Part of a series: Cassie Edwards 1: The First Post | Cassie Edwards 2: Savage Longings | Cassie Edwards Part 3: Running Fox | Cassie Edwards Part 4: Savage Moon | Cassie Edwards Part 5: Savage Beloved | Follow-up: Penguin (Part 1?) | Official Statement from Signet | AP Article Contains Response from Edwards | RWA Responds to Allegations | A centralized document for the Cassie Edwards situation
…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' 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?
AJ,
I suppose I could, to what end?
Rick asks (somewhat disingenuously, IMnot-at-all-HO),
Why, to show us idjit wimen how it’s done, of course!
I don’t like that kind of copying—with barely a paraphrase either. But to hit the big P button there would have to be more in the same work. Chunks—and a pattern of copying.
Believe me, I know this. Been through it.
It’s not enough to be considered plagiarism, by any real standards. Though it would certainly set off my alarm bells.
Still and again, this doesn’t equate to damning the entire genre as works of plagiarism.
“AJ,
I suppose I could, to what end?”
Yeah. Thought so. “I can, but I choose not to.”
Translation: “I can’t.”
To what end? Why, to fix the “poor writing, poorer editing and very bad publishing practices [that] have devalued one of the most enjoyable and, at one point, most lucrative literary genres,” to use your own words. See a problem? Call attention to it so it can be fixed, especially if it’s a genre that you claim to enjoy the way you do.
On the other hand, it could be that I’m a not-very-well-read consumer of today’s pathetic, predictable, plagiarized romance novels and could never understand the brilliance of your findings.
Nora,
You asked you got. I can do the same with Farnol. Lamour off the top of my head, though I would have to look both up to be exact. Sabatini I know the book, but it was so eminently forgettable that I’d have to search a bit. Most romance contains these things, call it what you want so long as the name doesn’t even have the connotation of “creative.”
These ladies seem to want to challenge me to write something. I’m much more a reader. My frustration stems from a lack of something decent to read. A book I won’t know the ending of long before I get there. Or maybe fall in love again, like I did with Lady Charmaine, or Ayesha, but no one seems to have the talent to create such fascinating ladies today. All they seem to be able to do is change the greats, just enough so it isn’t plagiarism. But I keep reading, and hoping.
~Most romance contains these things, call it what you want so long as the name doesn’t even have the connotation of “creative.â€~
See, this is where you lose me again. A sweeping, damning accusation without the back up.
I asked, and you gave one example, a couple of sentences. I agree they strike me as copying, but it’s not enough even for that single book to qualify as plagiarism—much less to toss the entire genre in with it.
You don’t like nor respect the genre—in its modern sense. I can give you that. I wouldn’t argue with that. I will respect your frustration that you don’t enjoy it or find it to your taste.
But to say the entire genre promotes, excuses or generates plagiarism—that I won’t give you.
“These ladies seem to want to challenge me to write something. I’m much more a reader.”
Suddenly, Rick is not so cocky about his writing prowess than he was a few posts ago. Interesting.
But Rick, in a romance novel, isn’t the end always that two people (or three or more, depending on your romance flavor) end up together and in love? If you pick up a romance novel, don’t you kind of see that ending coming?
I think many authors today are great at taking interesting twists and turns to get to the “happily ever after” ending, and that’s what I’m looking for when I pick up a book. But for a book to be a romance, it does have to end happily. I just don’t understand how you can’t see the end of the book coming in the very broadest sense (i.e., hero and heroine live happily ever after). Or are you saying you can predict the twists and turns in the books you read?
Also, I’d still love to hear your list of romance authors whose work you enjoy, other than Farnol.
It’s L’Amour, dammit.
Sorry, but he happens to be a personal literary hero for me and if you’re going to use his name in your quest to be the most arrogant and pretentious kid on the block, spell it correctly, please.
Well, classic romances weren’t always ‘happily ever after,’ Sara. It was often more about the quest than the hero and heroine ending happily.
