It would be like saying you can know the stuff but could never use it.
—>But that’s not what CE did. She quoted verbatim, or so close to verbatim it’s clear that she wasn’t working from internalized knowledge.
If you’re looking at your source material while writing your fiction, then you’re doing it wrong.
BethC said on 01.08.08 at 09:43 PM
Reading this has left a heavy lump in the pit of my stomach. It’s beyond sad. I know that plagiarism is generally viewed as a civil offense, and the aggrieved party must seek redress in a civil suit. At what point does this rise to theft?
Liz said on 01.08.08 at 09:46 PM
While CE probably can’t be sued for copyright infringement because some of the source material is so hold, she’s still a plagiarist.
Less harm on the checkbook in the short term but, assuming this plagiarism issues expands beyond the internet blogs, it could have a huge affect on her future sales. I’m very interested to see what her publishers say.
As for her fans defending her, I could understand if it was just one instance in one book. I’d be willing to chalk it up to an honest mistake in that case, but clearly it’s in way more than just one of her books and it’s more than one instance in each book. I’m really not sure how anyone can justify that or explain it away (note: I’m sure people are trying, but I’m pretty sure they won’t succeed).
ladypeyton said on 01.08.08 at 10:29 PM
You’ve made the news!
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/527541/romance_author_cassie_edwards_under.html
JaneyD said on 01.08.08 at 10:34 PM
Rats—I posted a link, but it doesn’t show the funny picture.
Here’s the thread it’s on at Absolute Write in their Romance & Womens Fiction forum:
http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=88553
You’ll know the pic when you see it.
Heee.
Ruth said on 01.08.08 at 10:38 PM
I guess what makes me angry (outside of the P word) is that other authors’ work has been labeled bad through no fault of their own because of CE and her actions. And in reality, the writing that we’ve faulted is not bad (at least in my unprofessional opinion) in the original context. Were I to come across it when reading a non fiction work, most of it wouldn’t even give me pause.
You can tell I’m the mother of toddlers, because as I was reading more and more of the passages, I could hear Sesame Street characters singing ‘One of these things is not like the others…’
rebyj said on 01.08.08 at 10:45 PM
That explains why the site has been slowing down! Lots of traffic.
MplsGirl said on 01.08.08 at 10:56 PM
I’m no expert, but my understanding is that works published before 1925 are in the public domain. What that means is that you don’t have to pay anyone for the right to quote the material because it’s no longer protected under copyright. As someone said earlier, you still need to attribute a quote, whether it’s copyrighted or not.
Did Cassie Edwards write her own books, or did she have a writing team who crafted the text based in her general plot ideas?
Question for the writers here: does a romance novel undergo a permissions vet prior to publication? I work in non-fiction so every book is thoroughly reviewed for potential permissions issues.
JaneyD, Publishers Weekly didn’t have any mention of this in today’s PW Daily. Neither did Publishers Lunch.
Nikolai Ivanovich Lobachevsky said on 01.08.08 at 10:57 PM
It’s not plagiarism, it’s research.
rebyj said on 01.08.08 at 11:02 PM
Hey I have an “IDEA”!
Since Ms Edwards has written what? over 100 books? She and her publishers should compile a ” Savage Companion” book.
You know… ala “outlandish companion ” or ” dark hunter companion”
Instead of explaining the world building, this “companion” can credit and acknowledge the alleged plagarised materials.
Most of the work is already done here, give it a few more days and voila! All done, just gotta polish it up and pick out a nice bodice ripping cover. LOL
I’m brilliant..shouldn’t someone be paying me for this shit?
Kaite said on 01.08.08 at 11:10 PM
Kuraino said on 01.08.08 at 11:19 PM
Rofl.
Jane said on 01.09.08 at 12:11 AM
Here’s the sad thing. First, even if it is plagiarism, it’s probably not copyright infringement so there doesn’t appear to be any legal mechanism for enforcement against the copying. The question will be whether the publishers decide that because no law was violated whether the books will be pulled.
