Bitchin' Blog Posts
Finally heard back from Signet…
by Candy | by Candy | January 09, 2008 | Wednesday at 8:32 pm | 252 Comments...and, well, read it yourself.
Signet takes plagiarism seriously, and would act swiftly were there justification for such allegations against one of its authors. But in this case Ms. Edwards has done nothing wrong.
The copyright fair-use doctrine permits reasonable borrowing and paraphrasing of another author’s words, especially for the purpose of creating something new and original. Also, anyone may use facts, ideas and theories developed by another author, as well as any material in the public domain. Ms. Edwards’s researched historical novels are precisely the kinds of original, creative works that this copyright policy promotes.
Although it may be common in academic circles to meticulously footnote every source and provide citations or bibliographies, even though not required by copyright law, such a practice is virtually unheard of for a popular novel aimed at the consumer market.
All credit due to Jane of Dear Author for ferreting out (black-footed or otherwise) the appropriate Signet representative to write to and forwarding the statement to us when she got a response.
Candy says: Here’s a refresher on what constitutes plagiarism and what constitutes copyright infringement. Here it is again in brief:
Plagiarism and copyright infringement sometimes intersect, but not always. The most famous cases we’ve seen—Janet Dailey’s plagiarism of Nora Roberts’ work, for example—do. But it’s entirely possible to plagiarize without infringing on a copyright; all that’s required is copying huge chunks of a work without attribution and passing it off as your own original efforts. If the work has passed into the public domain, or if it isn’t copyrighted, there’s no copyright infringement. It’s also possible to infringe on somebody’s copyright without plagiarizing—if somebody making a movie decides to use a piece of copyrighted music without clearing the rights with the publisher first but acknowledge the musician in the credits, they’ve infringed on a copyright but they haven’t plagiarized.
In short: plagiarism is an ethical issue. It’s concerned with what’s right and what’s not. Copyright infringement is a legal action, and is a way for somebody whose works have been infringed to say “Bitch where my money?” It’s concerned with what’s legal and what’s not.
And that’s all I’m going to say for now.
Sarah says: I’m not qualified or even interested in the legality of the situation, or whether something is within fair-use doctrines. Not a lawyer. Not even in law school.
But I do want to make it explicitly clear that on terms of ethical use, I disagree with Signet and the idea that she’s done nothing wrong.
I’m certainly not a copyright lawyer, and questions of law are not my point. My issue is the ethics of it. Further, I think the ethics of the question are much more important than the legalities. There are a lot of things that can get you failed in English class or fired from a newspaper that are not against the law.
And the idea that she’s done nothing wrong from an ethical stance? Horsepucky. She’s done plenty wrong in my book.
I don’t buy Janet Dailey’s books past or present for that reason. I don’t check them out of the library or read them used. It’s an ethical distinction on my part: as a consumer, I can vote with my wallet. As a reader I can vote with my choices. As a blogger, I can write my opinion. In my opinion, Cassie Edwards’ use of at least 6 documented sources verbatim without attribution or acknowledgment is ethically wrong. It would have been so simple and appropriate to place an acknowledgment at the back of her book. “For more information about the Lakota Indians, I heartily recommend….”
So, let me ask you your opinion, if you haven’t already stated it. From an ethical standpoint, where do you draw the line? Are the usage of passages in Edwards’ books acceptable from an ethical standpoint or not? If you’re a reader or a writer, what do you think?
Filed: News
Bravewolf said on 01.09.08 at 09:18 PM • [link]
I think that Signet is batshit insane if they think that Edwards “has done nothing wrong”. She has stolen massive amounts of information and prose to use them in a work that she passes off as entirely her own. How is that NOT plagiarism?
On the plus side, I have a substantial amount of books on my shelf; apparently all I have to do to become an author for Signet is to copy massive amounts of prose from them and string them together like an Add-a-Bead necklace.
I guess I’ll have to change all the names to kinda match up but otherwise… Instant riches! Instant fan base!
Teddy Pig said on 01.09.08 at 09:24 PM • [link]
Cut and paste is not ethical or legal at all last time I checked.
This is blatant cut and paste and the fact she selectively chose to use only works that were out of copyright proves she did it all on purpose.
Hope none of those works or the works we have not discovered yet have an estate and attorneys involved with their legal status because she might be up that old creek without a paddle and with Signet making blanket statements like that they are going with her on that trip.
willa said on 01.09.08 at 09:25 PM • [link]
....
....
....
I do not believe this nonsense.
azteclady said on 01.09.08 at 09:26 PM • [link]
To re iterate:
Not actionable/not illegal DOES NOT EQUATE “ethicalâ€
Copying, pretty much verbatim, other people’s work to pass off as your own IS outright thievery, immoral and unethical.
As a reader and consumer, I do the same as SBSarah. Since I’m not a blogger or writer or whatever, I express my opinion and try to educate others by spreading information in real life and in those online forums that I belong to.
Education on these issues is essential—and I can only hope that educated readers will bring on the deserved consequences to unethical behaviour.
Mads said on 01.09.08 at 09:26 PM • [link]
What I think is that that is absolute rubbish.
In the Harry Potter world right now J.K Rowling is suing Harry Potter website, The HP Lexicon on the grounds of copyright infringing in a print version of the website. Okay, so she’s allowed to sue this site for writing an encyclopaedia of her books even though there have been countless other Potter related books ... Okay so the case is slightly different but I think it’s ironic that this site is being sued when Cassie Edwards is allowed to get away with this.
Cassie Edwards clear plagiarism of SIX (and she’s written a shit load of books so there is bound to be more) sources is considered okay? That’s absolute donkey shit.
Marta Acosta said on 01.09.08 at 09:27 PM • [link]
Well, that Signet lawyer is going to hell for sure. But despite what Signet is saying publicly, I bet they are scared out of their diapers and taking frantic measures to save this sinking ship.
I’ve had my work plagiarized, but it was done by bloggers who just took my newspaper columns and stuck their names on them. (And, yeah, they would take the entire column and the copyright was mine.) That irked me, but I accepted it as part of the internet age. It is appalling for a highly successful writer to lift sentences and paragraphs without giving credit to the remarkable man who wrote and lived this stuff.
In summary: Cassie Edwards, Lawyers, Hell, Diapers, Sinking Ship.
Therese Walsh said on 01.09.08 at 09:27 PM • [link]
This makes me think Signet doesn’t have complete grasp of what Edwards has done. If they do and still contend she’s done nothing wrong, then they’re trying to establish a new precident for what plagiarism means, and in that case, we should all stand up and take serious note—then rant until our throats are raw from screaming.
Therese Walsh said on 01.09.08 at 09:29 PM • [link]
precedent not precident
Why do I never see errors until they’re published?
papertiger said on 01.09.08 at 09:33 PM • [link]
*SMACK* (sound of jaw hitting my desk)
“Borrowing and paraphrasing”???! My god, the gall of… well, whatever lacky-suit-demonic corporate type who wrote that reply is simply unbeleivable! The woman lifted, word for word in many cases, entire paragraphs from others’ works!
As far as the ethics of plagiarism, logically speaking, we live in a society based on the sanctity of personal, private capital/property. Whether that property is physical or more abstract, that property is supposed to be personal and private. If you believe people can take someone’s intellectual labor and use it (to make money, no less!) then you must also advocate breaking into people’s homes and stealing their electronic goods, or jacking cars, or, you know, *whatever*!
The thing that really gets me is that this probably isn’t going to go anywhere - Edwards is going to keep making money for herself and her publisher by stealing. This in the same country where people who lost everything trying to get diapers and food in Hurricane Katrina were treated like criminals.
Keri Ford said on 01.09.08 at 09:38 PM • [link]
Hmm. I can’t help but wonder if their response would be similar if one of their authors had gotten ripped off instead of done the ripping….
Teddy Pig said on 01.09.08 at 09:39 PM • [link]
I keep looking at this and wondering if it might not be fun to have when doing book reviews…
http://turnitin.com/static/plagiarism.html
Sandra D said on 01.09.08 at 09:41 PM • [link]
As a reader I’m disappointed and disgusted by Signet’s reply. As has been shown here CE has done something wrong, a whole lot of wrong. And as a reader I’ll be showing my feelings by no longer buying Signet published books. Damn, now I’m wondering if authors I like publish with Signet and if I can hold myself to this.
Leslie Kelly said on 01.09.08 at 09:42 PM • [link]
>Are the usage of passages in Edwards’ books acceptable from an ethical standpoint or not?<
No. Not in any way, shape or form.
Legal? Perhaps in the most technical of terms. But ethical, absolutely not.
Leslie Dicken said on 01.09.08 at 09:43 PM • [link]
Really, why couldn’t she have just listed the sources in the back of the book like you mentioned? I’m fairly certain her loyal readers would have forgiven her for not writing every line of prose in the book.
It’s as easy even saying “some passages were taken from XXX in and effort to bring deeper historical reality…” or some shit like that.
Sigh.
rebyj said on 01.09.08 at 09:44 PM • [link]
The thing is, bloggers brought the issue to Signet, not an author who felt his/her work was used illegally and who had legal representation, so their response of course is to deny that their company or their client has done anything wrong.
So I am not surprised by the response at all.
Rachel said on 01.09.08 at 09:50 PM • [link]
Jesus wept. Let me whip on my fashionable English teacher hat for just a sec: Every semester, I catch kids plagiarizing in exactly the same way that others have caught CE- Google. That’s usually all it takes. When that happens, I print out the portions I found online, highlight the identical passages in the student’s work, and then I GIVE THEIR CHEATING ASSES A ZERO. End of story. And when I do this, do I go over the finer points of copyright law? Um… nope. Plagiarizing is wrong, plain and simple. It’s unethical, and, as La Nora said, it’s mind rape.
For a really interesting case on the matter, I suggest Googling Brad Vice, a professor at Mississippi State who had his doctorate revoked after it turned out he plagiarized a short story (allegedly. He claims his story was meant as an “homage” and everyone was too dumb to see it.)
Charlene said on 01.09.08 at 09:50 PM • [link]
I’m not surprised, but on the other hand I’m boycotting Signet from this moment on.
Nora Roberts said on 01.09.08 at 09:50 PM • [link]
~Legal? Perhaps in the most technical of terms. But ethical, absolutely not.~
This is precisely what I was going to say.
I think the word ‘wrong’ in the Signet statement is a poor choice. I would have accepted the word ‘illegal’.
I think it’s a very bad message to send to readers, to writers.
And it confuses me as my publisher demands (and I agree with that demand) that I attribute the quotes (always fair use) that I habitually use in the front of my books.
SB Sarah said on 01.09.08 at 09:53 PM • [link]
I am sad to say, I agree with rebyj. I didn’t expect a different response than the one we received. The idea that we’re bloggers has been called upon as basis to question the claim all along. Bloggers on the whole have dubious reps to begin with, and we’re not a threat to Signet. We didn’t write any of the content that we cited with the entries on Edwards’ books.
I’ve never been one to say, “So and so author behaved like a shitcake online so I am never buying her books again!” I frequently make a cake of myself; I can give folks the benefit of the doubt for having a bad moment.
But if you don’t do what I’m paying for you to do, e.g. write the book I’m paying for with your name on it as the author then I am taking my hard earned pennies elsewhere.
Anon76 said on 01.09.08 at 09:55 PM • [link]
Well?
Did you really expect any different kind of response?
100 novels equals “cash cow”.
I liked CE books long ago, but grew out of them. And I did not take a huge dislike to her because of this plagiarism issue. But in no way would I defend her for such blatant stealing of other’s words. I felt it a serious issue that needed to be addressed once found, and perhaps things could be somehow rectified. (Okay, I write romance fiction, I pray for HEA’s. LOL)
However…with the response from her publisher, I am now truly appalled.
Yes, I voiced the question, “well what did you expect?”. But deep inside, I hoped it wouldn’t be an almost blatant “FU all. We do what we want. Get over it.”
I need to go regroup a bit, because for a long time, the whole publishing industry has left me with a foul taste in my mouth. From some fangirls to some owners of houses, and all the people in between, well…damn.
Sometimes I wish I’d just stuck to buying books without ever having to see the underbelly of this biz.
Lorelie said on 01.09.08 at 09:55 PM • [link]
But she didn’t. Paraphrase, that is.
Does anyone else feel that statement reads as incredibly patronizing or is it just me?
cmfletcher said on 01.09.08 at 09:56 PM • [link]
If, as Signet asserts, “copyright fair-use doctrine permits reasonable borrowing and paraphrasing of another author’s words,” and then why did Kaavya Viswanathan’s publisher yank her novel “Opal Mehta” off the shelves in ‘06? After all, Viswanathan only “borrowed and paraphrased” about a dozen samplings from Megan McCafferty’s books, and most of them weren’t even word-for-word.
Signet, be ashamed. Be very ashamed.
SB’s, you rock.
SB Sarah said on 01.09.08 at 09:59 PM • [link]
I agree, Lorelie, it was read by yours truly and patronizing.
