Plagiarism: The Pattern and the Response

A roadsign that reads Copycats Ahead So, hey, there’s plagiarism. Lots of it this week, too.

First, Jenny Trout blogged extensively this week about the many, many similarities between books by m/m romance “author” Laura Harner, and novels by Opal Carew and Becky McGraw.

Harner’s statement to The Guardian contained this line, which is still baffling: “…it appears that I may have crossed the line and violated my own code of ethics.”

Every time this happens, I cue up Rhianna in my head.

Want to sing along? Start here at about :47.

As I said on Twitter, if you plagiarize and publish it, a reader will notice. Always. Because we read a LOT.

But the pattern repeats: a reader notices, sounds the alert, more passages are discovered that are too similar for coincidence, and the person who did the copying is somehow surprised by their own behavior.

This article from 1997, “Meaningless Apologies, Disowned Selves,” by Kathy Kellerman (PDF) highlights a similar pattern in Janet Dailey’s “apologies” to Nora Roberts when she was discovered copying Roberts’ words. I hadn’t seen this article before and it’s a pretty insightful examination of the language of apologies which don’t own responsibility and knowledge of one’s own actions:

Just recently, much published (93 books) romance novelist Janet Dailey, ‘apologized’ for plagiarizing passages from rival Nora Roberts’ novels, blaming her conduct on a psychological disorder. Janet Dailey — the intact, whole, and undivided, ‘I’ — did not plagiarize.

Instead the dirty deed was done by “my essentially random and non-pervasive acts of copying,” Dailey said.

“I don’t know what that means,” said Nora Roberts.

Harner’s statement is similar. “It appears” that Harner “may have” plagiarized other writers, and “violated her own code of ethics,” which, oddly enough, is similar to the code of ethics held by most people who create most things – to wit, don’t steal people’s writing and say that it’s yours.

And, she asks that we “not judge her too harshly.”

Rihanna singing Don't tell me you're sorry cause you're not baby when I know you're only sorry you got caught

This gif is getting a workout, too, because today, there’s more!

How many plagiarism revelations can one week hold?

NPR and WQXR, a classic radio station that is a member of NPR’s network (and is the station I listen to when my alarm goes off in the morning) revealed that one of QXR’s online editors had been caught by an NPR copyeditor lifting passages without attribution. An examination of Brian Wise’s work revealed ten other articles in which he had plagiarized other writers.

NPR’s policy and their response are pretty frank:

NPR’s policy is clear: Plagiarism is unacceptable. Likewise, New York Public Radio’s policy is indisputable: “Plagiarism is an unforgivable offense. NYPR staff members do not take other people’s work and present it as our own.” There is nothing in journalism that is more important than the trust between a news organization and its audience. The hundreds of journalists at NPR and NYPR and across public radio devote their careers to upholding that trust every day. We apologize to our audiences and to those who had their work copied without credit.

Wise’s response: about as vague and distanced as Harner’s:

NPR and WQXR have identified some sentences and phrases in my work that were similar to those used in other media outlets. They are right. These unintentional lapses are entirely my fault. I did not live up to my high standards or those of NPR and WQXR. I sincerely apologize for this.

“Phrases in my work that were similar to those used in other media?” “Unintentional lapses?” How exactly does that work? Can you trip and fall into plagiarism?

But that pile of mush is nothing compared to the Washington Post’s “coverage” of Harner’s plagiarism from writer Justin Wm. Moyer (donotlink URL used, FYI):

Any writer knows that finishing any book isn’t easy. It takes craft. It takes persistence. It takes guts.

But a romance novel isn’t exactly “Infinite Jest.” Though some bodice-rippers are dirtier than others, there is a formula — at some point, the wealthy heiress or the lady-in-waiting hooks up with the horse wrangler or the errant knight, and jeans come off or, well, bodices get ripped.

But the fill-in-the-blanks quality of some romance novels seems to have been quite the hurdle for Laura Harner. The self-published author of romances featuring gay people has been accused of plagiarizing the work of a best-selling author of romances featuring straight people — and, in a statement, Harner has all but admitted it.

Wow. Romances aren’t Infinite Jest. The devil you say! And what’s this? There’s “a formula?” Well, I never. And they’re all the same?!

White courtesy phone for Mr. Moyer. 1997 is calling and they want their pseudo-journalism back.