At this point, I think it is more of an ethical/moral issue.
Now, call me cynical, but I somehow feel like the mainstream press really isn’t interested in whether some bestselling author within the romance genre liberally lifted words from non fiction sources. After all, its just romance.
JaneyD said on 01.09.08 at 12:18 AM
Thanks for that PW update, MplsGirl.
I think this story is too new, it just broke, but maybe someone with a PW subscription can e-mail them a link so they can look into it. I’m sure there’s a hole in their schedule now that the Viswanathan twit is old news.
Re: copyright violation not being involved—I’m sure there are plenty of examples cited here from works published after 1925.
But before or after that date—
—the main point is she COPIED STUFF.
It’s no different than if she quoted a few paragraphs from “The Origin of Species” and passed it off as her own work.
Her paraphrasing is inept at best, and there are too many suspicious—to put it kindly—examples to shrug off.
In the world of kids, she is a stinky ol’ copy-cat.
In the world of grown-ups, she is a bald-faced plagiarist.
I’ve done plenty of research for my fiction, but never felt the need to copy, paste, and change a word or two of some other person’s hard work to fill up an empty page.
That’s just WRONG.
Shame on you, Ms. Edwards.
You’ve given a slap in the face to all hard working writers for your laziness.
SHAME ON YOU.
No cookie.
Spider said on 01.09.08 at 12:35 AM
According to the following, hyperlinked sources, Plagiarism is:
1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plagiarism
2. http://www.wpacouncil.org/node/9
3. http://www.unc.edu/depts/wcweb/handouts/plagiarism.html
4. http://www.ncusd203.org/central/html/where/plagiarism_stoppers.html
In a nutshell, it’s deliberate
copying of language used,
copying of ideas,
copying of original, non-common knowledge material
and
paraphrasing another person’s spoken or written words.
All of the above actions are plagiarism without proper citation and documentation of sources. Inadequately or incorrectly documenting sources (where an appropriate attempt has been made) seems to be regarded as a much lesser offense that can be forgiven in students at a certain level of education.
Basically, there seems to be a forgiveness of some high schoolers and college freshmen, if they made a good-faith effort to document.
Helen M said on 01.09.08 at 12:47 AM
I love you SBitches.
I wondered if anyone was going to mention Susan Johnston and her endnotes, so yay for fiveandfour. Even when the books were less than stellar, the existence of superscript numerals and notes explaining things in the back was enough to make me a fan. I love foototes/endnotes. Don’t believe me? Ask my dissertation supervisor.
Everything always needs more cowbell.
Also, this has made [a href=“journalfen.net/community/fandom_wank”]fandom_wank[/a].
Jennifer Armintrout said on 01.09.08 at 12:50 AM
Victoria—
I’m talking about something I consider a little more damning, because they weren’t things like “Good morning, how are you,” but really bizarre things you’d never say that sound funny in English and were translated on the basis of being humorous for a humor-based website. It would be like translating someone’s stand-up comedy into a different language and passing it off as your own.
Candy said on 01.09.08 at 12:52 AM
As an enraged SB fan I find this lacking in gleeful delight. Needs more cow bell!
Bwah! You know, this was the first real laugh I’ve had all day. Cheers, TeddyPig.
Jonquil said on 01.09.08 at 12:53 AM
Bitches, has there been any response from Edwards or her publisher?
Katie W. said on 01.09.08 at 01:09 AM
Any comments thread with Will Ferrell slamming on that cow bell is a GOOD THREAD. MORE COW BELL!
(And maybe less DayQuil for me.)
melwhit said on 01.09.08 at 01:09 AM
Now, call me cynical, but I somehow feel like the mainstream press really isn’t interested in whether some bestselling author within the romance genre liberally lifted words from non fiction sources. After all, its just romance.
This made my eye twitch because I’m sure many people think all romance novels are the same anyway.
And that cow bell picture: priceless.
cecilia said on 01.09.08 at 02:06 AM
It’s not plagiarism, it’s research.