And as for “virtually unheard of for a
popular novel aimed at the consumer market.”
There are plenty of authors who have done so.
Chrissy said on 01.09.08 at 09:59 PM • [link]
Well I won’t buy another Signet book til they reverse that bullshit position. And you know… I spend 50 bucks a week at Barnes and Noble. It’s one of my only real indulgences—that and Starbucks.
*shrug*
Won’t hurt me but it will hurt their sales.
(wow, real65—that’s the year I was born!)
Rosemary said on 01.09.08 at 10:03 PM • [link]
HA! Y’all expected a lawyer representing a large corporation to be
ETHICAL
?!? You poor, naive, delusional people. They are paid over half a million dollars a year to NOT be ethical.
Silly silly people.
(Yes, I am bitter and jaded after having worked for and been laid off from one of the 50 largest law firms in the nation. They would rather lay off 10 people than stop feeding 100 attorneys lunch on Fridays.)
Liz said on 01.09.08 at 10:08 PM • [link]
Damn. It seems that from Signet’s position all plagiarizing is ok. Good to know.
Whatever Signet wants to call it, she plagiarized. She used someone else’s work, verbatim, and passed it off as her own original work. I’m really not sure how Signet can dither around and say that it’s all in the name of research.
So what if it’s not illegal? It’s dishonest and unethical and so easily rectified. I don’t expect her to footnote, but an acknowledgment would help. Of course, NOT QUOTING SOMEONE ELSE’S WORK VERBATIM ALSO HELPS.
jmc said on 01.09.08 at 10:15 PM • [link]
Call me a cynic, but I’m not particularly surprised that the letter of the law is Signet’s concern, rather than ethics.
Anon76 said on 01.09.08 at 10:16 PM • [link]
Okay.
I sent Candy an email earlier today. It had a link to a site where an opinion expressed about CE was hugely ironic.
I still won’t post it myself, but I do hope she will. Though at the moment I feel snark all through my body.
(Note to self: do try to beat back the snark beasty.)
Sigh
Kalen Hughes said on 01.09.08 at 10:16 PM • [link]
Perhaps Signet is unclear on the definition of paraphrase?
I can’t say I won’t buy any books published by them though. That would so be the pot calling the kettle black, considering I write for the same publisher that currently peddles Janet Daily. *sigh* I certainly don’t want people to not buy my books out of protest against JD.
Sarah Frantz said on 01.09.08 at 10:17 PM • [link]
“facts, ideas, and theories” does not equal paragraphs of actual words.
And they yanked Viswanathan’s books because that was both unethical (like Edwards) AND illegal, because McCafferty’s books were still under copyright.
What needs to happen (note passive tense—*I* can’t do it) is someone needs to find an instance of plagiarism in Edwards’ books that is both unethical AND illegal. What about that black-footed ferret article? Is that more recent than the other stuff. Can we contact the author(s) of that article and alert them to the issue? Standing Bear’s book is also still under copyright (1933).
So, yes, definitely unethical. As I said somewhere else, research is supposed to provide authors with a critical mass of information that they then put into their own words as it fits the story/characters, not cut and pasting wholesale like Edwards has.
fshk said on 01.09.08 at 10:20 PM • [link]
I’ve done time as an assistant in a big publishing house, where I did all manner of things relating to contracts and copyrights. A boilerplate clause about plagiarism in author contracts is pretty standard, (usually worded something like “The Author agrees that The Work is wholly original…” and so forth) so if CE is copying passages wholesale from other sources and calling it her own work, it may be illegal, in that it would violate that clause of the contract. (In my experience, publishers are usually careful about these things, as they are hyper paranoid about getting sued. It’s interesting that Signet blew you off.) The stealing of someone else’s text is not really the issue here—you can quote Shakespeare to your heart’s content, and there can be no legal recourse if you start spouting, “Alas poor Yorick!” without crediting Shakespeare. Such is the nature of copyright law.
I do, however, agree that it is unethical to copy from other sources and call it your own work. I guess we could argue over the consequences. I don’t think anything will come of it; it looked like a lot of CE’s sources were older, probably public domain, by authors who are dead or otherwise unlikely to sue.
But as a writer and an editor, I’m appalled that Signet let her get away with this and I will not be buying her books.
Kimberly Anne said on 01.09.08 at 10:20 PM • [link]
I wish I could say I was surprised. I wish I could say that I had faith Signet would do the right thing, and were just covering their legal asses with this email. But that would require living in a world of rainbows and unicorns.
I have to agree that I’ll be very leery about purchasing a Signet book again. But, saying so in the comments thread of a blog - even one as cool as Smart Bitches - accomplishes little besides making me feel a trifle less squidgy.
Publishing houses are in it to make money - period. If they can keep a cash cow going through legal loopholes and dodgy tactics, they will.
“needed18” - yeah, I needed a better response from Signet, too
Anon76 said on 01.09.08 at 10:23 PM • [link]
PS
I guess the whole issue argued over the net about the use of “champagne flutes” all seems sort of silly now.
Perhaps said author should have just copied text instead so the issue was a non-issue?
Gads. Back you beasty snark, back.
(Teehee. Confirmation: nuclear64)
Meezergrrrl said on 01.09.08 at 10:24 PM • [link]
Wow. I’ve worked for a publishing company for the last 4.5 years. I used to date a copyright attorney (a LONG time ago). I’m the daughter of one lawyer, and the niece of another one. I went to college. I’m pretty clear on the definition of plagiarism.
For Signet to deny that SB’s findings are not plagiarism is just not right. Unfortunately, based on my observations of the different plagiarism/it’s “non-fiction” fiction
scandals in the industry in the last few years, not unsurprising, either.
Signet’s response shows a basic lack of integrity and respect, and I think they will hear from enough readers and bloggers that they may come to regret their quick defense of Cassie Edwards as someone who produces “historically researched novels.”
FWIW, a quick google of “Novels with Footnotes” revealed the following website:
http://www.miskatonic.org/footnotes.html
Virtually unheard of? WTF?
Nathalie Gray said on 01.09.08 at 10:27 PM • [link]
Just as I was trying to claw out of my vortex of cold cynicism. Thanks a lot, Signet!
Do you think I’d get sued if I stole, oh, I mean “paraphrased†their response and came up with “Signet… permits… plagiarism†and posted it everywhere? Well, the three words *are* there.
Hey, if it works one way…
And I agree with the lady who mentioned that they must be doing the duck thing, calm and cool up top but pedaling like mad under the surface.
Sarah Frantz said on 01.09.08 at 10:28 PM • [link]
Looking back, not all the discovered sources are out of copyright by any means, and I’ll bet if you go back through the rest of her books, the sources for THOSE (potential) plagiarized passages wouldn’t be all in public domain either. It’s getting one of the injured parties with enough legal and financial clout behind them to care about the theft that’s the issue. Otherwise, Signet can say what the hell they want and continue to rake in the bucks with CE’s next book. And the one after that…
Ros said on 01.09.08 at 10:34 PM • [link]
Inspired by Cassie Edwards, but certainly not plagiarised, oh no!
TracyS said on 01.09.08 at 10:35 PM • [link]
Okay, if it’s not illegal it is certainly an ethical issue.
How hard would it be to at the very least put an acknowledgment at the beginning or end of the books stating where she got her factual information from. I’ve seen that in enough fiction (romance!!) books to know that it is done and done frequently.
So, Signet’s response doesn’t jive with me. I agree with Nora that if they had used the world “illegal” instead of “wrong” it would have been better.
Angelina said on 01.09.08 at 10:36 PM • [link]
As my first year Tortes professor once told me Legal does not always equal ethical and if you are going to walk the grey line, you should prepare yourself for the possible consequences. I just keep sadly shaking my head.
Did I think they would answer differently. Hell no! If I were their counsel I would have probably answered similarly. But I agree with Marta Acosta, there is probably some serious damage control going on behind closed doors right now.
What’s really sad about this whole hot mess is that even though everyone’s statements here have been intelligent, thoughtful responses to what’s going on, they will all be painted with the “Those mean bitches are picking on CE again” brush and disregarded.
Sara Mitchelll said on 01.09.08 at 10:45 PM • [link]
I agree with Signet. Mrs. Edwards used research material to explain and show the Native American way of life.
She did NOT steal anyone’s story. The story is hers. She “paraphrased” the information.
Authors who write historical romances need to get as much of the cultural information correct as possible.
Research books are published to be used as reference material. George Bird Grinell lived with the Native Americans, learned their language and culture and wrote about it.
Cassie is honoring the Native American Indians of our country by writing these books about them.
She feels strongly about what she does because she is honoring her own people with her books…she is in part Cheyenne!
This site has dumped on Mrs. Edwards for years. They have gone out of their way to try to disgrace her.
If you put as much energy into important life altering matters as you do in talking down about people and causing drama, you could actually make a difference.
Unfortunately there are people who are so miserable with their own lives that the highlight of the day is causing drama for other people.
As for you being sued…I hope it happens. Maybe then you’ll stop your senseless slandering and defaming of authors because you don’t like them.
Get a life!
snarkhunter said on 01.09.08 at 10:47 PM • [link]
Sarah Frantz just said it, but I’ll echo her here—isn’t that ferret article, at the very least, still copyrighted? It’s recent, isn’t it? The link says it’s from the 2005 issue, so that one is grounds for infringment, I would think.
Honestly, I’d e-mail the author of the ferret piece. He/She might have something to say about this.
willa said on 01.09.08 at 10:49 PM • [link]
Sara Mitchell, I do not think you have been paying very close attention to any of the posts on this topic.
Count me in as another buyer who won’t be purchasing any Signet books any time soon (quickly dashes off to see which other authors that affects).
Amelia "Fuckheady Bitchipants" Elias said on 01.09.08 at 10:51 PM • [link]
Disappointed in a huge way. I’d personally love to see a response from Edwards herself to this issue, though. Sigh… bet it’ll never happen.
Jessica D said on 01.09.08 at 10:51 PM • [link]
As an editor and writer of both fiction and non-fiction (and a former English 101 teacher), I believe what Edwards has done is unambiguously plagiarism and unambiguously unethical.
My suspicion, though, is that the author of the e-mail from Signet did not review the evidence and is engaged in knee-jerk CYA. The e-mail specifies “paraphrasing,” and Edwards did not paraphrase, QED.
In conclusion, *headdesk*
Ruth said on 01.09.08 at 10:52 PM • [link]
I’m having a rough day. Can I have whatever it is fangirlie is smoking? kthanx.
I’m among the not surprised. I think the best thing to do is to keep plugging away at finding a verifiable instance of copyright infringment. Someone here mentioned working for the ferret article people, right? (Sorry that was terribly unspecific)
If I could get my hands on a CE without purchasing it, I’d be on board with helping out. I’ll see if we have a local library.
Ros said on 01.09.08 at 10:52 PM • [link]
Sara Mitchell, do you understand the meaning of the word ‘paraphrase’? It does not mean ‘copy word for word’. There is a huge difference between doing research and using the information to tell your story and copying text from another book because you’re too lazy to put it into your own words.
Victoria Dahl said on 01.09.08 at 10:52 PM • [link]
Oh, Sara Mitchell. Using the exact words, ““The storehouses for these beans, made by the animals, are under a peculiar mound which the untrained eye is unable to distinguish from an anthill. There are many pockets underneath, into which the animals gather their harvest…. a woman comes upon a suspected mound, usually by accident. The heel of her moccasin might cause a place to give way on the mound. She then settles down to rob the poor mice of the fruits of their labor.†... is not paraphrasing. That is stealing and copying someone else’s work and pretending as if you’ve written it for your male protagonist to (strangely) say. Adding “Running Fox said” IS NOT PARAPHRASING!
I want to hear what you say about that, so please come back and comment.
Amelia "Fuckheady Bitchipants" Elias said on 01.09.08 at 10:52 PM • [link]
Another sigh. Not going to feed the troll this time.
Ehle said on 01.09.08 at 10:52 PM • [link]
I do think it’s possible for an author to inadvertently use a line or two they’ve read previously, and not realize it until later. Shit happens. But in my opinion, there are far too many similarities for that to be the case here. Seems to me like the only way to get so many word-for-word similarities is to open the book and copy from it, and if you’re doing that, you probably know what you’re doing and also probably know it’s sorta, kinda very much the wrong thing to do… I’m just saying.
I find Signet’s response is more disconcerting than any of the similarities. What are they saying, exactly? Yeah, she did it, but we don’t care ‘cause we probably won’t get sued? I’m very curious to know if Signet would be as willing to label plagiarism as “reasonable borrowing†had someone (allegedly) plagiarized Cassie Edwards and not the other way around.
snarkhunter said on 01.09.08 at 10:53 PM • [link]
She did NOT steal anyone’s story. The story is hers. She “paraphrased†the information.
Sweetheart, if you have to put “paraphrased” in quotation marks, then that means you know she didn’t paraphrase.
Let me spell it out here. She copied information from her reference materials word. for. word. That’s plagiarism. No, really, it is. If you did it in my class, you’d fail your assignment.