That said, there’s a big ol’ difference between classic romance or literary romance, and “a romance novel,” and for Rick to try and compare the two is like comparing apples and oranges. I mean,..H. Rider Haggard’s Ayesha to Loretta Chase’s Jessica? Who’s going to DO that? Only someone pompous and elitist!
And being that i’m not all that edumacated, I actually had to Google and Wiki to realize that our resident romance expert was talking about Haggard and not the Ayesha in the classic Bengali romance, Durgesh Nandini.
Mala, I understand that. But Rick is referring to modern romance novels, I believe. And the RWA’s website specifics “an emotionally satisfying and optimistic ending,” which almost always means that the leads end up together and happy. In order for a novel to be considered romance today, I thought the requirement was a happy ending. Hence, Rick might find it easy to predict where the story will end up.
(I do understand that the RWA isn’t the end all and be all of romance writing, but it is a powerful voice.)
Nora,
As I said, that was just an example, and one of many I constantly run across in the modern genre. to the point where if not plagiarism being a part of the genre, bordering on plagiarism is.
Sara,
Haggard, Hudson, Mrs. Oliphant, Corelli, Baroness Orczy, Lang, Elizabeth (Van Arnheim) etc.
AJ, you seem to want so desperately something to tear into, or apart. A novel I wouldn’t have the time or inclination to publish. So just to give you something to tear into, a small romance with a goddess, just for you:
When Barbara Went to the Ladies Room
She was a homely little girl from Nebraska. Wild red hair and a dead white skin with way too many freckles. A hard lean, nearly skinny body, without the curves and the softness men expect in women.
We met in a theater group. Acted together off-off Broadway, showcase productions. She was primarily a dancer; in fact one might even say that she was a dance.
She had a quality when she moved that seemed to pick up the spirit of what was in the air. She would dance to the sounds of the city walking down the street.
Standing still she was a homely little girl from Nebraska, in motion she was Terpsichore, the Goddess of the dance, and she came from Mount Olympus.
There is or maybe was, a bar off of Washington Square, situated in the basement. It had chess boards painted on it’s tables, and the chief reason for going there was to discuss philosophy, or literature, or maybe play a game of chess, while sipping the French liquid fire called Pernod.
Because it was near an off-off Broadway theater and because I loved to discuss philosophy, I often found myself there in the early 1970s. It was not a place to bring a date, there wasn’t even a juke box. It was a place where serious thoughts muddled themselves as the Pernod took hold, a place where every evening all of the ills of the world were cured and life reordered into paradise.
It had been a torturous rehearsal of an avant garde absurdist exercise by some denizen of the alphabet avenues. The New York streets were raw with icy slashes of February rain. Both Barbara and I were drained, cold and tired, and my little bar was just around the corner.
We shrugged out of the soggy coats that had failed utterly to keep us dry and sat with my usual group, deeply engaged, as always, in the mental masturbation of philosophical thought.
Barbara sipped her Pernod and absorbed more than listened. It was as if she absorbed the sounds into a rhythm that played through her as she picked up the glass or moved the cocktail napkin.
She excused herself, without even the customary explanation with its fine euphemistic embellishments of either a little girl or a sand box. And as she walked across the bar the conversation stilled. By the time she reached the door marked “Ladies,” the bar sat in dead silence.
Almost stunned, we sat that way until she emerged and walked back to the table. Every eye followed her as she sat, and picked up the glass of vivid yellow liquid.
There are those who do not believe in Gods or Goddesses. Who cannot accept the idea that the world is full of supernatural wonder, terror and beauty. None of whom you will find among those who were there, in that little bar that night.
Because, you see, we witnessed a Goddess. Barbara had absorbed philosophy, it’s rhythm, it’s melody, and she danced it across the floor of that bar on a cold and raw night in February. Every step was a pattern solved, a question answered and an enigma fulfilled. And everyone there was changed. Not one of us was the same person when we left as we had been when we entered.
The Greeks called her Tersichore, I knew her as Barbara. And she made me believe in magic.
I’m curious.
I wonder how many modern romance writers have read, or even heard of, Jeffery Farnol.
