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?
Rick honey. We’re ALL aware that you’re sanctimonious and pretentious. You’ve proven that out already! What ELSE are you trying to prove?
Is it your intelligence? I know of at least three of us here who hold a Masters degree or higher, and a few of even hold *gasp* A PHD!!!! OMG! Call the Pulitzer people! There’s people with “higher” degrees reading *gasp* ROMANCE NOVELS! It should make you cry and stuff Rick! People of “Your” intelligence level (which is an overstatement…are you sure you aren’t a high school dropout?) reading this “pap” *rolleyes*
Again. Get…over…yourself. You are RIDICULOUS and to try and prove your point to people who are OBVIOUSLY more intelligent than you just makes you look like a complete ass doesn’t it? Over and over again you shower us with your “superior” knowledge. Um…dude. REALLY?
Apparently we’re too “plebeian” for you. So do yourself a favor and get lost. You’re ridiculous and asinine and you haven’t got a CLUE about the love of a good book. You’re one of those people who like to read what “they” tell you to read. Know what that makes you? As Nora puts it…A Borg. One who follows what “the man” says. Go ahead and read the crap that’s touted as “literature” these days. Makes no difference to ME. But PLEASE don’t show up on a website I love and proceed to put down authors I care about.
You fool. Go to hell Rick.
Oh, and PFREAKINGS…What story did you “translate”? Seriously. Are you freaking KIDDING me? Your self importance SLAYS me Rick!
As AJ says, you “wrote” (or translated) a BORING and RIDICULOUS story. Ugh. Are you serious with this? Have you EVER once laid EYES on a Nora Roberts? I’m thinking um……no. Idiot. And you DARE argue with Nora about her books, her writing or her following? You FOOL.
My BIGGEST pet peeve is people like you Rick. I read EVERYTHING. If somebody puts a book in my face, I’ll read it. That’s how I discovered Nora…and romance in general. However. I don’t dismiss it out of hand because I THINK I’m better. As I said in my first post, Nora (who I’ve met and is a CLASS ACT, and a DAMNED funny woman) has more class, more brains, and more TALENT than you’ll EVER hold. You moron.
And yes. I’m one of those with a “higher” degree. Guess that freaks you out. Again. GET OVER YOURSELF. If you don’t like a genre, don’t read it. Simple as that. I’m sure that I can tell you I think what you read is pure CRAP.
Buh Bye. *rolleyes*
Well, let’s face it, Rick’s arguments are really pretty lame: I posted one example of actual plagiarism that I personally came across therefore, ALL romance is plagiaristic. I quoted a pretentious passage by a Nobel prize winner, and made you all think it was me, therefore ALL Romance is plagiaristic. And if you ignorant women can’t see that, well, you just don’t have the superior mind and vast knowledge of books that I do.
It makes no sense, but what do I know? Being an ignorant woman and all.
The bottom line where Rick is concerned, Jen, is that he came here and decided to make this thread all about him. Because I think in Rick’s world it’s always all about him.
He’s one of those irritating people you meet at parties who tries to impress everyone with his knowledge and who you pretend is really fascinating, but once they leave, you roll your eyes and hope to hell they’re not at the next party you attend.
Once again, Nora earns my respect because she was smart enough to realize that this guy doesn’t deserve any more of her time, and said so in a way that made her sound much more rational and intelligent than Rick could ever hope to sound here.
I should have taken a clue from Nora a few posts back, but better late than never. Rick’s not getting any more of my time.
I almost feel compelled to defend Rick, since I like a lot of the same books as he does, and I can kind of see where he’s coming from. I also agree, to a certain extent, that the romance genre has become increasingly formulaic, and the publishing industry (from what I’ve seen of it- I’m a children’s book illustrator) has a lot of wet-behind-the-ears college grads working as editors, assistants &tec. A lot of my favorite midlist authors from 10 years ago have moved out of romance into suspense or historical mysteries, and I’ve probably spent more time than I should bemoaning the state of the romance genre today.
But even though I find a lot of mainstream romance to be mediocre and dull, and not as remotely entertaining as Sabatini, Heyer and Haggard, it seems silly to compare books written in the ‘20s and ‘30s to contemporary romance novels. IMO the books by Sabatini, Heyer and Haggard seem more
like what you’d find in the historical fiction category. Also, it’s tempting to partially blame Ms. Edward’s plagiarism on foolish 22 year old editors, but I’ve found many examples of horrible writing from books written 70 years ago. It’s easy to think of the past as a golden age when talented authors could skip down grassy hillsides singing, but I am sure that if Sabatini, Heyer and Haggard have ever gotten together back in the day they would have spent a lot of time complaining about how the publishing world has gone to hell in a handbasket and how no-one writes good books anymore.
However, I do think that the question posed by Rick, namely- what factors in the industry are responsible for the Edwards plagiarism scandal?- is worth asking. Is it true that it’s happening more than ever? Is there anything in the publishing industry contributing to this alleged outbreak of plagiarism? On one hand, you have Rick claiming that the industry is in a state of decline, and everyone including the author is at fault; on the other hand you have Ms. Roberts claiming the author is the sole perpetrator, and only she is at fault. While I respect them for their opinions, I’m not sure whether I agree with either of them. However, it’s an issue worth considering.