Edwards didn’t steal the story. That is hers. But she stole the information by *not* paraphrasing it. Had she paraphrased, we wouldn’t be having this conversation. Period.
Anon76 said on 01.09.08 at 10:54 PM • [link]
Nope, I’m so sorry Sara M, but I must disagree.
Paraphrasing means restating of a text by giving the meaning in DIFFERENT words.
Slapping, He said/she said on the front or end of a verbatim paragraph is not paraphrasing
SB Sarah said on 01.09.08 at 10:57 PM • [link]
Publishers Weekly has picked up the story.
Arhylda said on 01.09.08 at 10:58 PM • [link]
I have read plenty of romance novels where the author puts a chapter or so at the end, discussing the anthropology/history and their research into the same. Considering the type of anthropological information being used in these books, that would not only be appropriate but necessary.
Legal? Maybe. Ethical? NOT.
Sounds like a boycott of the author’s works, and perhaps Signet Publishing, might be in order. If nothing else, can we have an address to send our individual concerns on to Signet?
Victoria Dahl said on 01.09.08 at 10:59 PM • [link]
Grrr. Must add… This would be paraphrasing and COMPLETELY LEGITIMATE: “Sometimes one of our women will accidentally walk on something that looks like an ant hill, but turns out to be a buried mound of beans and seeds hidden by mice for the winter.”
Not beautiful, maybe, but real paraphrasing by a real live historical romance writer.
Anna said on 01.09.08 at 11:02 PM • [link]
What Cassie Edwards has done is NOT paraphrasing. It is plagiarism, and it is clearly unethical in my book.
And as much I try to drum this into college students’ heads every semester… some people still get confused!
Karla said on 01.09.08 at 11:03 PM • [link]
I recently read “Love and War” by Sandra Worth, a novel about Richard III, and Worth used the Sullivan Ballou letter from Ken Burns’ Civil War doc. Whole chunks of it, and just replaced the name “Sarah” with “Isabel” and put in some ye olde language to make it fit the genre.
No attribution at all. Her website says a later edition will credit Sullivan Ballou, but it just seemed like blatant, unoriginal hackery. Apparently she couldn’t come up with a poignant eve-of-battle love letter on her own without ripping off dead Civil War soldiers.
As for Edwards, I just came upon this wank (it’s made F_W!) and I’m going back to read through the posts. CE’s books have always been gadawful and now they’re doubly hilarious because of this. LOL
Kassiana said on 01.09.08 at 11:05 PM • [link]
Wow. Guess I can just copy verbatim 1900s encyclopedias and pass it off as my own work, even though it’s not, and Signel will have no problem with it.
What a bunch of immoral morons.
KCfla said on 01.09.08 at 11:07 PM • [link]
Well, see what happens when you take a few days off from the computer? (You spend a whole day catching up it seems!)
I’m not a fan of CE. Yes, I believe I read a few of her books waaaaaaay back somewhere in time, but after about #3, they became boring. Sameoldsameold if you will.
I agree with the majority here in saying that plagiarism = WRONG in any book, be it Fiction/non-Fiction. And it seems to me ( and my non-writer, massive-reader mind) that what she’s done is definately that!
But to have Signet blow it off as nothing of importance? WTF????
Now, I won’t go so far as to say I will never again buy a Signet book. That would be punishing a lot of authors for the crimes of just one. But I will do what I did when the Roberts/Dailey thing came out. I will not buy/read/get near another of her books( CE’s books- Not Nora’s, I would have to stop reading to do that ;-) ) . And I will tell all my book-loving friends about all this. And I’m sure they too will “vote with their wallets”)
rant off.
( bad65- Yes, very bad Signet! Very bad!)
Robin said on 01.09.08 at 11:08 PM • [link]
Well.
As someone who has spent quite a few years doing public damage control, I truly understand the need to balance public outrage with one’s own perspective, to create a new perspective so that people can see a bigger picture, perhaps. But neither legally or otherwise could I ever imagine either choking down or spitting out that statement.
First, with over 100 novels written, how is Signet convinced Edwards hasn’t violated copyright? I’m stunned that statement was made, if indeed it was crafted by or informed by an atty.
Further, as others have said, I think Signet’s position is incorrect, completely leaving alone what is or isn’t ethical.
Despite my disappointment in the statement, I do think it’s consistent with the “money over everything” philosophy I associate with commercial publishing these days, and absolutely think that the fact that it wasn’t a Signet author who was copied (or “paraphrased” *snort*) made the critical difference, along with the sheer amounts of green that Edwards’s novels must make Signet.
Am I the only one struck by the irony of having this statement come from an imprint that is part of the same imprint that publishes Nora Roberts? Laugh or cry, laugh or cry, what a choice.
This morning I was weighing this issue against the racial segregation issue to get some sense of where I think this lands, and I gotta say, I think it’s much worse. Because at least in the race case, AA authors ARE being published by mainstream publishers, even if they are being unfairly segregated. Here, though, I see no contravening value to Signet’s position, no good to balance the bad. It’s like all bad to me.
Even if you want to debate the issue of how much was copied, etc., I’m a bit appalled at the “nothing wrong” language, because what the SBs posted here isn’t merely the “use” of historical sources, not to mention the fact that not all of it is in the public domain.
And that’s still not really touching the *general ethics* of this issue, the overall picture of whether or not we value the individual scholarship of people who are also creating original work, albeit non-fiction. I admit that I’m very saddened that so much of this source work is being dismissed as it it was the Encyclopedia Britannica, and not original academic scholarship. You know, like original fiction.
This statement merely presses me, once again, to suggest that this is an issue of community ethics that deserves more discussion. Not, necessarily, about Cassie Edwards, because IMO we’ve gone way beyond that now. But I guess I’m in this place now where I’m thinking that if I were an author I’d be really worried about how this issue is being valued within the writing community, and as a reader I’m feeling a bit disoriented, wondering how many of the books I’ve read have themselves been put together. That, let me tell you, is not a good thing.
I’ve always been someone who has valued the free exchange of ideas and very liberal copyright interpretations. I still do, because I think the community/individual balance must be respected. I love intertextuality and all manner of intertextual conversations. But it seems to me that what we’re talking about here is a very basic thing: how we do or don’t value different forms of creative expression across different communities.
I hope Signet will forgive me for not crying for them if they ever find themselves trying to enforce copyright against another author, because in this case, I don’t really think it’s fair to have it both ways. If, as publishers do, they want copyright to be enforced narrowly, it seems to me that they should feel the same way about plagiarism and basic intellectual honesty.
Sarah said on 01.09.08 at 11:10 PM • [link]
Edwards plagiarized. No ifs ands or buts about it. She is a plagiarist. I don’t care what bull Signet is trying to feed us.
Marta Acosta said on 01.09.08 at 11:13 PM • [link]
Something that bothers me about Edwards is that she has capitalized on her “pure Cheyenne” grandmother and written book after book in which an Indian stud falls for a white woman. (I keep thinking of Cleavon Little in “Blazing Saddles” shouting, “Where’s de white womins?”)
As a person of color (the color being a sad yellowish now in the winter), I cringe at the noble savage stereotype.
It’s particularly galling that Edwards appropriated the work Charles Eastman, a man who was Sioux, and attended an Ivy League school and then medical school in highly racist times.
Edwards is a kind of ethnic cannibal.
It would have cost her nothing financially or professionally to have written a few sentences in her books to acknowledge him and the accomplished academics from whom she took text.
Chrissy said on 01.09.08 at 11:18 PM • [link]
Thing is, people tend to sniff at “boycotts,” but I have to tell you—
I belong to a romance readers group that has grown to 47 members. ONLY THREE OF US WILL BUY AVON BOOKS. They ignored mailings requesting they stop featuring anorexic looking models on covers of books featuring “plus size” leading ladies. So help me god/dess they still give me crap for buying some of my favorite Avon authors over this. And that’s just the group—not those they bullied and guilted.
They are already rumbling over this after my email. And none of them blog, so they are the semi-visible pissed off vajority!
It isn’t just a little rumble.
SandyW said on 01.09.08 at 11:20 PM • [link]
You know, there just isn’t any rational response to that.
Basically, the folks that read Edwards’ books like that sort of thing and probably don’t care where she gets her pedantic infodump material from. Signet is basically saying they have the deep pockets and the legal staff and they don’t care as long as they are making money and not actually getting sued.
I am alternately infuriated and depressed by all this.
JennK said on 01.09.08 at 11:23 PM • [link]
*headdesk*
As an aspiring (ie: desperate to be published) author, it’s good to know that Signet will publish my novels after I’ve “reasonably borrowed and paraphrased” several of Nora Roberts novels. In fact, my novels will be even better once I’ve used “facts, ideas, and theories” from some from J.D. Robb’s as well. (Just kidding! Don’t hurt me, Nora!)
Signet is simply wrong. Whether or not it is illegal, it is certainly unethical to steal another author’s words—no matter how long ago they were published—and claim them as your own.
Heh. court97 - yes, I hope she ends up in court, and yes, she probably plagiarized in 97 novels.
Barb Ferrer said on 01.09.08 at 11:24 PM • [link]
Although it may be common in academic circles to meticulously footnote every source and provide citations or bibliographies, even though not required by copyright law, such a practice is virtually unheard of for a popular novel aimed at the consumer market.
*watch the top of Barb’s head explode*
Wow. What an incredibly condescending, supercilious, ass-hatted comment. Dude, that’s what acknowledgments are for. Diana Gabaldon may not footnote everything in her Outlander novels, but dammit, she acknowledges every academic source and bit of assistance she’s received. And in the Outlandish Companion she DID meticulously notate and acknowledge and provide a bibliography.
But then again, she’s one of those academic types. And speaking as a former academic type, damn skippy you note and provide citations. For God’s sake, what does it take to even put a small list in the acknowledgments reading, “List of materials used in research include…”
And James freakin’ Frey only “embellished” his entire background but the"essential truth” of the experiences remained.
Jesus H. on a piece of burnt toast.
*headdesk*
Spider (@ work) said on 01.09.08 at 11:24 PM • [link]
I agree with RebyJ—they’re not taking us, as bloggers, seriously. I also think that, while it was the appropriate thing to address the publishing house of the books first, the next step is to address the publishing houses of the books abused.
As I recall, several of the books were found to still be in print, so someone holds the copyright to the material. Glancing over at Amazon should pull up most of them, with the details of those publishing houses, right? I am loathe to create more work out of what began as an exploration, but doesn’t this need to be followed through?
(Even if it is to a bitter conclusion. I don’t mind helping, if I can.)
Dawn said on 01.09.08 at 11:26 PM • [link]
That sort of plagiarism might not be illegal. It is certainly unethical.
It is also a sign that the author is a lazy bitch who does shoddy work. And is also not worth spending my money on.
megalith said on 01.09.08 at 11:29 PM • [link]
Hmm. I wish the Publisher’s Weekly article had used one of the more clearly damning sections you guys posted, SB Sarah. The one they used, while clearly copied, is disarranged ever so slightly. This might lead some to call it a paraphrase. While I don’t agree, it leaves the impression that there may be some room for doubt. I don’t think, looking at some of the instances you guys have found, that there really is any room for doubt. Edwards clearly copied verbatim large passages from someone else’s work, without attribution. That is the very definition of plagiarism.
And shame on Sara Mitchell for either not taking the effort to understand that or for willfully ignoring it. I try not to feed trolls, but this is an important issue for me as an artist. I encourage her to try harder to understand the issues at hand before launching a knee-jerk defense of an author she clearly enjoys. This case is very unfortunate for all involved, but ignoring it is almost worse, in my opinion.
Victoria Dahl said on 01.09.08 at 11:30 PM • [link]
Holy Mother of….!!! I went over to check out the Pub Weekly article and whose ad was waiting to be clicked right next to it? DEFENDERS OF WILDLIFE, I shit you not! I need a drink. (Quite a current source, btw.)
Kate said on 01.09.08 at 11:32 PM • [link]
Funny how only prize-winning popular novels like The Adventures of Kavalier and Clay are allowed to use footnotes. Must be too academic for those foolish romance readers.
In any case: I sincerely doubt this is the last that Signet will have to say on this issue, particularly as people continue to ferret out (sorry) more instances of plagiarism in Edwards’ books. This statement may be asinine and a bald-faced attempt to cover their legal weaknesses, but the next one is going to have to acknowledge the troubling deficit of “paraphrasing” in Edwards’ work.
(I wouldn’t be surprised if this story starts showing up in small newspapers shortly, given the rate at which it’s grown on the internet so far.)
Erastes said on 01.09.08 at 11:34 PM • [link]
Have nothing to add that hasn’t been said 100 times already but my view on non copyright plagiarism has been noted before. It may not be actionable theft, but it’s still theft, lazy and dishonest. I mean why should any of us now write anything original, lets just start working our way through everything that’s been written before.
Signet are foolish - and that’s the most polite thing I can say.
shoshona19 said on 01.09.08 at 11:40 PM • [link]
I think we should all celebrate the new freedom that Signet has provided us with their loose view on ethical issues and the value of the printed word.