~As I said, that was just an example, and one of many I constantly run across in the modern genre. to the point where if not plagiarism being a part of the genre, bordering on plagiarism is.~
You can keep saying that, but until you provide the examples, it’s an empty—and still insulting statement.
I don’t accept that my work is plagiarism or bordering on it. I know many, many writers in the genre, and will say the same for their work.
You don’t like the genre, you find it sub-standard. I will accept that’s your opinion of it. You’re entitled. I won’t accept your accusation that all or most of the work in the genre is plagiarized or bordering it.
Your taste is for the classics—that’s fine. Mine is for commercial fiction. That’s fine, too. Thre’s no need to demean one to bolster the value of the other.
~I’m curious.
I wonder how many modern romance writers have read, or even heard of, Jeffery Farnol.~
I haven’t, so I guess I haven’t copied him.
Nora
Nora.
Bingo.
I’m not proud to say it, but I’ve never heard of any of these writers. I majored in business, practical putz that I am, so I’m sadly undereducated in the arts. But maybe I’m plagiarizing better educated writers who are plagiarizing these writers I’ve never heard of. Aha! Mystery solved.
He’s onto us, ladies. Scatter!
This is reading to me as if you don’t like the modern genre of romance. Is this fair? If so, I’d recommend you steer clear of it. Totally your right to feel that way. But not in any way reasonable to call us plagiarists.
I’ve spent far too much time reading the various posts and threads. I, like many I think, was willing to cut CE some slack until it became clear that this wasn’t a one off but a trend with multiple sources copied in many books.
Rick your Rider Haggard quote is a good example of plagiarism rather than paraphrase. It would be fascinating to see if that particular book was merely a retelling of the Rider Haggard tale (with the serial number poorly filed off to misquote Heinlein), a melange of cuts and pastes or a book where just a couple of sentences are borrowed.
It should be obvious that there is a spectrum of seriousness of offense here. To misquote Lady Bracknell “To be caught copying one line is a misfortune to have copied two looks like carelessness”. And of course if the writer wrote something to explain the poor filing off then that is yet another way to lessen the offence. David Drake frequently has either a foreword or afterword where he acknowledges whence the original tale comes (and as a result leads one to (re)read authors that deserve it.
I could summarize the average romance plot (and it would apply to many other books not defined as Romance too) as “boy meets girl, bad things happen, boy/girl fight through realize each other are the most important thing and live happily ever after” but then apart from the “live happily ever after” bit you could use that description for Romeo and Juliet.
What irritates about CE and other plagiarizers (as well as to be honest the more formulaic hack writers) is not that they copy, but that they do it badly and don’t acknowledge that they are doing it.
If you do it well (Atonement for ex) or you explain that you’re doing it (Drake etc.) then assuming you can tell a good tale we’ll accept it. As Kipling wrote
WHEN ’Omer smote ’is bloomin’ lyre,
He’d ’eard men sing by land an’ sea;
An’ what he thought ’e might require,
’E went an’ took—the same as me!
The market-girls an’ fishermen,
The shepherds an’ the sailors, too,
They ’eard old songs turn up again,
But kep’ it quiet—same as you!
They knew ’e stole; ’e knew they knowed.
They didn’t tell, nor make a fuss,
But winked at ’Omer down the road,
An’ ’e winked back—the same as us!
Rick,
My life has been transformed by the beautiful prose you have created. I’m humbled that you would share it with a lesser being such as myself. I will never forget this day.
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.
I’m sorry…what? The gorgeous example of Barbara’s goddesshood put me to sleep. Guess I’m just not smart enough to appreciate real writing.
*Google Product Search*
Boots, Hip-Waders, Deep
Seriously. Have the Nobel and Pulitzer committees been notified?
AJ
That’s it? To quote Cyrano: “Mon dieu, why waste your opportunity?”
Nora,
That does explain a lot.
Rick,
To quote one of my new favorite authors: “Please you know what you do.”
Come on. You know your fiction is lacking. Isn’t that where all your anger comes from? Do you really need for me to say it? I have a feeling you’ve been told enough in your lifetime.