So, with that said, I just want to tell you Smart Bitches that you did amazing detective work. Also, congrats for the mention in the NY Times!
Hmmm. I have an odd feeling that what Rick is misidentifying as plagiarism is really better known as the ‘mono-myth’ that Joseph Campbell [“Hero of a Thousand Faces”, “The Masks of God”, et cetera] and others have written on extensively.
He persists in slinging out accusations of plagiarism, when he really ought to consider reading up on tropes, themes, motifs, archetypes, and all the other tools of narratology, to develop a superior understanding of the necessary elements of good storytelling.
If you don’t have the time to absorb Campbell’s “Hero of a Thousand Faces” [which I highly recommend], you can breeze through Christopher Vogler’s “The Writer’s Journey”.
Suburbanbeatmik,
As I told Rick, Formulaic does not equal plagarims. Fir example, if you stripe out all the details, Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings aren’t really that different. For that matter, neither is Eragon, or the video game Legend of Zelda, or the movie Star Wars. They are all coming of age stories about young men of no extraodenary note out to save the world, and triumphing over incredable odds.
Probably, in the end, while the majority of the responciblity rests on CE shoulders, the publishing company is a little to blame. But 25 years ago they didn’t have Google. And to have picked up on all the sources CE “barrowed” from would have required an editor who read ungodly amounts of literature from ever source imaginable and have the ability to keep them all straight, just to ahve a chance of catching her. By the time Google did come around, they were so comfortable publishing her work, they simply stopped giving it much throught.
That said, and I repeat, the responciblity for this still falls by and large on CE’s shoulders. And simply because she is a plagarist does not make the norm among romance novelist.
Finally, you do seem to be of reasonable intelligence, so don’t debase yourself by showing sympathy for people like Rick, just because you have the same taste in literature.
*sigh* So true AJ. I got worked up (you know me HeeHee). Sometimes I wonder how I make sense to myself through my temper. 😀
Rick’s getting no more of my ticked-off energy. I’ve got enough people in my real life that tick me off.
Kudos to Smartbitches for your detective work. I don’t post much here, but I visit almost daily. LOVE the cover snark. 😀
“However, I do think that the question posed by Rick, namely- what factors in the industry are responsible for the Edwards plagiarism scandal?- is worth asking. Is it true that it’s happening more than ever? Is there anything in the publishing industry contributing to this alleged outbreak of plagiarism?”
The problem is that I’m sure it’s difficult to find editors with Rick’s enormous brain, who remember every word of every book ever written. Up to now, it would be extremely difficult for every editor to check every single sentence of every manuscript they edit. So no, I don’t really blame the editors up to this point.
However, obviously, now it’s easier because computers and the internet has made it easier. (the Smart Bitches proved that). So, I would expect that from this point on, yeah, editors would pay more attention and check their manuscripts electronically. Now, the burden is on them. And maybe knowing this can be done, authors will now be more diligent in their writing when they quote from other sources.
I still think that Rick is full of crap though, in his accusation that ALL modern romance plagiarizes. That’s a very unfair blanket accusation with really no proof except that Rick believes it to be so.
AJ
I think that Rick identified himself as trolling for attention when he replied to Jane “what makes you think I want to debate you?” (or words to that effect—I ain’t going back to look for it).
My humble *coughyeahrightcough* advice: discuss whatever he said you find of interest but…
Don’t feed the troll.
~Finally, you do seem to be of reasonable intelligence, so don’t debase yourself by showing sympathy for people like Rick, just because you have the same taste in literature.~
Emerald,
If that was in response to my post, I hope you don’t believe I was defending Rick’s truly offensive claims, or in any sense coming to his defense for his indefensible statements. Nor is it an indirect attempt to defend or justify my own taste – criminy, you ought to see some of my ‘midnight confessions’ over in the “Embrace Your Bad Taste” comments [my lovely S.O. would be horrified, truly he would].
For my own writings I’ve been studying and researching aberrant behavior, and Rick’s conduct here has been startling similar to that of one of my – ah – less stable characters, which is why it caught my eye. I’m trying to wrap my head around his way of thinking so I can write better from that character’s POV.
At the same time I recognized what he was harping on about, and wanted to offer to other readers that the mono-myth is what he seems to believe Mr.Farnol originated. Mythologists and anthropologists – and yes, Carl Jung – deserve to be credited with that discovery and study.
Argh.
Emerald, never mind. I’ve only just realized you were responding to a different poster. My error.
Bloody, damned sinus meds,…
I repeat: argh.
Quickly skimmed the comments, so I apologize in advance for any repeats.
Never read Cassie Edwards, and after this probably never will. While I don’t expect explicit footnoting in historical fiction, too distracting. I have seen authors put reference books they used under the acknowledgement section or authors note. That way the reader knows where they did their research, etc. Nothing wrong with that.
What really irks me is the “I didn’t know defense”. As an RN, I’ve been told many times especially when it comes to medicare regulations that “Ignorance isn’t an excuse” regarding documentation. Give me a break, she’s a well published author. She should know better.