I plan to sit down at my local Barnes and Noble with a big stack of CE books I have no intention of buying and copying them, word for word. Maybe I will post them with a new title and my name on various websites. Hell, might as well submit these “new” works to publishers—I hear Signet has pretty low standards.
If we’re going to put such a low value on words and ideas printed between man titty covers, why not just use the pages of Savage Stereotype as a napkin when I snarf my cocoa laughing at the horrible, plagiarised prose?
Oh, and I’m just as Native American as Ms. Edwards, so I dedicate my acts of civil disobediance to the many tribes represented as “savages” in her books.
Arhylda said on 01.09.08 at 11:40 PM • [link]
Maybe it’s time to hop onto Amazon, Borders and Barnes & Noble online and get some -real- reviews on CE’s books going…!
Julie Leto said on 01.09.08 at 11:40 PM • [link]
I’ve been posting over at Dear Author, but I wanted to say here that I find this very disheartening. I do think this situation is unethical, even if is not actionable. It’s about time we stopped letting the court system or legal technicalities decide what is right and wrong in this world.
azteclady said on 01.09.08 at 11:45 PM • [link]
Arhylda, I’m with you. I’m about to engage in a ‘review’ posting campaign at amazon. com with linkage galore.
(and I do mean “review” because I have no intention of reading a CE books anymore than I have to read a Dailey book. A thief is a thief is a thief)
Kerry said on 01.09.08 at 11:48 PM • [link]
I think the top of my head just blew off.
As an ex-academic I would be blowing steam out my ears if someone did this to my work - whether it was technically illegal or not. In fact, I am steaming on behalf of the authors who have been so dispicably treated as to have their work be considered of no worth (how can you consider something of worth if you’re willing to steal it).
And Signet’s response, while as others have said not necessarily surprising, is very, very depressing and makes me want to go out and find something to hit.
I started off shocked and saddened by all this. Now I’m just angry about how something as major as this is being brushed off by the publishers and CE’s fans (the ones I’ve seen comment - I hope there are many others who are very saddened about this).
If a single instance of plagarism had been found I might understand (not for an instant agree, but understand) people not being as horrified as I am, but this is multiple cases in multiple books and there are a whole lot more CE books that may be the same.
And frankly, I’ve never read one of her books and it wouldn’t matter to me what author it had been, I’d be just as angry.
This is WRONG and it is just as wrong that there are people who don’t seem able to see or acknowledge that.
Okay, I’ll stop ranting now. Part of the reason I hadn’t joined in the comments before is that I knew once I started I’d just keep on typing as I have done.
rebyj said on 01.09.08 at 11:49 PM • [link]
I just read the Publishers Weekly article and noticed this..
“Smart Bitches Who Love Trashy Books co-authors Sarah Wendell and Candy Tan found the texts using Google Book Search, and have posted 32 side-by-side comparisons of excerpts from Edwards’s books and nonfiction works..”
I’ve emailed Sarah and Candy in the past about books.google.com and as a reader I LOVE it..but if I were an author I’m not sure how I’d feel about it. Seriously, there is a shitload of books you can pretty much read in its entireity (sp).
It’s obviously a powerful research tool!
There’s a lot of pros vs cons to it but
I guess that’d be an entirely different subject to debate entirely!
Meriam said on 01.09.08 at 11:56 PM • [link]
Well, call me naive, but I’m appalled.
Signet’s response is complete and utter bollocks.
“Although it may be common in academic circles to meticulously footnote every source and provide citations or bibliographies, even though not required by copyright law, such a practice is virtually unheard of for a popular novel aimed at the consumer market.”
This just pisses me off. There’s an inference here I don’t like. I think romance readers can handle a footnote or two. I think we can handle acknowledgments where due.
What Cassie Edwards has done is cynical and ethically corrupt. I’m tempted to boycott Signet, at least until my indignation wanes. In the meantime, they can expect a tetchy letter.
Kimberly B. said on 01.09.08 at 11:59 PM • [link]
I see Edwards’ behavior as unethical. Even when her sentences are not identical to those found in her sources, there are “statistically improbable” phrases that occur both places, rendering her paraphrasing too close. If she were one of my students, I’d tell her to set the reference book aside while she wrote so that her words would be her own (and then, because I teach history, “to meticulously footnote every source.”).
DS said on 01.10.08 at 12:01 AM • [link]
This leaves me with a very bad feeling toward Penguin/Signet. Think it’s time to write a letter so they know they have more than one disgruntled book buyer. I would not be surprised if despite this letter there is not a certain amount of scurrying around going on behind the scenes.
--E said on 01.10.08 at 12:02 AM • [link]
Signet—or their representative, at least—is full of shit.
Perhaps you the outraged masses could write to Signet, and inform the PTBs that:
a) some of their readers still have a moral compass
and
b) some of their employees don’t.
The address for Penguin Group (Signet’s parent company) is
375 Hudson Street
New York, NY 10014
And here’s the list of their top executives,
http://us.penguingroup.com/static/html/aboutus/executives.html
some of whom might like to know if people are planning to boycott their company because some yutz employee appears to condone plagiarism. I would say address any letters to the USA officers (Shanks, Kennedy, Laurino) if you’re talking about a USA edition of a book.
It would be very helpful if Jane told us who had sent her that response so that person could be identified in letters of complaint. (Or maybe that’s me getting a little too self-righteous…)
wordver: name52 Well, yes, that’s what I want, thanks.
Ciar Cullen said on 01.10.08 at 12:05 AM • [link]
The “it’s okay because I’m part Cheyenne” it just about the worst to me. What a really bad thing to throw out there as an excuse, honestly. It sounds like something from a Seinfeld episode.
Just a wee acknowledgement, agreed. Maybe it’s a good reminder to us all to cite sources we’ve used for research, if we’ve borrowed heavily from them. I was certainly in the habit from the academic days. The statement that academic plagarisim isn’t actionable—well, you might not get sued, but you’d have a damned hard time getting your degree or tenure.
Ros said on 01.10.08 at 12:10 AM • [link]
I’ve posted a few ‘reviews’ on Amazon.com on some of CE’s most recent books, but I’m afraid I got bored after a while.
Ri L. said on 01.10.08 at 12:11 AM • [link]
Oh hell yes she’s done something wrong. You’d think Signet might have caught on when one of her heroines suddenly starts spouting “Researchers theorize.” Nobody outside of an encyclopedia ever says “researchers theorize.” That break in voice does not constitute a reasonable paraphrase.
That said, burn, woman, burn. You done stole.
Robin said on 01.10.08 at 12:13 AM • [link]
Wow. What an incredibly condescending, supercilious, ass-hatted comment. Dude, that’s what acknowledgments are for. Diana Gabaldon may not footnote everything in her Outlander novels, but dammit, she acknowledges every academic source and bit of assistance she’s received. And in the Outlandish Companion she DID meticulously notate and acknowledge and provide a bibliography.
And yet, even Gabaldon made this incorrect statement yesterday:
That came from this discussion, which contains other erroneous advice and information: http://tinyurl.com/2hcwpb
Emy said on 01.10.08 at 12:13 AM • [link]
There is a difference between researching a topic, and copying it.
SE is perhaps not in violation of copywrite laws, but she has definitely plagarised these works.
That said, I don’t blame Signet for their responce. At this point all they have is evidence provided from a sourse that hardly has teeth. For the moment it is in their best interest to back their author. If they jumped on the accusations as pure fact, they would lose business—not only from Edwards but from future authors who may feel too threatend the publish with them after the insident.
Perhaps the best hope for Edwards to get her just desserts would be to email the evidence to the author’s she stole from. They at least have the legal grounds to take action.
Jenyfer Matthews said on 01.10.08 at 12:31 AM • [link]
Not surprised - but yes, disappointed - by Signet’s response. They are covering their bases. If none of the authors / works that she plagiarized are around to complain and bring legal action to their door, I’m sure they’ll brush it under the rug if they can. $$$ talks.
Wonder if they’ll continue to publish her in the same way though?
JaneyD said on 01.10.08 at 12:35 AM • [link]
Signet—SHAME ON YOU!
You’re going with the money, but the least you can do is respect your customers better than that.
Edwards is a plagiarist. We all know that now. She’s brought shame to herself and your house, but you don’t care so long as someone buys the damn books.
Screw you, Signet. Your books—ALL OF THEM—are on my shiny new boycott list.
Why? You’ve let this plagiarist slide, so what’s the chance there are OTHERS in your stable doing the same thing? I am taking my money elsewhere; I can’t trust you.
Bitches—I take my hat off to you, and keep clanging them-there cow bells. You are goddesses and better, you are Super-Bitches! Yay!
My ethic stance on who I choose to read?
If I EVER found out my absolute FAVORITE writers—writers that I buy the hardbacks as soon as they’re out—did the disgusting thing that Edwards has done, then I would totally stop reading them.
I would feel betrayed. I’d never trust them again.
I shell out money to pay for ORIGINAL words, not pasted-in lines stolen from some hard-working researcher who’s dead and gone and can’t defend himself.
Yo—Edwards—screw you too!
Lifetime Achievement Award, my rosy red a$$. You should give that award to the survivors of the writers you copied from for all these years, you thief.
Jane said on 01.10.08 at 12:38 AM • [link]
Will start selling my Penguin ARCs now because clearly right and wrong is defined by what is legal.
Z said on 01.10.08 at 12:39 AM • [link]
It’s not really acceptable from an ethical standpoint, but it’s not a huge deal either. I’d be more likely to boycott an author who had political views that I consider unsavory than an author who plagiarized. Frankly, I could care less about this, and I suspect that most mainstream readers don’t really care either. I doubt that it will impact her book sales.
Puccagirl73 said on 01.10.08 at 12:40 AM • [link]
No matter what Signet says the “Damage” has been done, you can now Google, Yahoo, and any other search engine about 10 search pages of Cassie Edwards + Plagiarism.
http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&aq=t&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4GZHZ_enUS224US224&q=Cassie+Edwards+and+Plagiarism
http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=Cassie+Edwards+and+Plagiarism&ei=UTF-8&fr=yfp-t-501&xargs=0&pstart=1&b=1
It will probably grow larger as the debate heats up.
Karma’s A Smart Bitch All The Time!
Alexis said on 01.10.08 at 12:41 AM • [link]
I think my issue with Cassie Edwards is less the plagiarism thing (Although that is bad. Very, very bad), but simply I find her a completely uninspired author. I love romance novels, love the genre, but I really struggle with the huge amount of crap for sale at the bookstore. And, in my opinion, I simply do not believe that Edwards should have been published. Hell, I’ll go ahead and commend her for making the effort to at least do research, but I felt her research was clumsily included into her text- and yes, it looks like it was a cut and paste and potentially she should have given credit. But as I look though my romance novels, not one includes a list of sources used to research the novel. Why should Edwards have been expected to do so?
What makes me mad is simply that I feel like Romance Publishers, based on what is being printed, assume that readers of the genre are silly and stupid; that we will accept anything as long as there is a good looking hero and some steamy sex. Interesting Plot? Well-developed characters? Smart dialogue? Those seem to be completely ignored. I feel like the onus here should be on the publishers to realize that the women (and men) reading romance are smart and publish more authors who are actually skilled at writing the genre. Perhaps the onus is also on us as readers to not buy the crap. But Burn, Edwards Burn? A little harsh.
Barb Ferrer said on 01.10.08 at 12:43 AM • [link]
Robin, perhaps I’m missing something—it is my understanding you can freely use material that’s out of copyright. Ethically, to lift it wholesale is of course, beyond wrong, but that there wouldn’t be legal ramifications for it. Correct me if I’m wrong?
Robin said on 01.10.08 at 12:45 AM • [link]
Will start selling my Penguin ARCs now because clearly right and wrong is defined by what is legal.
But again, how can Signet even make a claim that what Edwards has done IS legal?
This statement, IMO, is not what I expected Signet to say, even though I expected a pretty aggressive CYA. IMO this goes much farther. I believe it to be unwise, both from a position of accuracy and public relations. Had I been advising them, I would never have let this kind of statement be issued, because IMO it’s going to accomplish the exact opposite of its intent, which violates the rules as outlines in Spin Control 101.
Unhappy Bitch said on 01.10.08 at 12:49 AM • [link]
I CALL SHENANIGANS.
Probably the publishers et al are trying to cover their respective behinds. They may simply be trying to find a quiet way of shuffling Edwards to the back burner and keep her out of the news. What she did was dishonest and motivated by greed. We are not amused.
Robin said on 01.10.08 at 12:50 AM • [link]
Robin, perhaps I’m missing something—it is my understanding you can freely use material that’s out of copyright. Ethically, to lift it wholesale is of course, beyond wrong, but that there wouldn’t be legal ramifications for it. Correct me if I’m wrong?