Up until that monstrous pile of excrement was unleashed upon the internet, I was sighing at the familiarity of the sequence. It’s like a song at this point. Reader finds plagiarism. Author alerts people. Plagiarist responds with weirdness and an “apology” that has all the heft of a Wiffle ball. I start playing Rihanna on repeat.

But somehow, I didn’t expect the dispatch from the late 90’s press coverage of romance to show up in 2015.

It’s one thing when a person plagiarizes and steals words from others. I’ve said this before: plagiarism is treason among writers.

It’s another thing entirely when a writer can’t take the theft of words from another writer seriously enough to bypass the tired jokes.

It’s so difficult to, you know, set aside sexism, stigma, and misogyny, and consider the writing of another person as valuable as one’s own.

The coverage of NPR and WQXR’s revelation of plagiarism has been pretty factual. They admitted the problem, addressed it by assembling all the pieces of writing in question with corrected attributions, and apologized for how the actions of one of their writers affected their accountability in the eyes of their audience.

But hey, romance novels. We can’t take those seriously. Much like classical music, they’re all the same. Same notes, same letters, same formula, bunch of chapters or movements and really, they’re all fill-in-the-blanks, right? (Somewhere, J.S. Bach wants to rise up and smack me with his wig, I swear.)

What could possibly account for the difference in tone? One writer’s revelations of theft are treated with seriousness, and another’s are fodder for tired jokes and the dismissal of an entire literary genre, the people who write it, and the people who read it.

Gosh, golly, gee penis, I can’t imagine why that is.

I mean, the mainstream media should know better by now, right? There are legit journalists looking at the genre regularly without disdain, along with for-real academics studying the genre in depth and receiving grant money to do so. I’d like to think that the language and attitude surrounding the genre has begun to change, to become less misogynist and dismissive in the past few years.

That may be why this particular article is so distasteful: it’s out of place. That attitude of ignorance and bad jokes is from years ago, not now. For God’s sake, The Washington Post has a monthly column on romance written by Sarah MacLean. They should definitely know better.

Maybe it’ll stop if we name it! Heads up! When there’s shitass journalism about the romance genre that is steeped in flaccid sexism and tired cliches, we can call it “Moyering.”

So, back to that familiar, repeated pattern.

Discovery, then anger, then an “Oops, oh, was that me?” apology, followed by sexist condescension and ignorant blather from someone who couldn’t be bothered to take the work of another writer seriously.

I’m fine with the certainty that plagiarists will get caught, most often by readers.

And I’m pretty accepting of the inevitability that the plagiarist will pantomime a nonsensical apology best answered with Rihanna: “Don’t tell me you’re sorry, cause you’re not… you know you’re only sorry you got caught.”

But I’m ready for those who write, who are paid as writers, to stop dismissing the work of other writers when they are victims of plagiarism. Y’all can stop now.

Or you can say you’re sorry. That works, too.

Comments are Closed

  1. Sel says:

    “Moyering”: shitass journalism about the romance genre that is steeped in flaccid sexism and tired cliches

    I like this new term…

  2. Obsidian Blue says:

    I could not believe the Post article.

  3. Ellen says:

    Golly gee penis I wonder why? should be a cross stitch pattern

  4. Holly Bush says:

    The Moyer article did prompt some funny tweets. What a nimrod.

  5. Giddypony says:

    Comments about this issue of plagarism on Jezebel of all places trotted out tired cliches with “its basically porn” and then the inevetable caveat “I don’t read romance.” Well do the sex scenes magically seep through the air and inform you what romance is about?

  6. SB Sarah says:

    Is it wrong that I want that to be a Febreze scent? Forget Teen Spirit. I want Smells like Romance Novels. I can spray it at people who know all about them but haven’t read one!

  7. Pamala says:

    I know that it’s naive to expect “journalists” to not show such blatant disdain and bias in their reporting but I’m SO TIRED of having genre fiction denigrated. That article is such a slap in the face of all the writers who produce the wonderful stories we all love without following any “fill-in-the-blanks” formula (who KNEW it was that easy??? :ROLLEYES: )

    I mean, is no one at the Washington Post checking what goes up? They clearly recognize the force of the romance industry since Sarah McLean’s excellent column is a regular feature. So I don’t get why they would allow that dudebro to write what he did. Maybe they were trying to focus on the plagiarism but honestly, I stopped caring about what he had to say about that once he showed his bias against romance. Does he know that no one, let alone romance writers, are aspiring to write another Infinite Jest. One of those is plenty.