~Nora,
That does explain a lot.~
See, you think this insults me. It doesn’t. My taste in literature is different than yours.
If you go back and read all my posts to you, I think you’ll note I’ve been pretty careful not to insult you personally. You have, again and again, insulted me.
You insulted my work—and I made it clear you were entitled to your opinion regarding my books.
You came very, very close to accusing me of plagiarism—and that I corrected. Firmly.
You insulted the genre in which I choose to write. I gave you that one. Your opinion is your opinion.
You insisted the genre was full of plagiarists or near-plagiarists. I asked for proof. You gave one example—without citing the book. One example is not a plague of plagiarism.
Now you attempt to insult me because I haven’t read your beloved Farnol.
I’ll tell you how this is striking me. It comes across that you feel superior to most because you believe your taste is finer. And being superior you feel entitled to fling accusations and insults.
Since that’s all you’ve got, I don’t see the point in wasting any more time or courtesy on you.
Rick,
It’s probably because I’m dim, but I can’t follow your logic.
First you complain that modern romances are plagiaristic, with Farnol as one example.
Yet at the same time seem to slate Nora for not having read him?
You complain about formula.
As far as formula goes, Farnol made good use of it.
Yes, I’ve read him. I have about a dozen of his novels.And more than that number of Haggard.
Presenting someone’s ideas or words as your own, especially for profit or publication is WRONG. In fiction or non-fiction, it is wrong. We may use terms like plagiarism or derivative works, paraphrase, copy, fair use, cut and paste, adapt or whatever you want to call such actions – and we may actually even use the words correctly and in the right context, but the actions are still wrong. Be it illegal or immoral or not – it is still wrong.
In FICTION, building on someone else’s ideas with your own words is not wrong, it is FICTION. Think of all the novels “borrowed†from historical folk tales about werewolves and vampires or about time travel or whatever. No one thinks Bram Stoker plagiarized – even though most people know he didn’t “invent†Dracula. And if you did not know that Bram Stoker did not invent Dracula, you know it now because you read it here. I did not know who Fornal was, but I do know cause I looked it up!
Learning is one of many reasons that we read – fiction as well as non-fiction. I don’t think that Laurell K. Hamilton or Christine Feehan are plagiarists of Stoker (or one another for that matter). It is fiction.
By the way, I think it is just TOO cool to have Nora Roberts commenting on this discussion. Am I naïve in presuming this to be “the real†Nora Roberts?
But.
I read a LOT. And when I read about people(s) who actually did or do exist, I hope that the author does a bit of research and presents details about those people that are at least plausible and as accurate as need be to develop the characters and advance the story.
And that author could and should give credit to his / her research sources if specific exam; that would be the smart and professional thing to do. Doing so gains the author an ounce of two of respect from readers. It is the RIGHT thing to do.
With all of that said, to make me happy, writers have only to: Publish a good story with interesting characters placed in almost any decently developed setting; choose one or a combination of more than one of only a few UNIVERSAL plot lines or themes, pepper heavily with some sex or at least sexual innuendo, advance the plot to a resolution and tie it all up with an acceptable (preferably happy) ending and I will buy and read it. YES – that is a formula. Heck, having a beginning, middle and an end is formulaic. My all time favorite author is Roberta Gellis. She strikes the PERFECT balance with all the elements of her novels, especially the Roselynde Chronicles.
Of these, interesting characters is the key. I think this is why so many “romance novels†have a hero or a heroine with a passion or a mission or secrets. It is just interesting to read what might motivate people.
I also like to read many of the “romance noir†that we see so much of these days. Vampires and Werewolves and dragons, OH MY!
I have been reading romantic fiction since the 1970’s. I began with Marcia Martin’s “Donna Parker†series and worked my way through Rosamund Du Jardin, Victoria Holt, Barbara Cartland, and so many others. I know for sure that so many of these fictional characters have entertained and informed me and I just love reading them. If I find an author’s books too formulaic or predictable, I will stop reading them. That is my choice.