It’s the last sentence in the post that I’m referring to, because it conflates plagiarism and copyright. What’s legal through copyright protection splits from what’s plagiarism in the public domain. So, for example, if a student submitted a paper copied from a source in the public domain, it would still be plagiarism, even if it’s not copyright infringement. And if an author submitted to a publisher a book comprised largely of verbatim text from Jane Eyre, for example, it would be plagiarism, even if not copyright infringement. Make sense?
PattiR said on 01.10.08 at 12:52 AM • [link]
Not sure if anyone else posted this or not, but this issue has already been noted on Wikipedia.
Ding Dang, that was fast!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cassie_Edwards
Sara said on 01.10.08 at 12:52 AM • [link]
I’m shocked that Signet didn’t at least say, “We believe she did nothing wrong, but we’ll look into it.” Given the immensity of her backlist, their immediate dismissal of all claims of wrongdoing smacks of a blow-off. Defend her if you have to, but at least say you’re looking into it, jerks.
Jane said on 01.10.08 at 12:52 AM • [link]
Said a different way, if I copy Adios to My Old Life and sold it on the street with your name on it, I would be committing plagiarism because it has the correct attribution but I would be committing copyright infringement.
Jane said on 01.10.08 at 12:53 AM • [link]
Would NO be committing plagiarism. Sorry.
Randi said on 01.10.08 at 12:54 AM • [link]
I’ve been following this thread since it started and have traveled to other sites to get differing opinions. Here’s my stance:
1) Some sites are stating that Sarah and Candy have been deriding CE personally, during this issue and in prior postings; and that this personal diatribe against CE invalidates any truth to the plagerism.
a) Sarah and Candy have, on multiple occassions, stipulated that they in NO WAY consider CE a bad person because she writes pulp romances with funny looking covers (and we all know authors have nothing to do with the covers anyway). Sarah and Candy, in fact, have mentioned, repeatedly, they do not subscribe to personal attacks on authors-just the writing and covers (if appropriate). Ergo, for those other bloggers/sites who are refusing to come here any more, I say, try reading Sarah and Candy’s comments again. S & C cannot be held responsible for those of us who do get a mite personal.
2) S & C, among others, have clearly documented aforementioned plagerization (is that a word?) so well that I think it’s a moot point now. But what I find interesting is the level of academic and intellectual conversation occurring here, and on other sites, about this issue. It’s incredibly high and I say that not just on this topic, but on most other topics covered here. For all the snark (which is pointed at WRITING and COVERS, not AUTHORS personally), this is a highly academic site.
3) While I do not condone the massive bad review idea mentioned above, especially if reviewers aren’t going to read the books, CE does need to know that her readers are not hacks and that there exists significant disapproval of her plagerizing.
I don’t have any personal bias on CE one way or the other. I haven’t read a book of hers since the late 1980’s because I had a problem with her noble savage line. I don’t know anything about her persoally. But this issue isn’t about her as a mother, a grandmother, a friend, a wife, a daugther, etc. It’s about her writing ethics, or lack of them. Which, of course, is distasteful.
MplsGirl said on 01.10.08 at 12:59 AM • [link]
Wouldn’t boycotting Signet include Nora’s books? Nu-uh, sorry, not gonna do it.
Sara said on 01.10.08 at 01:00 AM • [link]
Oh yeah, and I’m afraid that bad-review-bombing Amazon and other sites smacks of bullying and pettiness, unless it’s being done to actually review a book that you’ve actually read. Just my opinion, which people are welcome to ignore, of course.
I’d just hate for SB critics to be proved right in any way.
zookeeper said on 01.10.08 at 01:05 AM • [link]
Ms. Edwards may not have done anything illegal (yet to be seen), but she certainly did something “wrong.”
If I had copied words as closely as she did off of a friend’s essay in elementary school, I would have failed the paper and possibly been sent to the principal’s office. As far as I know none of my friends ever held a copyright on their essays, but it was still considered cheating and therefore wrong to copy off of someone else.
Evidently the concepts of right and wrong that even 1st graders know are beyond the abilities and undertanding of Penguin and their authors.
I will remember that as I shop for books in future.
Anna said on 01.10.08 at 01:06 AM • [link]
Looks like a typical initial response to me. As I said in a comment on a previous entry, something doesn’t have to be illegal to be morally bankrupt.
Most of these examples weren’t even decently paraphrased. That usually implies to me that the “author” at least went to a thesaurus to change some of the words. She just trimmed a little around the edges.
As for Ms. Edwards’ being part Cheyenne, I’m part Choctaw and you don’t see me rushing to read stories about noble savages falling for white women. The idea of Native Americans being all noble and misunderstood is as offensive as them always being the bad guys. The fact that we were here first or our skin is a different color doesn’t make us less flawed as individuals or as a society. How about writing stories where everyone is a human being instead?
Nora Roberts said on 01.10.08 at 01:11 AM • [link]
~Evidently the concepts of right and wrong that even 1st graders know are beyond the abilities and undertanding of Penguin and their authors.~
Please don’t scoop all authors up in the same bucket. This is ONE author under discussion, not everyone who writes for Signet, or indeed who writes for any imprint of Penguin.
Louisa said on 01.10.08 at 01:12 AM • [link]
I never heard of Cassie Edwards before all this flap.
I never heard of Harry Potter till the fundamentalists condemned it.
Once I read the first HP, I loved it.
Off to buy an armload of Cassie Edwards’ books.
Thanks for the heads up.
rebyj said on 01.10.08 at 01:16 AM • [link]
I saw the wiki addition, it wasn’t there yesterday!
I see there isnt a wiki page for the bitches yet, anyone a wiki contributor?
MplsGirl said on 01.10.08 at 01:16 AM • [link]
I think if the SBs start inappropriately reviewing CE’s books *without reading them* then many of the things others are accusing the community of doing—maliciously going after CE—start to become true.
Right now CE is accused of unfairly stealing words from other authors. She hasn’t hurt any of us personally; well, unless someone is a fan of her work and feels let down. Let’s not cross an ethical line, too.
veri word: truth38. Seems appropriate . . .
rebyj said on 01.10.08 at 01:17 AM • [link]
grr can’t edit..
anyway the wiki article says
“a blog”
instead of naming “THE” blog lol
Ros said on 01.10.08 at 01:18 AM • [link]
Louisa, before you spend your money, why not check out some of Ms. Edwards writing for free? I believe you can find a lot of it on Google books.
Barb Ferrer said on 01.10.08 at 01:18 AM • [link]
It’s the last sentence in the post that I’m referring to, because it conflates plagiarism and copyright.
D’uh, yes, of course. I went back and re-read the final line of that post and I see what you were referring to.
This is why reading+posting+helping with fifth grade math homework adds up to a bad combination.
Ros said on 01.10.08 at 01:20 AM • [link]
Wikipedia won’t link to ‘original sources’. That’s why the link is to the Publishers’ Weekly article since PW falls under Wikipedia’s definition of ‘reliable sources’.
Jill Sorenson said on 01.10.08 at 01:26 AM • [link]
I’m not going to weigh in on the ethical debate but I’d like to add to a comment I made earlier. Saying the postings had a witch hunt tone was inaccurate. That would imply Edwards has done nothing wrong, the SB bloggers are an angry mob, and that Candy had an insidious agenda. None of this is true. I know Candy is a law student and perhaps I misinterpreted her excitement over a discovery with such intense legal and ethical ramifications as malicious glee.
Still not a fan of Edwards (I’ve never read one of her books because the titles offend me), still not a fan of hating on her, or anyone.
Katie W. said on 01.10.08 at 01:32 AM • [link]
Wow. That’s all I can manage to say. Although it’d be great if someone sent the AP a press release about Signet condoning plagiarism.
I know I shouldn’t be appalled but I am truly appalled by Signet’s response.
azteclady said on 01.10.08 at 01:34 AM • [link]
Damn.
All that class and logic is rubbing off on me.
Which translates into: not going to amazon to “review” CE’s books with links to the plagiarism discussions here and at DA. :sigh:
I’ll still write to Signet about it, and I’ll still talk about this*** in every online and real life forum/situation I can.
***This as in: both the CE plagiarism, and plagiarism in general, and why it IS a BFD, dammit.
Katie W. said on 01.10.08 at 01:38 AM • [link]
At least Louisa’s comment gave me a good laugh. Hope she enjoys her stack of Cassie Edwards books.
(And great response, Ros. Also made me laugh.)
I still say that we should contact the authors/pubs of the works from which Edwards stole. Even if they don’t have a criminal case, couldn’t they still sue in civil court?
Barb Ferrer said on 01.10.08 at 01:40 AM • [link]
Please don’t scoop all authors up in the same bucket. This is ONE author under discussion, not everyone who writes for Signet, or indeed who writes for any imprint of Penguin.
Yes, please, *says the new Penguin author…*
Kalen Hughes said on 01.10.08 at 01:41 AM • [link]
Define “use” . . . not to be flip, but you’re sort of making a fruit salad here of the apples and oranges of the issue. One can violate copyright without committing plagiarism, just as one can commit plagiarism without violating copyright. Certainly the legal ramifications of violating copyright are usually of more concern to most than the ramifications of committing plagiarism (which are usually limited to loss of reputation, and possibly work/job/contract/grant/etc.).
More specifically, it’s entirely ok to quote, spin off of, rif on, play with, retell, revisit, works that are out of copyright. Hence all the Jane Austen “sequels†clogging up the shelves right now. Hence Tom Stoppard’s brilliant Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead. Hence The Wide Sargasso Sea.
What’s NOT ok is to pass off any of the original works as your own, or to quote them in such a way that it is not obvious that quoting is taking place (as CE has done). This, we call plagiarism. And even if there is no copyright holder to sue for damages (and we’re not yet sure there isn’t), and thus no legal ramifications for the author, it is still an ethical violation.
Perhaps the only loss CE will suffer is the loss of face/reputation. If a copyright holder is found who takes offence she and Signet could be sued. If Signet gets too much egg on their face over this, they might pull her books or cancel her contract. That is pretty much all that can happen. It’s up to her publisher to do the “right†thing at this point, and clearly we can’t count on that.
zookeeper said on 01.10.08 at 01:49 AM • [link]
I’m sorry for lumping Penguin authors in with the company as a whole; I misspoke and would have, I hope, caught myself once I actually thought about it. I’m sure that most authors out there (Penguin or not) would never consider doing such a thing.
I also hope that this is a case of one employee’s opinion being allowed to speak for the entire publishing house, but I’m not holding my breath.
Gemma said on 01.10.08 at 01:54 AM • [link]
The “it’s okay because I’m part Cheyenne” it just about the worst to me. What a really bad thing to throw out there as an excuse, honestly.
Totally lame. Presumably she can switch it round to say “it’s okay because I’m part American” if she’s upset (read: plagiarized) any non-Cheyenne Americans.
What really bugs me about this is how LAZY this is. Readers really do appreciate research. But they also appreciate writers who can write.
I think we should all have a go at using these sources to inform some decent prose. [Some stupid prose follows.]
How about: “What did you say was for lunch? Braided intestines? Not again!”
Or. “I just saw a Buffalo with some sunflowers caught on its horns. I shit you not.”
TracyS said on 01.10.08 at 01:57 AM • [link]
“Wouldn’t boycotting Signet include Nora’s books? Nu-uh, sorry, not gonna do it.”
Boycotting the whole publisher only hurts authors that have nothing to do with this. It’s not Author X’s fault that Author Y plagiarized something, so Author X should not loose sales because of it.
I have no problem with boycotting the AUTHOR that did the plagiarizing, but not the whole publisher.
Just my opinion.
Meredith said on 01.10.08 at 02:03 AM • [link]
People here have mentioned that they feel bad for the authors who were plagiarized, but now that the tide is turning to talk of boycotting Signet, I find myself feeling horrible for all the *other* authors published by Signet, the folks who didn’t plagiarize and wrote original works and now see their audience potentially diminished by this fiasco. It seems unjust to me that they should have to suffer for CE’s sins and the company’s inappropriate response.
Just a thought…
Marta Acosta said on 01.10.08 at 02:10 AM • [link]
<
>
Well, I didn’t want to say anything. But I was walking my teacup poodle, Fifi, downtown and a woman with an armful of anthropology books about Indian tribes came stumbling out of the library, got into her Cadillac El Dorado, hit the gas, jumped the curb and RAN OVER MY DOG!!
I didn’t catch her license plate, but she had a bumper sticker that said, “Eat My Savage Dust!” and another that said, “Grass, Gas, or Savage Ass! Everyone’s gotta pay!”
Robin said on 01.10.08 at 02:22 AM • [link]
I also hope that this is a case of one employee’s opinion being allowed to speak for the entire publishing house, but I’m not holding my breath.
This email was delivered explicitly as “Signet’s official statement.”
MplsGirl said on 01.10.08 at 02:25 AM • [link]
Marta Acosta, I just spit out a mouthful of tea and am laughing my ass off . . . wait . . . Eff! I got tea spots all over my skirt and I have to go straight to my kid’s music class tonight. Damn you! (said in all good humor)
veri word: hell85. which is what I’m mumbling at this very moment.