Posted by Nikolai Ivanovich Lobachevsky
I just about snorted tea out of my nose. “What I’m going to do?”*
*That’s a quote from the great Lobachevsky song by Tom Lehrer, just so everyone’s clear I’m not stealing anything. ;-)
Kaz Augustin said on 01.09.08 at 04:38 AM
I clued my DH/CP on the CE thing and directed him to your reviews on two of her books. He loves you bitches, btw. This is how the subsequent conversation went (a male brain perspective):
J: Wow, that’s depressing.
K: I know. And she’s such a famous author. She’s sold over 100 million books.
J: Yeah, you told me before. *That’s* what’s depressing…not so much the plagiarism. How much does she make a book?
K: Oh, I dunno. Maybe 68 cents a copy.
J: So that’s 68 million in 25 years, minimum.
K: Minus 15% for her agent…[click click on the calculator]. Uh, $57.8 million in 25 years. Or about $2.3 million/year.
J: Exactly. You can see what you *should* be writing, don’t you?
K: What, dissin’ on other cultures? Oh God, at least tell me I don’t *write* like her!
J: (contemplative pause…he’s my CP, remember?) Unfortunately not.
Imagine being in a situation where I’m envying CE, with her success and rabid fan base. My green eyz, let me sho u dem.
Kaz Augustin said on 01.09.08 at 04:40 AM
Sorry, that’s Qm over 25 years…or $2.04m/year. Mis-slip on my re-enactment.
kate r said on 01.09.08 at 04:55 AM
it’s just lazy lazy laaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaazy. And in any job it ought to get you fired.
Oh, well.
rebyj said on 01.09.08 at 05:05 AM
Hmm this explains a lot…
ce’s computer screen shot..
Yes there are romance story generators online
I played with paint and adapted the screen shot from http://www.seventhsanctum.com/generate.php?Genname=romance
(scared as shit not to give credit anymore ,even with satire LOL)
rebyj said on 01.09.08 at 05:30 AM
oh shit
i’m such a htmlfuckerupper..
direct link
http://img185.imageshack.us/img185/2526/genrapc4.jpg
who i borrowed the idea from
http://www.seventhsanctum.com/generate.php?Genname=romance
B said on 01.09.08 at 07:38 AM
Fine, it wasn’t legally the publisher’s fault.
Everyone lives in the modern world, however. Surely a publisher should do everything to avoid the shame and stigma of plagiarism on the community. It isn’t terribly difficult to submit a manuscript, for example, to some online plagiarism service. People do these for student’s essays (which don’t make any money in the first years, really!) and use websites such as this: http://submit.ac.uk This .is also loads of help to the author should they unintentionally plagiarise; it seems blatantly obvious to me that a sympathetic publishing house would want to help them with this and even give them training on it.
No one, at any point, should drop the ball. The author must not plagiarise, the publishers must do their best to ensure that this does not happen, bookshops need to make a policy about this and readers need to make a stand about it.
Publishing needs to come into the 21st century.
Amelia "Fuckheady Bitchipants" Elias said on 01.09.08 at 07:40 AM
Nikolai, you’re kidding, right?
Nikki said on 01.09.08 at 08:32 AM
This bugs the hell out of me. How could her editor not see this? If a reader can simply pick up a book and immediately realize something is very wrong with certain passages, then how come an editor couldn’t pick it up? I am not saying that it’s the editor’s fault. But damn.
It bugs the hell out of me, too, Lola.
I don’t know why her numerous editors didn’t catch it. I think a large part of it is that no one *wants* to think an author would deliberately plagiarize someone else’s work. Therefore, an editor isn’t likely to be suspicious unless given good reason to be.
Now, that’s not to say that a lot of the wording shouldn’t have been changed simply for believability reasons. I mean, how many Native American chiefs in the 1800’s used words like “concentric” or “pendulous” in their native languages? I’m guessing, uh, zero. Could be wrong, though.