    Thank you Sarah, for continuing to keep us informed, for all you to to promote romance and for giving us a safe place to be ourselves.

  8. Cordy (not stuck in spam filter sub-type) says:

    Here is my 100% serious question. How does plagiarism save time or effort (or whatever) for the plagiarizer? I wish someone would just be real about this stuff so I could find out. Like… to me, say I were writing a book about a woman who lives in a castle surrounded by thorns and the prince who is hacking his way through the thorns to find her. How does it save time if I think “Okay, now I have a sequence where the prince fights a horde of angry cats” and then I have to go find a book where a character fights a horde of something and I have to go through it and change at least some of the words to make it fit what I’m writing?

    I always feel that I’m missing something very fundamental about plagiarism. What is the specific appeal to the person copying the words? I looked at the example paragraphs, for instance, and to me it seems like it’s a pretty sizable amount of work to rework that paragraph while using the same imagery, but not verbatim the same?

  9. violet_harte says:

    Plagiarism IS plagiarism. Just because these plagiarizing writers hide it with vague statements and snarky (or pleading?) undertones don’t change the fact that they copied another writer’s intellectual property. We all know it’s hard to write any kind of work [even if they’re using that older-than-my-grandma argument of romance novels being too “formulaic” or “trashy”]. IT ALREADY TAKES A LOT OF HARD WORK TO THINK OUTSIDE, INSIDE, AND EVEN USING THE BOX for romance writers to give us well-crafted novels. But at the end of the day, it’s a writer’s job to find words that will be her own, to be passed on to others, for the sake of romance novels and its readers, if nothing else.

    P.S. Many thanks to Sarah (Maclean) for her wonderful articles and her novels, too. And also to Sarah (the SBSarah, I mean) and the other wonderful people here for pointing this out. Hoping that the plagiarists will find more ways of saying sorry instead of copying other people’s hard work.

  10. […] “Plagiarism: The pattern and the response“. […]

  11. I think my head just exploded. Plagiarism is bad, but this person only plagiarized a romance novel, so it isn’t that bad?! Sigh. How about we say that theft is bad, but it isn’t that bad if the person they stole from was homeless? That just sounds uber shitty. That person is already marginalized. The same goes for romance novels. They’re already the red headed step-child of all those depressing literary classics, so this is just kicking them when they’re down.

    What the hell does this guy’s disdain of the romance genre have to do with plagiarism anyway? There is absolutely nothing wrong with reading or writing romance and it is time people get their heads out of their asses. I was recently told by someone who was interviewing me for a job that I should put the fact that I have my own website on my resume, but never to tell anyone that I review romance novels if I want people to take me seriously. The joke’s on him because most people who ask about my site are really impressed by the fact that I review any type of book because it shows an ability to think critically.

  12. I was just commenting on this on Facebook. I remember Kay Manning’s apology and felt the same hearing Laura Hamner’s. I didn’t feel the plagiarist was sorry in any way. Only sorry someone noticed.

    But why shouldn’t an author cash in on another person’s writing? There’s no consequences. Janet Daily continued to be a best selling author. Cassie Edwards still rakes in royalties. I’m pretty sure Kay Manning changed her name, got a new website and started all over again.

    I think you nailed it. The reason plagiarism in romance is prolific and consequence free is because it’s not taken seriously. If someone copied Cheryl Strayed’s stuff, the literary world would lose its shit.

    What’s so sad to me is that my response when I saw this latest perpetrator, I rolled my eyes and shook my head. Just another day in romancelandia, right?

    I actually had the privilege of being in a box set with Opal Carew in April and I feel awful that she’s had this happen to her. It feels more personal.

    But not surprising. And that is a terrible thing.

  13. […] the contempt of lazy journalists and litsnobs to whom she’s handed us on a plate as a target of idle mockery; the romance writers who put their heart and souls into their work; and the whole author community […]

  14. Just to add some context, Infinite Jest is a book that I bought in the 90s. I read about twenty pages and then promptly began using it as a doorstop, which is the best use of the novel I could think of. I have two degrees in writing and I cannot name a single person I know who read the entire book – though it has sat unopened on the shelves of many of the people I’ve met over the years. And this is the problem with a lot of literary fiction – readers can’t tell if the fact that it’s long, confusing and obtuse means that it’s good or bad. (since a lot of books we were assigned in college were also long, confusing and obtuse.) Very often in the world of literary fiction the emperor has no clothes. I know it’s frustrating to be dis-respected as a genre but take solace in the fact that your readers actually read and enjoy your entire books, do not feel compelled to pretend they understand what you wrote when they don’t, and aren’t just buying your books to decorate shelves with so that other people think they’re “cool” and “intellectual.”