Amelia "Fuckheady Bitchipants" Elias said on 01.10.08 at 02:28 AM • [link]
LMAO @ “I just saw a buffalo with some sunflowers caught on its horns—I shit you not.” Now that? Is brilliant prose.
I don’t feel like I can add anything new to this discussion at this point. Scatter-bombing CE books with bad reviews on Amazon is tempting, but wrong. Boycotting all Signet authors isn’t the slightest bit fair, even if it would hurt Signet the most. As an author, I’d hate to be slammed into a big crap bag because someone I don’t even know is an asshat, so I won’t do that to others.
And am enjoying the very few trolls coming in. Wish there were more.
Bev Stephans said on 01.10.08 at 02:30 AM • [link]
I have posted some of this at Dear Author today, but wanted to share with the SB’s.
The Penguin Group is an enormous publishing house with at least 23 lines under their aegis. If they are going to acquire this many they should be prepared to police them. Plagiarism is a serious offence and shouldn’t be tolerated. Penguin should come down hard on Signet, but I’m not going to hold my breath waiting for it to happen.
High-profile authors writing for the group should let Penguin know that they won’t tolerate plagiarism in any form. If the authors make no effort to stop this nonsense, then I don’t feel obligated to buy books from The Penguin Group!
Barb Ferrer said on 01.10.08 at 02:35 AM • [link]
Define “use†. . . not to be flip, but you’re sort of making a fruit salad here of the apples and oranges of the issue.
Preachin’ to the choir. I was speaking in a strictly general sense of the words and I’ve already said more or less what you did in your post—in this specific instance, however, I was referring to the Gabaldon quote that Robin was citing and asking her to clarify what she meant.
Then going back and re-reading because my brain was obviously clouded with fifth-grade math and I’d misread the final sentence. *g*
Look, stated baldly, for me, personally, whether or not copyright has expired or not, it’s absolutely wrong to use a source and not cite it. Case in point? My next book is a contemporary reinterpretation of Carmen—which has its origins in an 1845 Prosper Mérimée novella. And you can betcha that even though my story has only the merest hint of resemblance to the original, I’ll be citing Msr. Mérimée and Georges Bizet as well, since my editor’s actual inspiration for the idea was the opera.
Do I have to? No. Do I, personally, have to? Absolutely.
Does that make sense?
Josie said on 01.10.08 at 02:39 AM • [link]
LOL Marta Acosta! That cracked me up.
I haven’t got much more to add to the above comments other than to also voice my disappointment at the publishers response.
I wont be boycotting Signet but I will be writing them a letter expressing my outrage that they believe CTRL+C / CTRL+V equals “original, creative works”. Bah.
Wry Hag said on 01.10.08 at 02:40 AM • [link]
Well, I’ll tell ya… I wanted to go straight to the source, Cassie Edwards herself, and ask for her take on this situation. It seemed like the logical thing to do and would’ve made for a great interview, to boot. (I’m a big believer in bypassing crap alley and going straight to the crib. Yo.)
However, “You can
NOT
reach Cassie Edwards by email.” Thus spake her fan club site. (They didn’t give no address or phone number, neither—skanks.)
I find it odd that an author would choose to so insulate herself. My curiosity, it runneth over.
Nora Roberts said on 01.10.08 at 02:56 AM • [link]
~If the authors make no effort to stop this nonsense, then I don’t feel obligated to buy books from The Penguin Group!~
What more, exactly, would you expect authors to do? I’ve certainly come out, again and again, against plagiarism and infringement. I made a very public stand on it years ago, and haven’t backed down since. I know many other writers who have protested and expressed their strong opinions against plagiarism.
Why is one writer’s actions, and the response from her publisher the tar on the brush that paints all of us?
We are not responsible. We are not The Borg.
MplsGirl said on 01.10.08 at 03:07 AM • [link]
I agree with Nora on this:
“Why is one writer’s actions, and the response from her publisher the tar on the brush that paints all of us? We are not responsible.”
Let’s be clear that it’s not “authors” being discussed, it’s one author. One writer is accused of plagiarism.
Don’t buy that writer’s books. Write to her publisher and complain that you’re unhappy with their response to the situation. But don’t penalize other authors for one person’s errors.
ardith said on 01.10.08 at 03:08 AM • [link]
I had a report about pandas to do once. I went to the library and took out an encyclopedia and copied the whole entry.
My teacher took me aside and told me that was plagiarism and bad. She gave me a bad grade.
I told her that I didn’t know and would fix it.
But I was 7 years old, in the 1st grade, and doing my first real report. (And to tell you the truth, she didn’t really explain that I should get information and put it into my own words…) I was forever imprinted against plagiarism. Even thinking of it causes an acidic taste of embarrassment and anger.
It’s understandable that a child might mistakenly commit plagiarism. She is an adult and has published dozens of novels.
I read one of her books when I was a teen. Since I never read another, it must have been unimpressive. And I never have read Janet Daily books and never will.
In an age where copy and paste is a button away, we need to have standards. I’m glad that this information has come to life. It isn’t hard to use historical information in your books AND to source it.
Other romance novel authors HAVE done so. Susan Johnson, Jo Beverley, and Karen Marie Morning all give their sources. Signet’s reply is not good enough.
michelle said on 01.10.08 at 03:10 AM • [link]
“Resistance is futile”
Sorry couldn’t resist-loved the Borg comment.
Karen Ranney said on 01.10.08 at 03:18 AM • [link]
First of all, I’ve become Nora Roberts’ adoring slave and I’m too indolent to be a slave and roll my eyes too much to be adoring. The woman, however, is a font of wisdom and sense wrapped up with the best in pithy comments.
Secondly, the Signet letter begins with the plagiarism issue and ends with the copyright infringement issue. It seems carefully parsed. They don’t actually address plagiarism - only speak to copyright infringement.
willa said on 01.10.08 at 03:25 AM • [link]
I find the arguments about boycotting Signet vs. just boycotting CE very interesting, since we’re going through a very big strike in another industry—the Writer’s strike, natch. Actors and actresses and so forth are supporting the strike even though it’s hurting business. How far are people here willing to go for a boycott concerning morals and ethics? Totally different situations, some could argue, but there are enough similarities for me to be intrigued by people’s responses.
...This sounds kind of like guilt-tripping on my part, really, which no one should take it as. I doubt a boycott would be all that effective anyway.
karibelle said on 01.10.08 at 03:33 AM • [link]
There really isn’t anything I can add that has not already been said, but I do want to cast my vote against plagiarism. I do not care if Ms. Edwards’ broke the law or not, she did a really shitty thing and the least she deserves is a tarnished reputation. I will loose no sleep over her treatment here. Two days ago I considered Cassie Edwards a bad writer. Today I consider her a bad person.
karibelle said on 01.10.08 at 03:37 AM • [link]
Well, Willa. I guess only boycotting CE just feels like a pretty empty gesture since most of us wouldn’t have bought any of her books anyway.
Nora Roberts said on 01.10.08 at 03:43 AM • [link]
~Totally different situations, some could argue~
Because they are entire different situations. The writer’s union opted to strike in order to fight for issues they deemed important. It’s not a boycott, it’s a union strike, and those supporting it by not crossing picket lines aren’t boycotting anything. They’re not punishing innocent bystanders, but respecting union rules and regulations.
Author X is not part of a union, has no vote. She is not able to do more than express her opinion on this issue. Boycotting her publisher, punishing her because another author crossed a line—and their mutual publisher supports the other author (at this time) strikes me as monumentally unfair and shortsighted.
If one feels strongly enough, one boycotts the offender’s work. Not that of someone who just happens to be published under the same imprint.
willa said on 01.10.08 at 03:47 AM • [link]
A lot of people who are being hurt by that strike still support that strike because they think it’s the right thing to do. That’s the angle I was going for—if authors are unwilling to lose sales for a moral or ethical cause, then that’s that.
Is this even a good tangent to go on? It seems kind of derailing.
barano said on 01.10.08 at 03:52 AM • [link]
Well, I can’t say I’m surprised by Signet’s answer. After all, as a company, their only concern is copyright and possible lawsuits, not ethics. After all, CE has violated no actual law, only the unwritten law of “do not pass other people’s work as your own,” but that’s not here nor there in Signet’s eyes. She’s done nothing that’s actually illegal, so she can’t be blamed for anything in Signet’s (and sadly, many people’s) eyes.
Which is, in my opinion, an incredibly sad state of affairs.
Nora Roberts said on 01.10.08 at 03:54 AM • [link]
If you want to have a voice in this, you write to Signet. Calm, reasoned, detailed letters regarding why you are unhappy/outraged/confused/disappointed.
This is action, and expression, and a publisher will pay attention to reader letters. If you’re upset, let the publisher know, clearly, why—and how you intend, as a reader, to deal with your upset.
E. Ann Bardawill said on 01.10.08 at 03:56 AM • [link]
I so have to share this with you guys.
When I mosied over to Cassie’s website to see if theri was any response to the scandal here and surfed around, and clicked on the titles of her upcoming books.
She’s releasing a Dreamcatcher book in 2009 entitled…
wait for it…
‘Stolen Thunder’.
BAHAHAHAHAAAAAAA!!!!
spinsterwitch said on 01.10.08 at 03:57 AM • [link]
I know that there is no “code of ethics” that is handed out to writers (as there is to social workers-my profession), but I do remember Mrs. Scully lecturing me in 5th grade about the importance of not copying an essay out on Ghengis Khan out of the encyclopedia and trying to hand it in as my essay. This is not an easy thing for me to forget.
Did CE skip 5th grade?
Ros said on 01.10.08 at 04:05 AM • [link]
Nora, I would love to write them a letter but I can’t find contact details for Signet anywhere. Does anyone have the name/address one should use to contact them?
rebyj said on 01.10.08 at 04:12 AM • [link]
E.Ann..
Stolen Thunder for reals?
LMAO that has to be the FUNNIEST thing I’ve read in DAYS.
Manon said on 01.10.08 at 04:16 AM • [link]
E. Ann Bardawill: OH MY LORD.
*on floor*
As for the post, well. Clearly this is some new definition of “nothing wrong” with which I was previously unacquainted. As they say.
azteclady said on 01.10.08 at 04:43 AM • [link]
karibelle said,
Exactly. I’m going to continue doing what I’ve been doing all along—what’re the consequences to CE for her theft?
Which is why I’m writing a post on the topic for the online forums I belong to, and will continue naming names—along with their sins—to all the people I know.
spamfoiler: stop45—yup, lets stop’em!
Amelia "Fuckheady Bitchipants" Elias said on 01.10.08 at 05:03 AM • [link]
A lot of people who are being hurt by that strike still support that strike because they think it’s the right thing to do. That’s the angle I was going for—if authors are unwilling to lose sales for a moral or ethical cause, then that’s that.
Well, I wouldn’t agree that this is the right direction to take this. Those who are supporting the writers’ strike are those whose livelihoods are directly affected by those writers. Is Author X’s livelihood directly affected by Cassie Edwards? No.
This isn’t really very similar at all to the writers’ strike. They’re fighting unfair (in their opinion) labor practices and pay scales, and The MAN (aka big Hollywood studio execs) is against them. Therefore, they use their only method of putting pressure upon said MAN—they withhold their work until the MAN cries uncle. Each one of them will feel the outcome in their bank accounts. Other Signet/Penguin authors aren’t in the same we-all-sink-or-float boat.
I’m not published by Signet or any other Penguin imprint, but if I were, I wouldn’t be willing to lose money that (as Dub-Ya says) puts food on my family, just because one author who happens to write for the same house has behaved unethically.
Randi said on 01.10.08 at 05:22 AM • [link]
So, there I am reading Eileen Wilks’ new book, ‘Night Season’ and lo! On page 110 is a footnote. While what she wrote wasn’t a ver batim copy of someone else’s work, it is still an ‘academic’ moment in fiction. I just thought that was interesting as Signet mentioned that this type of thing was unheard of (though plenty of people have listed examples contradicting Signet).
word: bring98. That’s right, bring 98 more examples.
fiveandfour said on 01.10.08 at 05:30 AM • [link]
Ros, per—E upthread:
***
The address for Penguin Group (Signet’s parent company) is
375 Hudson Street
New York, NY 10014
And here’s the list of their top executives,
http://us.penguingroup.com/static/html/aboutus/executives.html
***
Write early and write often, I say.
RfP said on 01.10.08 at 07:10 AM • [link]
But again, how can Signet even make a claim that what Edwards has done IS legal?
This statement, IMO, is not what I expected Signet to say, even though I expected a pretty aggressive CYA. IMO this goes much farther. I believe it to be unwise, both from a position of accuracy and public relations. Had I been advising them, I would never have let this kind of statement be issued, because IMO it’s going to accomplish the exact opposite of its intent, which violates the rules as outlines in Spin Control 101.
Why so surprised? I think Signet’s played it exactly right in terms of damage control. They understand how publicity works. Most of the world will never hear of this. Of those who do, most will only see the initial article(s) quoting Signet’s response—which cites fair use and points out the difference between academic and fiction writing. Those responses will be persuasive to many who read the article.