I think I was able to find so many questionable sections in SAVAGE BELOVED simply because (A)I’d never read her books before and (B)I was *looking* for stylistic changes. And, believe me, they were pretty hard to miss. It was like watching a foreign soap opera with really crappy English voice-overs on a TV that would suddenly flip to Nature on PBS then back to the soap opera. It was unsettling, to say the least.
So, to sum up—
Do I blame her editors for the plagiarism? No.
Am I disappointed they didn’t question her on the stilted dialogue and research dumps about drying corn? Yes.
Am I pissed off she’s gotten away with copying other authors’ works for so long? Hell, yes.
Saint Saturn Sunshine said on 01.09.08 at 10:35 AM
The woman copied passages from other works that didn’t belong to her and the defense that Cruise mounts is how dare Smart Bitches continue to mock Cassie Edwards?
Lame. If they don’t like Edwards getting made fun of, here’s a neat little trick: DON’T READ THE BLOG.
And really, mocked or not, Edwards stole passages from other works and it seems to me that she did it much in the style of a lazy student writing a paper: they got tired of the research and decided to copy and paste the entire thing into their own work.
Edwards deserves to get called out on it, at the very least and should be brought to task for what she’s done.
Lyvvie said on 01.09.08 at 01:49 PM
Lola said: “This bugs the hell out of me. How could her editor not see this? If a reader can simply pick up a book and immediately realize something is very wrong with certain passages, then how come an editor couldn’t pick it up?”
You know, I wonder if this has been brought up before. Ms. Edwards has been writing for a long time, and maybe this isn’t the first time someone has fine toothed it?
lexie said on 01.09.08 at 03:05 PM
I posted elsewhere but thought I’d repeat…If you want to access A LOT of material regarding copyright laws and violations, google Harry Potter Lexicon Lawsuit.
For those outside fandom, an HP Lexicon (much content lifted directly from the books) exists on the internet (acknowledged and approved by Rowling). The site creator decided to publish without permission from Rowling and Warner Brothers. Lawsuit follows with preliminary hearings starting next week. You can find some great info on copyright laws, IP laws etc.
Elliebaby said on 01.09.08 at 03:38 PM
Wow…I didn’t know you smart bitches were out there! Couldn’t help bookmarking this blog. Keep up the good work. I’ll be back.
kambriel said on 03.26.08 at 09:02 PM
Okay, I’m a ghoul. I admit it. As soon as I read about the scandal, I popped down to my Half-Price Bookstore and picked up a couple of Cassie I Did Nothing Wrong Edwards books. Including ‘Savage Beloved’.
By all that’s holy.
First thing, I’ve found nothing savage in this book. She is not only a plagerist, she doesn’t believe in truth in advertising.
Well, now I understand why she succumbed to plagerism. She may well be one of the laziest writers I’ve ever read.
Anything that takes serious writing effort, well, she might take that under advisement. Little things like consistant POV. Not using the word ‘handsome’ 86 times in one chapter. Thinking of adjectives to discribe the heroine other than ‘kind’, ‘sweet’, ‘golden’, ‘vapid’. (Okay, I added the last one.)
Our heroine is ‘Candy’. Apt name. She’s cloying, sticky, sweet, mostly empty and if you take too much of her in one sitting you’ll get a stomach ache. Any time there is any serious drama in Candy’s way: facing up to the fact her mother abandoned her, her surrogate’s mother’s death, finding out her father is a racist psychopath, her new luv at first sight may have led the attack who killed her psycho father - well, the book does a chicken swerve. No, no, no human drama. Spoil the sugar rush. Let’s just have her gaze sappily at the hero some more. NO, no real danger, then the hero might have to be violent! So. Let’s just have the villaness express her evil scheme by luring Candy away and…
Show her that the villianess has larger boobs than Candy.
The lifted bits are the best part. Seriously. Lazy, lazy, lazy.
Add a Comment
Sorry, comments are now closed for this post.