  15. Karenmc says:

    Sarah, this is a dandy distillation of everything I was feeling yesterday after reading the Moyer piece. Thanks for organizing my thoughts and feels.

  16. Once again, you’ve managed to distill rage at the latest WTF? combo of plagiarism and lazy, hack journalism, and turn it into a damn fine response.

    Thank you.

  17. bnbsrose says:

    Moyerism. I’m saying it again, we need a glossary of terms.

    Sadly, we live in a world where excuses pass for apologies and moral compasses, more often than not, spin round and round and only point north when someone is looking over their shoulder.

  18. Becky McGraw says:

    YES!! WHAT SHE SAID! Thank you SBTB! You nailed it–that guy needs to put away his lime green leisure suit and step into the 21st Century! I hope the romance staff journalist there has him for lunch, but she’d probably get heartburn like the rest of us. What an asshat.

  19. Very fine outrage, Sarah. And said so well, I’m jealous!

  20. Kati says:

    *cries*

    Why? Why did I read the comments on that ridiculous WaPo article? I know better.

    Now I feel the need to junk punch someone.

  21. Jen says:

    To Cordy who asked about why people plagiarize, as someone who teaches students about plagiarism I can say most people plagiarize not to save time but because it’s hard to write your own stuff. Either they don’t feel good enough to do it or they’re just stuck and struggling to come up with something. Personally I think it often boils down to fear. Once you understand the risks, you know how big a risk plagiarism is so you have to have a pretty compelling reason to do it. Fear of failing/sucking/not living up to expectations/etc is awfully compelling. This isn’t an attempt to justify plagiarism, but I think it helps to understand it.

  22. […] Yet another plagiarism scandal (as well as yet another news story that fails to take Romance seriously as a genre) has hit Romancelandia, where I spend a great deal of my free time. Current roundup and links from SBSarah can be found at Smart Bitches Trashy Books. […]

  23. Beth says:

    Thank you so much for putting this together, Sarah, and thank you for the Rihanna. I have been getting depressed over all of the comments on other sites, so am glad to retreat to the Bitchery for solace!

  24. DonnaMarie says:

    @Jen, that may explain why a student would do it, but not someone who chooses writing for an occupation. If you cannot put pen to paper -WOW, am I old- I mean fingers to keyboard, and come up with something out of your own head, why would you decide to become an “author”? How could you take any pride at all in something, when the praise it garners is for someone else’s work?

  25. jeannie says:

    Let us also take note that the actual reporting dropped amongst all the “moyering” was actually borrowed from others – Jenny Trout and The Guardian. If that’s not ironic I don’t know what is.

  26. Maite says:

    What I do like is that Mr. Moyer has hit the nail on the head. Why so much romantic plagiarism?
    Because of people who go “Hey! Look at the sales numbers! And they are all formula, so it has to be easy.” Then they try, see it’s not that easy, and go: “This is all ”paint by numbers”. Who will notice if I take from here or there? They are all the same!”

    IIRC, The oxford dictionary used to accept written submissions of words. Let’s submit Moyerism.

  27. Jean Joachim says:

    Great post. Well said. I couldn’t agree more.

  28. Xondra Day says:

    I can’t help but shake my head at that Washington Post article. I’m glad people are speaking out against it like Smart Bitches!

  29. Deeply, really, sincerely want to thank you for writing this and for standing up for standards.

    I love books. I love to read. I am really out about it. But I am sickened at what is happening in the book industry. I am constantly harping on books that books are written too quickly, first drafts are being published, books are not being professionally edited.

    Now I’ve noticed a new trend. Authors are bribing readers. I recently had a newsletter from an author I will not name who offered a giveaway of a random drawing of a $250 Amazon gift card if I pre-ordered her new book. Another author had a random drawing of a Kindle fire if I reviewed her new book before such and such a date. What was shocking about the latter was that it clearly had not been professionally edited.

    These are just two examples of what I can only consider authors attempting to bribe their ways onto the various best seller lists. I think it is reprehensible. More than that, it insults the intelligence of the readers. Are we really that greedy for a gift card or e-reader that we will allow ourselves to be manipulated in this manner?