Signet’s a business. They have to CYA and manage press—otherwise they’d be doing poorly by their other authors. They obviously realized they needed an immediate response for the press, but I bet someone behind the scenes is evaluating the book passages quoted here, checking on copyright dates, and looking for an academic opinion or three on fair use in fiction.
If that’s so, should they have said up front “We will look into it”? Maybe yes, maybe no. If someone accused Nora Roberts (sorry, it IS awfully easy to pick on the beloved big names, isn’t it), there would be a lot of anger at Signet for not standing by their author. Given the “I’m going to the press!” statements posted here, Signet was smart to respond quickly without admitting any wrongdoing. If nothing else, they bought themselves time. There’s an innocuous quote out there for the first wave of press, and if they’re smart they’re doing their research now in case the questions get tougher.
This doesn’t mean I support some conspiracy to suppress discourse on plagiarism. All I’m saying is, given the speed of the response, I didn’t expect Signet to say anything other than what they did.
zaza said on 01.10.08 at 07:18 AM • [link]
Admittedly, I haven’t waded through all these comments, so pardon if I’ve got the wrong end of the stick.
It appears someone has suggested that other authors pubbed by Signet should boycott Signet or somehow or other go on strike against them, comparing it to the Hollywood/television writers strike. There’s a big difference in those (Hollywood) writers and novelists - those writers are in a union. When they strike, they’re jobs remain secure. Their strike is sanctioned. If writers of books tried that, their publishing houses would just sign other writers. There would be no negotiations, and their jobs would have disappeared the day they tried that on. Totally different.
Aside from any legal or ethical considerations, how crap of a writer do you have to be to not even bother to make a stab at paraphrasing? Putting something in quotes and breaking a kyped paragraph with a bit of action, like “he paused to pick the nit he saw running up her bodice” before continuing with the verbatim “quotation” doesn’t count.
lexie said on 01.10.08 at 07:22 AM • [link]
Sorry signet! (truly and not sarcastically sorry to Nora, Jennifer Crusie and Barb) I’m just not going to pay money to any entity with such convenenient ethics. Rather than purchase, I’m heading to the libary for AGNES AND THE HIT MAN and all future Nora Roberts books and signet books.
Robin said on 01.10.08 at 07:34 AM • [link]
think Signet’s played it exactly right in terms of damage control.
See, I think the AP article put the statement’s integrity in jeopardy. Even Cassie Edwards’s statement stands in a kind of macabre opposition, IMO, let alone the comment by the “plagiarism expert.” And wow (in a good way) on the AP even picking up the story and giving it as much attention as it did.
Spam word: truth91
Spot said on 01.10.08 at 08:21 AM • [link]
I’m new to this blog, having found it after reading an article about Cassie Edward’s plagiarism. I’m not an expert on copyright law but I am a librarian so probably know more than most. I have no idea what Signet is talking about or where they’re getting their information. From what I can see, Edwards definitely, without a doubt, plagiarized. If you lift the exact phrasing from one text, insert it into your own work, and then fail to cite it, it’s plagiarism. College Freshmen learn that in their beginning writing classes.
RfP said on 01.10.08 at 08:27 AM • [link]
See, I think the AP article put the statement’s integrity in jeopardy.
In hindsight, sure, but when Signet responded, they didn’t know exactly what articles might come out or who they might quote. So they were smart to get something neutral-sounding out there ahead of time. It worked to some extent—the PW article isn’t bad at all, given how ugly it could have been.
Even the AP article isn’t as bad as it could have been. The first sentence sounds damning, but Signet’s response gave Edwards the line “When you write historical romances, you’re not asked to do that†and she’s running with it. A lot of people aren’t into detail—they’ll read just far enough to see whether she has a response and whether anyone stands by her.
I think to most of the public, the “plagiarism expert” is the most damning thing in the AP article. No comparison of texts or sweet words from the publisher can fix the impression that “an expert said….”
talpianna said on 01.10.08 at 09:14 AM • [link]
Although it may be common in academic circles to meticulously footnote every source and provide citations or bibliographies, even though not required by copyright law, such a practice is virtually unheard of for a popular novel aimed at the consumer market.
The Miskatonic University (should that be footnoted?) site about footnotes deals mainly with footnotes that are part of the fiction, or interpolated into older books by later editors, rather than the sort of thing we’re looking at with Edwards. In Book: A Novel by Robert Grudin, the footnotes actually rebel against the text in open warfare!
I think the proper procedure for a historical novelist would be to put the cited material in either a foreword or an afterword. Georgette Heyer’s two non-romance historicals about the Napoleonic Wars, The Spanish Bride and An Infamous Army, have pages of documentation at the end, IIRC; and John Dickson Carr’s historical mysteries usually have an afterword dealing with the period and citing references consulted. And authors who change facts for the sake of the story (such as giving a character a Siamese cat long before the breed was introduced into England) usually add a note somewhere to point out that they are doing so.
Remember this? (from Wiki): In 1987, Joe Biden ran as a Democratic presidential candidate. When the campaign began, he was considered a frontrunner because of his moderate image. However, the campaign ended when he was accused of plagiarizing a speech by Neil Kinnock, then-leader of the British Labour Party. Though Biden had correctly credited the original author in all speeches but one, the one where he failed to make mention of the originator was caught on video. In the video Biden is filmed repeating a stump speech by Kinnock, with only minor modifications.
How ironic! Politicians are more moral than publishers when it comes to punishing plagiarism!
Plagiarism is actually a fairly recent concept, as “imitation” of other writers, as well as reality, was something to be striven for before the Romantic Era made originality a virtue. One always claimed to be following an ancient source, with no concept of distinguishing between his work and one’s own. In fact, if one didn’t have an ancient source, one invented one, like Chaucer’s “mine auctour Lollius,” whom he made up to conceal the fact that he was swiping Troilus and Criseyde from a much more recent author, Boccaccio. And one Old Norse poet was actually known as Eyvind the Plagiarist (Eyvind Skaldspillar). Most of Shakespeare’s plots were swiped from other works; and some of Antony and Cleopatra was lifted word for word from North’s translation of Plutarch.
Barb Ferrer: About the Carmen reinterpretation: I’m not sure you DO have to mention it—or at least, do it in a postscript. The delight of discovering for oneself that such things are going on—like noting that Sharyn McCrumb’s St. Dale, about a bus trip to raceways made famous by Dale Earnhardt, is based on The Canterbury Tales. Or you could name characters Prosper or Mary May or Georges or Beezy, as McCrumb named characters Franklin and Miller.
As for contacting CE directly, she has a MySpace page; there’s a link to it on her website.
Why doesn’t somebody write a “Savage” romance about ME? It was my mother’s maiden name….
Kendra said on 01.10.08 at 10:27 AM • [link]
Boycotting a publisher…
How can I trust the publisher either? They are supposed to deliver a quality product to me.
When I pick up a book at Walmart or Borders, I trust that the publisher has done their job.
Will I stop buying from Penguin/Signet? No.. I love to many of their authors (Berkly). But now I will look to see who the publisher is. I might not buy it on release week or might wait and check the books out from the library.
My 7.99 may not mean much, but a lot of readers may feel the same way.
This is ugly for everyone. CE, Penguin/Signet and us the readers. Most especially readers.
Savage Paraphrasitionist said on 01.10.08 at 11:03 AM • [link]
To the lady who suggested we all get lives: I will if you promise to get a dictionary and look up “paraphrase”. It doesn’t mean what you think it does!
Yes, I would gladly stop buying CE books in protest; unfortunately, that would require me to begin by actually buying CE books, so I could, you know, stop. Besides defeating the purpose, that would make little baby Jesus (who Himself never plagarized) cry.
zaza said on 01.10.08 at 11:13 AM • [link]
“Why doesn’t somebody write a “Savage” romance about ME? It was my
mother’s maiden name….”
Shame on you, Tal. Jenny Crusie already has. I know you’ve read “Getting Rid of Bradley” with Lucy Savage (Porter) as the heroine. /;+)
DS said on 01.10.08 at 03:12 PM • [link]
Boycott the publisher? No, but I’m certainly going to have an unpleasant feeling when browsing books in the future and run into Signet/Penguin.
Appreciate the address. I think that a letter carries more gravitas than an email.
Stephanie T. said on 01.10.08 at 06:19 PM • [link]
How nice that Signet is covering their asses without stopping to consider the larger issues.
Like the kind of message this sends to students in college right now where the professors are fighting a tidal wave of plagiarism from a generation that’s been brought up to believe they are entitled to take anything they want, especially if it lets them avoid doing actual work or critical thinking.
Jesus Wept indeed.
liz said on 01.10.08 at 08:37 PM • [link]
” I’m heading to the libary for AGNES AND THE HIT MAN and all future Nora Roberts books and signet books.”
Lexie - what’s your problem with buying Nora Roberts? She’s come out consistently against copying other’s work. Why are you lumping her in with signet, et al? That seems unfair.
Robin said on 01.10.08 at 09:19 PM • [link]
In hindsight, sure, but when Signet responded, they didn’t know exactly what articles might come out or who they might quote.
Which is why true spin artists (and I’m certainly not including myself in that group) are so sought-after. There is an incredible talent in being able to anticipate and pre-empt what others will write, and I often admire great spin, even in the midst of being horrified by a particular issue. In this case, I just think it is bad spin (I’ll restrain my obsessive impulse to go through the statement line by line and explain why I think that), and I wouldn’t be at all surprised if it comes back to haunt them at some point. JMO.
anonymous1111111 said on 01.10.08 at 10:57 PM • [link]
I am really interested in anyone’s addressing talpiana’s points.
I agree with everyone else, but I was wondering whether anyone would boycott Shakespeare for plagiarism, or if the morality is considered different because of the context of time and tradition between then and now.
Suze said on 01.11.08 at 03:05 AM • [link]
I a reader who will read almost anything and a technical writer who writes stuff NO ONE ever reads. But I know what I have written and what I have not written. In fiction, it is insanely easy to list credits, sources, references, influences, and just anyone who had anything to do with ideas. A simple one line shout out - and none of this would have happened.
I am reminded of the Jessica Seinfeld mess with the veggies snuck into kids food. This is NOT a new idea - my parents and grandparents have been doing that for generations. Seinfeld acknowledges this ‘tradition’ and gets on with the recipes!
Nei said on 01.11.08 at 09:53 AM • [link]
I’ve been able to only scan through the posts, but I feel like an important point is being missed. When you write fiction—I stress fiction—you’re not supposed to need to cite sources. That’s not to say offering suggested/further readings isn’t nice, but good historical authors incorporate research without slapping in copied passages from the researched text.
Some of the sentences I’ve seen don’t bother me, because there are only so many ways to say some things. But the bigger passages that clearly show they were lifted is, above all else, plain lazy.
Fwiw, I’m also a librarian, and Fair Use is taught in library school. Fair Use does NOT cover the verbatim or paraphrased use of pre-exisiting text in a for-profit, non-satirical work (like a novel). Fair Use, as it relates to this situation, lets a person use portions of a work only for educational use, in scholarly or critical works, or in satire. If the publisher’s argument is that some of her research sources may be in public domain, I refer back to the paragraphs above.
Cindy Lynn said on 01.11.08 at 06:22 PM • [link]
As a writer and as a secretary for a university history department, I have to say this is not just ethically, but socially wrong.
A lot of students are caught plagiarizing, sometimes in ways similar to Ms. Edwards, and they always go for the “But we didn’t understand exactly what plagiarism is.” argument.
But I don’t think it’s a fair one, especially when you are at her level. Of course writers use references, but you should be able to tuck the information into the material more, the wording should be different…in other words, we should have a sense that the writer read the information, digested it, then wrote the passages with your own understanding of what it means. They should all be your own words. To have an author doing this is a poor example to other people, writers, students, etc, on how these things should be done. And if you used a lot of information, why wouldn’t you put on your acknowledgements page “I could never have written about Seminole wedding practices without Joanna Doe’s wonderful “Living the way it was”.
Clearly, she needs to read Charles Lipson’s Doing Honest Work in College
anonymouses rule all said on 01.12.08 at 01:11 AM • [link]
call her on plagiarism. call her on quoting and not listing the source.
your arguments lose steam when you start to call the woman names: hack, twit, loser, idiot. if you can’t state your case without having to resort to name-calling, then perhaps your case isn’t as strong as you’d like to think.
let her rise and fall on the facts of the issue. not because she’s ‘ugly’.
Sara said on 01.12.08 at 02:46 AM • [link]
I believe instances of people calling CE anything harsher than “plagiarist” on this board are few and far between.
Rick said on 01.14.08 at 05:49 PM • [link]
What is interesting is the fact that you are not taking the genre into account, nor the state of book publishing in this country. The romance genre is, for the most part, plagiarism. Lady Charmain Vibart is exactly described, almost in Farnol’s words, in half the regency romances published last year. The genre lacks decent editing or writing beyond a high school level, so naturally, when stuck it reverts to plagiarism.