With all of that said, as for Cassie Edwards – I must conclude that while she did not do the right thing (give credit to her research sources) – what she did was not technically wrong, either. But it does leave a bad taste in my mouth, so to speak. And this makes her work not very original and will taint my opinion of her and her work from now on.
See .. nothing snarky or personal .. just a comment. A rather long comment. Oh, and I did I mention, I am also interested in WRITING romantic fiction? I have so many ideas. *sighs*
Suze, Ms Edwards appears to have researched (which seems to mean for her, copied word by word) not only non-fiction, but also fiction. And in both cases, texts still under copyright. So what she did is technically wrong, morally wrong, unethical and—in some cases—also actionable.
Check the more current posts and threads, as well as the pdf document with all the comparisons for detailed information.
Random replies yet again:
If it turns out that CE has plagiarized Janet Dailey, the world will come to an end…
Or, as the Silver Tigress put it, “Ouroboros!”
I can’t remember if I’ve already posted this, but here is the story about the borrowings in the novel Eucalyptus from a non-fiction work on eucalyptus, which occasioned the “bowerbird defense” I know I mentioned above. Here are some differences from the Edwards situations:
The borrowings (scientific descriptions of the eucalyptus) consisted of some 180 pages of a 90,000 word novel.
The author didn’t claim innocence; he blamed it on his failure to organize and label his notes carefully.
The author of the scientific book had read and enjoyed the novel and DIDN’T RECOGNIZE the borrowings.
The author himself had had something similar happen to him: “Bail has himself been on the other side of this debate, when he found ‘exact details and sentences and phrases from a monograph I’d written on [the artist] Ian Fairweather pop up in quite a well-known novel. I got indignant for a while, but then I thought the author had used my work for general information and there wasn’t anything too wrong with it.’ “
http://www.smh.com.au/news/Books/Taking-a-leaf-from-another-book/2005/02/04/1107476793923.html
As the world’s greatest Jeffery Farnol fan, I’d like to point out that no one has yet spelled the name of Charmian, Lady Vibart correctly.
Victoria wrote: 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.
NO, SHE HASN’T! THAT’S WHAT THIS WHOLE FOOFARAW IS ABOUT!!!
Rick wrote: 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.
WHERE? WHERE?? WHERE??? I WANT SOME!
It really cheeses me off that so many people feel free to insult Nora, whose behavior throughout this matter has been a model of restraint and decorum.
Rick seems unable to tell the difference between plagiarism and archetypes—Nora “repeats herself” because the romance pattern is a universal archetype—see Northrop Frye on the subject, or A Natural History of the Romance Novel by Pamela Regis. And who but Nora has written a score of books exploring the psyches of the same two characters in an ongoing and developing relationship? Seems pretty original to me.
And yes, she does repeat herself in some of her descriptions, as in Roarke’s “warrior’s eyes” and “poet’s mouth,” etc. At one point I started a parody game (i.e., “ears of a notary public”). But in reality it’s no different than the epithets of Homer (“ox-eyed Hera,” “Odysseus, never at a loss,” “laughter-loving Aphrodite”) or the kennings of a Scandinavian skald (“swan-necked maiden,” “whale-road,” “treasure-giver”).
FrancisT: You quoted Kipling!!! Will you marry me?
talpianna,
Didn’t you know? Jeffery Farnol fans are not allowed to appreciate an author as plebeian as Nora. I think it’s in the club by laws or something. Rick could fill you in, I’m sure. I just don’t want you to get in trouble with the Farnol Fanboys for not being snobbish enough. I hear the punishment is writing 1,600 words in the continuing adventures of Goddess Barbara.
You know? I will NEVER understand people who bop onto a website devoted to romance authors and proceed to trash the genre. Or rather, the readers and writers of the genre (as apparently, the genre itself isn’t Rick’s problem).
Were you bored and looking for an argument? Obviously you found one, and as La Nora has chimed in, I find myself marvelously entertained. Let me give you a clue. Nora’s got more skill, more class, and more brains in her middle finger than you’ve got between your ears or in any other part of your body.