    I am a very poor person. My income is well below the poverty limit for a single person. If my Kindle fails, I can never afford to replace it. I would adore to win gift cards because my Kindle Keyboard is very much up there in years. It was a gift and I adore it.

    But I will not be bribed.

  30. CeeBeeMcGee says:

    Somebody needs to update Moyer’s wikipedia page with the origin of the word “Moyering” and his journalistic failures.

  31. Pamela Clare says:

    Freaking right on.

    Readers DO find this stuff. I was plagiarized by a fan-fic writer who lifted a scene verbatim from UNLAWFUL CONTACT and plopped it into her fan-fic piece and then shared it on a fan-fic site. Clearly, she thought no one would notice.

    But readers discovered it and let me know. I confronted her. Readers had already notified the moderators at that site. At first the writer denied it. Then, abruptly, she took her work down and disappeared.

    As for the article, right on again. Romantic fiction is by women (mostly) for women (mostly) and largely about women. Therefore it must be inferior, sub-literature for a sub-class of readers. So say the misogynists in the media.

    A really well-written piece. Thank you!

  32. I wonder how much this is complicated by the fact, as I’ve discovered in moderating a queer-lit page, that quite a few of the most … um, let’s call them “prolific” … m/m romance writers actually publish under multiple pseudonyms. Apparently this is considered an ethical marketing tool, but it wouldn’t be surprising if it also led to the practice of recycling one’s own material in the hope that a more-or-less repackaged product might reach multiple buyers. Because, hey, you can’t plagiarize yourself, right?

  33. You nailed it. Amazeballs.

  34. Mara B. says:

    @UnaVidaVagabonda Actually it is considered plagiarism to copy your own writing in a different work, at least in academia. And it’s one of my pet peeves in romance series (most often paranormal/fantasy) when there are almost identically worded explanations of the world in each book. If it happens in a mini explanation chapter before the start of the book that’s fine, I can skip it, and I will. But when it’s worked into the first chapters I find it annoying and boring. It’s nice for new readers of the series but if I’ve been following the series for a while I’ve already read the explanation multiple times and I’d rather not have to read it again.

  35. Kathy says:

    @ Kati
    I can somehow never stop myself from reading the comments, either, even when I know they’ll be a train wreck. And every time I complain about them, someone is bound to point out ‘but they’re just comments, don’t take it so personally.’ Ugh!

    The comments do bring one very unfortunate truth home, though: Plagiarists tend to have a very hard time in the court of public opinion, even when there are no legal consequences. But moyerists are all to often applauded.

    Isn’t it funny, though, that when the – in terms of genre conventions – not-that-unusual romance novel “fifty shades of grey” hit the non-genre-literate market, it was hailed as original, brave, ground-breaking, and all sorts of other hyperbolic adjectives? Talk about confirmation bias: romance as a genre is worthless; therefore, if we like the book, it can’t be a typical romance…

  36. @Mara B, oh too right!! I can think of a certain Very Famous Author often mentioned on this blog who writes under three names and has a group of science fiction/paranormal novels in which there are two forms of marriage and in every single one of those books she explains the history of, reasons for, and descriptions of these forms of marriage in the exact same words. It is ever so boring.

  37. Lynnd says:

    Call me cynical, but the Washington Post is owned by Jeff Bezos who, through his other company Amazon is making money from selling these plagiarized books. It is in his interest to deflect attention from his own company’s responsibility for distributing what are essentially “stolen goods.” As for Jezebel, I stopped taking them seriously a long time ago.

  38. Mara B. says:

    @Gloriamarie Amalfitano, and she was precisely who I was thinking about! I love JAK’s books but I am so sick of being reintroduced to the the history and social mores of Harmony every single book! Just put a intro chapter at the start of each book for the newbies and let us long time fans skip the repetitive info dump already.

  39. Re the Moyer piece:

    And how many unfinished great American novels has he started, I wonder? The dismissive attitude is reflects, IMO, a deeper issue than just being out of date/out of touch. It’s jealousy.

    The Infinite Jest example was all the clue I needed.

  40. Karin says:

    Plagiarism: bad. Sexism: bad. I really just came here to say that I also set my clock radio alarm to WQXR. It’s the only thing I can stand to hear when I wake up, and when it gets drowned out by another bigger station close to it on the dial, it throws my whole day off.

Comments are closed.

By posting a comment, you consent to have your personally identifiable information collected and used in accordance with our privacy policy.

↑ Back to Top