Romance is instructive of what happens when you hire recent graduates and bargain basement writers to be editors and restrict submissions to agents. It’s all headed that way. A shame in that romance can be a wonderful genre. Now, if you read Farnol, you’ve probably read all the best passages in romance published this year in one place. The real problem lies with the publishing companies. The writers can’t write in the first place, so what can you expect? Publishers need to go back to first readers, open submissions, so they can, at least, train a few editors properly.
Jane said on 01.14.08 at 05:57 PM • [link]
I have to say Rick, WTF? Have you read half the historical romances published last year? I read plenty and I don’t recall even one of them including Lady Charmain Vibart.
The statement “The romance genre is, for the most part, plagiarism” seems a hyperbolic and largely baseless accusation.
Why not provide some examples to support such a conclusion.
Rick said on 01.14.08 at 07:44 PM • [link]
Jane,
Have you read Farnol’s books? As a book dealer and a judge for two romance contests I do read a good deal of the historical romances published. If you don’t see Lady Charmaine in the descriptions of about half the regency romance heroines then you really aren’t paying attention.
Last year in judging one contest I ran into nearly exact quotes from Farnol, Louis Lamour. Raphael Sabatini, and H. R. Haggard, in the books given to me to judge. These quotes, presented as original work existed in four of the five historical romances I was given. So within the normal statistical parameters, half is understated. Nor is my statement hyperbolic and baseless.
Poor writing, poorer editing and very bad publishing practices have devalued one of the most enjoyable and, at one point, most lucrative literary genres. This is what you want to defend?
Victoria said on 01.14.08 at 07:49 PM • [link]
Are the usage of passages in Edwards’ books acceptable from an ethical standpoint or not? If you’re a reader or a writer, what do you think?
I’m a writer, a reader and an editor.
I cheer the fact that Ms. Edwards has done her research. Not all writers do. As a reader, the lack of research and correctness bothers me.
As an editor, I see that she has re-written the research into a fiction-based format and style rather than using wholesale copy-and-paste. Legally and ethically this makes the passages (and the books) “derivative work.” Derivative work is different from plagarism and copyright violation. Her editor and publisher have said as much in their press release. What Ms. Edwards’ publisher didn’t say is that derivative work is the ultimate gray area. How ethical and acceptable a derivative work is depends wholly upon where the viewer is stading in the gradient that goes from blackly unacceptable to whitely acceptable.
I will also note that Ms. Edwards is following a fine, well established tradition. Have you read “Moby Dick” by Melville and the unabridged “Les Miserables” by Hugo? Those gentlemen borrowed heavily from encyclopedias and history books with minimal re-writing.
What bothers me most about this whole situation is the air of sheer glee on the part of the Smart Bitches. I recognize an agenda when I see one. Put down the tar and feathers, ladies, and send your lynch mob home. You’re starting to look vindictive.
Nora Roberts said on 01.14.08 at 08:02 PM • [link]
~As an editor, I see that she has re-written the research into a fiction-based format and style rather than using wholesale copy-and-paste.~
Please provide examples of the re-written text, because I’m seeing copying with some very minor paraphrasing.
And the statement that the Romance genre is, for the most part, plagiarism is so staggeringly insulting it doesn’t deserve response.
But I’ll say again, please post examples.
Jane said on 01.14.08 at 08:04 PM • [link]
Poor writing, poorer editing and very bad publishing practices have devalued one of the most enjoyable and, at one point, most lucrative literary genres. This is what you want to defend?
Of course not, but that wasn’t what I was defending, was it? In fact, the only thing I was defending was the genre against the the broad statement that you have made to wit “The romance genre is, for the most part, plagiarism.”
~d said on 01.14.08 at 08:09 PM • [link]
If Edwards had done such a bang up job of supposedly rewriting this research, she never would have been caught with her hand in the cookie jar.
This woman has made a career of stealing (yes, stealing!) from other authors, fiction and not. That people continue to still defend her after the evidence continues to mount taller than Everest is made of fail.
Maybe the level of snark here is getting thick because the defense is starting to be beyond laughable.
azteclady said on 01.14.08 at 08:25 PM • [link]
Victoria sayeth earlier
I’m gonna blame my reading comprehension again, ‘cause I don’t see the glee on the part of SBSarah nor Candy, or Jane or MOST of the commenters. Are some people sarcastic in their comments? Yes. Are the blog owners responsible for how their readers express their opinions? Perhaps they would if they moderated the comments. They don’t. As far as I’m concerned, that’s that.
Rick said on 01.14.08 at 08:30 PM • [link]
Nora,
Please you know what you do. It’s the reason your brand new first editions go on a table outside the store for a dollar. Yes, you have a following by dumbing down good literature. There is nothing wrong with that, but to defend it as somehow something other than that isn’t insulting, just factual. Despite what it may sound like, I don’t have a problem with it, the only thing I regret about it is that the bad money runs out all the good. So basically the only romance left is second rate.
I’ve actually tried four of your books. Three chapters in I knew the plot and the ending, skipped to the back, verified that and saved myself a lot of time. Formulas lead to plagiarism, because, well, why not it’s the same basic book after all? I’d give a good deal to actually be presented with an original, post adolescent, romance. But it seems they just get worse, more formula, more derivative until plagiarism is only a half step away and in most a half step taken.
And no, I am not going to specifically embarrass anyone, so get off that hobby horse. Not only would it be impolite, I suspect most of it is under pseudonyms anyway.
Jane said on 01.14.08 at 08:37 PM • [link]
Rick, since you are unable to provide any examples (it’s high horse not hobby horse btw), I can’t engage in any fruitful debate with you.
Nora Roberts said on 01.14.08 at 08:45 PM • [link]
~Please you know what you do~
Yes, I do, so I can find some amusement in that remark.
You’re absolutely entitled not to like my work. But you’re not allowed to call it, or any other work, plagiarism without proof. Please give me an example of literature I’ve dumbed down in my books. Which books have I taken and turned into my own?
~And no, I am not going to specifically embarrass anyone, so get off that hobby horse. Not only would it be impolite, I suspect most of it is under pseudonyms anyway.~
This isn’t my hobby, but my profession. Not a hobby, but a vital issue of my profession. And your excuse for not providing examples of this lame, and doesn’t ring at all true for me.
If all you have are insults and supposition without verification, then there’s no point in communicating.
Rick said on 01.14.08 at 08:49 PM • [link]
Jane,
What made you think I was debating you? If you have read classic romance, and are fairly well read in other fields, you can verify it for yourself. if not specific instances aren’t really going to do you any good are they? The point I made is that, if you are well-read, it’s a part of the genre itself. And the argument is that well-read people would probably appreciate something original, but publishers either won’t publish it, or editors homogenize it.
Sara said on 01.14.08 at 08:59 PM • [link]
Last year in judging one contest I ran into nearly exact quotes from Farnol, Louis Lamour. Raphael Sabatini, and H. R. Haggard, in the books given to me to judge. These quotes, presented as original work existed in four of the five historical romances I was given. So within the normal statistical parameters, half is understated. Nor is my statement hyperbolic and baseless.
Name them. Please. If they plagiarized, they need to be identified. It’s the only way to improve the situation, if it is as dire as you describe it.
azteclady said on 01.14.08 at 08:59 PM • [link]
Rick, isn’t it much more impolite to insidiously insinuate widespread wrongdoing than to call a spade a spade in as political and respectful a manner as one can?
Me, I think you are being quite rude myself, but what do I know? I read romance./sarcasm
Victoria Dahl said on 01.14.08 at 09:01 PM • [link]
>>Romance is instructive of what happens when you hire recent graduates and bargain basement writers to be editors and restrict submissions to agents.<<
I’m detecting some frustration here. Care to explain the source?
Rick said on 01.14.08 at 09:04 PM • [link]
Nora,
My only problem with you is that I have never read anything you have written that contained a single original thought. I wouldn’t call that plagiarism, but rather part of the evolution toward it by other authors. The total lack of originality in modern romance creates an atmosphere where plagiarism is common to the point of being almost the norm.
My point has been, it’s stuck in a rut of formula writing and that will almost always resolve itself in a species of plagiarism because, in the end most of your output only changes names, locales and minor details anyway. Invent a new form of love triangle. Something, anything I haven’t read before.
And I write too. Only it’s non-fiction and I don’t repeat myself.
Victoria Dahl said on 01.14.08 at 09:09 PM • [link]
Plagiarism is NOT using the same genre idea over and over. For example, man meets woman, sparks fly, obstacles interfere, then they live happily ever after. Not plagiarism.
It’s also not use of a common phrases like ivory skin or heart-shaped face.
Your exaggeration is ridiculous and infantile. You should disclose your opinions to contest coordinators to be sure they are comfortable with your offer to judge.
Rick said on 01.14.08 at 09:11 PM • [link]
azteclady,
Wrongdoing? People who do it take it that way. I said that formula writing leads to plagiarism to the point where it has become a part of the genre. At this point I don’t think it’s wrongdoing anymore than pastiche is. What I lament is the incredible lack of imagination and original thought.
Victoria,
I am a book dealer, collector and a reader, sometimes a writer on subjects I have researched. And frustration is far, far too mild a word for what I see has happened to a genre I love.
SandyO said on 01.14.08 at 09:13 PM • [link]
I tend to read JD Robb more than Nora Roberts. In fact I read the first 20 In Death books in a row. Strange I didn’t find any repetition.
Rick, I must as you, if you dislike romance genre fiction as much as it seems, why did you judge two contests?
Sara said on 01.14.08 at 09:15 PM • [link]
Out of curiosity, Rick, what romance authors do you read and enjoy?
AJArend said on 01.14.08 at 09:16 PM • [link]
Don’t know about the rest of you, but I feel oh so honored to be in Rick’s presence, since he’s clearly so far above Nora and just about every other Romance writer. I’m close to weeping with joy that Rick lowered himself enough to shower us with his pearls of wisdom. How can I ever pick up another of Nora’s books again, knowing that Rick does not approve?
azteclady said on 01.14.08 at 09:17 PM • [link]
Perhaps I’m too much of a cynical bitch (okay, there’s no perhaps about it, I am *shrug*), but Rick? This sentence of yours,
sorta gives me the impression that you feel that YOUR writing—and maybe even your moral stance—is oh so superior to Ms Roberts’s. Which, you know, kinda makes your assertions rather suspect in my (just a reader’s) eyes.
And just so you know, saying that
is an implication of widespread wrongdoing.
Why?
Because plagiarism is ethically and morally wrong.
I would hope that someone who, you know, doesn’t repeat himself, would know that.
Nora Roberts said on 01.14.08 at 09:18 PM • [link]
~I said that formula writing leads to plagiarism to the point where it has become a part of the genre.~
Again, please give examples of plagiarism which indicate it’s part of the genre over and above CE—and I’ll add Dailey as she’s been discussed considerably.
You are, again, perfectly entitled not to like or even respect my work. But it’s a different matter to state that plagiarism is ‘almost the norm’ in the Romance genre. That’s not opinion, but a statement. Where are the examples to support your statement?
Victoria Dahl said on 01.14.08 at 09:23 PM • [link]
Oh, and predictability (in your less-than-humble opinion) is not plagiarism. They are two different words. See that? They’ve even got different definitions. Though they do both start with P.
AJArend said on 01.14.08 at 09:31 PM • [link]
Well, you know what they say. Those who can, do. Those who can’t claim they can but they just choose not to, then gleefully make snide comments about those who actually do.
I’d be very interested in reading an original Romance manuscript by Rick. Really. I’m sure it would be great for a laugh.
Come on, Rick. For someone like you writing a completely original Romance novel will be oh so easy. We’re all waiting to read the literary gem you will bestow upon us lesser mortals.
Teddy Pig said on 01.14.08 at 09:34 PM • [link]
Victoria,
You beat me to it but I was about to say Poo which starts with P and ends with O’rly.
Victoria Dahl said on 01.14.08 at 09:38 PM • [link]
T-Pig, (May I call you T-Pig?) I really wish I had an e-book to send you. I have high hopes for my HQN release. In 2009. *sigh*
You make me laugh every time.
Rick said on 01.14.08 at 09:39 PM • [link]
“I dreamed that the black Kaffirs were going to kill me. Where is my Papa?”
I winced at the question. “Your Papa has gone on a journey, dear,” I said, “and left me to look after you. We shall find him one day.” H. Rider Haggard, Allan’s Wife
“I dreamed the red Indians were going to kill me. Where’s my Daddy?”
I winced at the question. “Your Daddy’s gone on a journey, my dear and left me to watch over you. We’ll find him one day.” I won’t name the book or author, but it is a modern romance published within the last two years.
Perhaps this not Victoria’s concept of plagiarism, but it is mine and I could fill a book or two with similar examples. Nora, this is as far as I will go. Unless the author pops up to defend herself.
Page 1 of 2 pages 1 2 >
Care to comment?
Comments are now closed for this post.
Subscribe to These Comments