Her First Editions end up on a table outside the bookstore? Really? Is that why ARC’s of her In Death series go for upwards of $200 on ebay before the release date (Not a practice I condone, at all, but facts are facts.)? I’ve NEVER seen a new Nora on the bargain table. Ever.
Dude. I really don’t get people like you. Those who condemn us mere mortals and idiots who read (or write) romance (as it is “now” apparently) as fools. You sit above and judge us all, reading your “real literature” that some bonehead has claimed is “cerebral” and “the best book of the year”. Please. Then you take it a step farther and claim that the entire genre uses plagiarism as the norm? Oh…Mah…GAWD. Get real. Repeating certain phrases and using a certain archetype is NOT plagiarism, as has already been pointed out. I’d think somebody who has as much Gray Matter as you seem to think you do would understand the difference.
I’m with everyone else who’s never heard of the authors you cited. But I do love Jane Austen. I suppose her writing is too simplistic for you though. She probably plagiarized too.
If you don’t like Nora’s writing, or other romance authors for that matter, fine. More power to you. But please don’t come in with your sanctimonious and snide comments and insult a writer and a genre that most of us here love. I’m not defending Nora here, as she can VERY well handle herself. I’m defending the readers of Nora, who have basically been patted on the head and been told that we’re too stupid to understand the difference between “good” writing and “dumbed down” writing (those were the words right?). *rolleyes*
To quote Ferris Bueller…“You sir are an…” Oh never mind. You’re probably too “smart” to have ever seen a movie such as that.
AJ: You underestimate Farnol, who is really quite enjoyable and interesting. He was a follower of George Borrow, known for living with and writing about Gypsies; and most of his books are “road trips,” with the hero traveling on foot through the English countryside, stopping every so often to enjoy ale and bread and cheese at a wayside tavern, befriend a highwayman, rescue a damsel, or chat with an elderly eccentric. Try THE BROAD HIGHWAY or THE AMATEUR GENTLEMAN, probably his most popular works: the latter is particularly interesting for its different definitions of what it means to be a gentleman.
“You underestimate Farnol, who is really quite enjoyable and interesting.”
Oh no…that remark was not directed at you specifically or those who enjoy Farnol in the broader sense….just those like Rick who have decided that Farnol is so much his absolute example of fine literature that everything else must be pig slop in comparison, and those that write modern romance are ruining the romance genre forever.
I actually very much respect someone who’s able to enjoy and appreciate the broader spectrum of romance, from Farnol to Roberts.
Though I’m not so sure you shouldn’t still be worried about the Farnol Fanboys….
Out of curiosity I checked for Farnol and discovered he wrote, among others themes, swashbucklers—
Wuzzat? Come again?
As a life-long fan of writers like Stevenson, Sabatini, Leiber and ERB, I am so *totally* into swashbucklers! If a story has well-written swordplay, color me there!
However did I miss hearing about Farnol’s works??! Oh, *that* has got to be remedied, like, immediately.
Thanks for the heads up! I’m off to Project Gutenberg—squeeee!
Let’s try a little game. Here’s a revision of Savage Longings. Still plagiarism or now incorporating “research”?:
The root digger was slim with a point. They pushed the tool into the ground again and again, working at the roots to pry them loose. Each digger was made of ash, and time in the fire made the point sharp and hard. At the opposite end a knob protected the hand.
From Page 209 of The Cheyenne Indians:
This work was done with the root-digger (his’ so), a slender, sharp-pointed implement to be thrust into the ground to pry out the roots. In modern times the root-digger has been of iron—any sort of an iron bar. In earlier days, however, these implements were of wood, usually ash, the point sharpened and hardened in the fire. One kind of root-digger was two and one-half to three feet long, and had a knob at one end to protect the hand.
R asks: However did I miss hearing about Farnol’s works??!
Possibly because he’s been out of print for at least 50 years?
If by “swashbuckling,” you mean pirate novels, he wrote quite a few—they are the only ones I don’t like, as I’m not into pirates. He also wrote a few “contemporaries” (for him that was like the 1920s) and medievals, but most of his books were set in the 18th century or the Regency. There is some swordplay, but his heroes are more into pugilism. The ones I mentioned, The Broad Highway and
were the most popular and are the most likely to turn up in USB. My collection (a couple of dozen) is divided between those I paid about $30 for at an online USB and those I picked up for a buck or two at a Friends of the Library sale. They are really ROMANTIC, but not hot—I think at the most the villain forces kisses on the heroine just as the hero comes along. They are a bit purplish in the prose compared to modern stuff, but still very enjoyable and rereadable. And as I said, they tend to be road trips through the English countryside, which would make them sort of pastorals.
OK. Now, consider this.
I took a story, translated it, changed the locale and the names. I chose a story by a Nobelist because I have an ironic sense of humor and I knew AJ would attack it. In fact I set that up. The question is, as this thread revolves around, did I plagiarize?
If you decide that I did, then over half of your romance novels are plagiarized. I say this in that they are basically the same story and characters that have existed for the last century with different names, in different locales.
The point is that, this being the case, how far away are the actual, and original words? And, as an allegedly creative endeavor, do the actual words make that much difference?
I made something of Farnol because he established the basic formula of Regency romance, and the only author to really establish other formulas was Georgette Heyer who built on his foundation. Georgette is, perhaps, the most plagiarized author of all time.
The question is where the line is drawn. I gave you a translation where the locale and characters names had been changed, the story, every idea in it and the basic construction remained exactly the same. I admit none of it is original, but is it plagiarized?
I would say so. And I would say that most modern romance is plagiarized in the same fashion.
Ok. Now, consider this:
Rick has some kind of learning disability, or he would understand what this thread is REALLY about.
Or maybe he doesn’t have a learning disability, he’s just so convinced of his own cleverness that there’s really no room for other points of view in that swollen head of his.
I heard something on the radio today and I thought, “Wow, that’s so true, and it describes Rick perfectly.” Basically, the radio host said that people who complain about how their industry is degenerating horribly and that people should do things the way it USED to be done are people who couldn’t hack it in that industry or who were never able to even break into that industry even though they wanted to. So they bitch and complain about it.
BUT…the people who are a success in any industry are the people who, instead of getting stuck in a rut are people…dare I say like Nora…who adapted, figured out how to succeed (for example, figured out what the majority of people really want) and did it. Things change. This is no longer the 1800’s. It never will be again. Successful people realize this.
Newsflash: Nobel prize winning authors sometimes write things that suck. Nobel Prize does not equal everyone must love everything written by that person.
I dislike the passage you posted because I dislike it. It’s pompous and self-important. It takes itself too seriously. From what I’ve seen, people on Nobel prize committees often view themselves much like you do, Rick: Like their taste is so very superior to other people’s. So, they LOVE that kind pretentious crap because it makes them seem like they’re above everyone else.
No shock here, but I don’t like it. Wouldn’t matter if it was YOU writing it, or some Nobel prize winning author you could never hope to be. To me, the passage sucked. It’s not what I like to read. Does that make me somehow less than you? Does that make MY opinion less important? No.
Sure does make you look like a pompous ass, though.
AJ
Rick,
Sweety, I hate to burst your sad little bubble of a world, but your precious Farnol didn’t invent shit.
There are no new stories. After you’ve told the basic structure of “boy meets girl, conflict occures, happily ever after” all that is left to change is the details. But unless you lift word for word what another author wrote (that would be what CE did, in case you aren’t following) it isn’t plagarism.
Is modern romantic literature formulaic? Yes. Is it plagarism? No. Do you have to like modern romantic fiction? No. Does that provent others from likeing it? Of course not.
This may come as a shock to you, but some people like a for sure happy ending; and that is something modern romantic fiction offers. If you don’t like it, no one will force you to read it.
And here is my challenge to you. Go read Sherrilyn Kenyon’s “Dark-Hunter” series (yeah, it’s paranormal, but there is a lot of Greek and Roman Myth/history thrown in), then come tell use about the unoriginality of romantic fiction.