Smart Bitches Trashy Books | All of the romance, none of the bullshit.

An article about the Cassie Edwards controversy is in today’s New York Times Arts section, (login may be required). Mostly a summary of the incident, it highlights the ethical points we’ve debated, and links to the masterfully huge PDF Candy constructed that lines up the passages we found. Yay Candy!

I also have word from Michelle Styles that an article appeared in the Telegraph under the headline Romantic novelists out of love over plagiarism.

I started composing this before I got the news that Signet had issued a new statement--had, in fact, beat a hasty and rather strategic retreat. (If the legal department goes “YOU FOOLS WHAT THE HELL WERE YOU THINKING?” but there’s nobody in PR to listen, did PR still collectively crap their pants? Ponder this koan.) So this is no longer strictly relevant, but I like my strategy at the end of this post--and I’d argue that ultimately, that was the strategy that worked in this case.

---

When Signet released their first official statement about the Cassie Edwards debacle, I admit was furious. What the hell was going on here? Nothing wrong? Nothing wrong? Nothing illegal, arguably, but nothing wrong? Compounding this anger was the realization that really, other than raising awareness (and thereby treading the line between getting the word out vs. being obnoxious brats--and many people have argued that we crossed the line right off the bat due to what a snot I was in that first post of mine), we’d done all we could do. We’d e-mailed our findings, we’d made them public, and we were told, essentially “Tough. Suck. It. Up.”

And the rest of you were mad, too, and wanted to show your displeasure in a way more concrete than words. The idea of a boycott was immediately brought up. Hey, hit them where it hurts, right? In the wallet, bitches, in the wallet.

Except wonderful as the idea sounds, and appealing though it may be, a boycott in this particular case isn’t going to do much at all.

Janet at Dear Author provided some very good reasons why it’s a less than ideal solution, but it all boiled down to this: it’s going to hurt the authors a hell of a lot more than it’s going to hurt the publisher. Signet is huge, and their parent company, Penguin, isn’t huge so much as it is HOLY CRAP HUGE. Any sort of concerted effort to organize a Signet boycott would’ve produced at best negligible results against them while smacking innocent authors in the bank account and making them cry. The average author? Not quite as rich as Signet. Boycotting Cassie Edwards novels would’ve perhaps been a more productive move, but as many people pointed out in the comments: her fanbase is not necessarily reading this website, and frankly, most of her fanbase may not care about--or even be downright hostile towards--our efforts.

Amelia Elias provided more detail about why a boycott will hurt innocent authors disproportionately in an e-mail to me:

If people boycott Penguin books for even just a couple of months, it will have a tiny impact on Penguin’s total bottom line--TINY.  But for the honest authors who have releases during those months?  The impact they face is HUGE.  The first month a book hits the shelves is the highest visibility and the best sales most books ever get.  Thirty days in the sun to get the best sales you can.  Authors plan advertisements, book signing events, interviews, etc--anything they can come up with to get their name and title out to the buying public during that time.  The next month, if the book is still on the shelves at all, it’s shuffled to the back and hidden behind the next round of new releases. 

And it’s not just that one month of royalties that’s at stake, even though to me, that’s enough by itself.  Publishers negotiate an author’s future contracts based on the sales of past books.  If the author’s sell-through sucks, their next advance will also suck.  Their print run will be smaller, their advertising less or nonexistent, their distribution smaller.  A new author with poor sales might not get offered another contract at all.

So in essence, if you decide to boycott Signet, you’re penalizing the authors for the high crime of signing on to Signet, and not only that, you’re penalizing yourself for denying yourself the pleasure of reading some damn fine authors, because Signet publishes good stuff, too.

And even if a boycott worked--even if we raised enough awareness to get the word out and actually organized something--history shows us that this isn’t exactly the fastest way to move. And you know what? I’m an impatient little monkey.

Which is why I advocate a method that works, and works astoundingly well, and has for centuries--one that has become a near art-form in certain cultures. Shame. Shame and humiliation. Public humiliation. Publishers want to make money, sure, but they also want to be known for putting out a quality product. Exotic grammar, stilted dialogue and characters hewn from the heart of the mighty mahogany tree could all be passed off as subjective preference, perhaps, but allegations of unattributed usage that are as widespread as what we have going on? Not quite as easy to sweep under the rug, especially not when there are a lot of people making noise.

So make some noise. If you need your noise to be more directed, write a letter expressing your very polite, very pointed ire at Signet and/or Penguin.

Shame them. Shame the everloving hell out of them. We can’t make enough of a dent in their wallets, but we sure as hell can make a dent in their professional image.

Fresh from my inbox, a statement from a Signet spokesperson:

Our original comments were based on Signet’s review of a limited selection of passages. We believe the situation deserves further review. Therefore we will be examining all of Ms. Edwards’ books that we publish, and based on the outcome of that review we will take action to handle the matter accordingly.  We want to make it known that Signet takes any and all allegations of plagiarism very seriously.

The story is in the AP and therefore in USA Today, the New York Times, and various local newspapers from Oklahoma City, OK, to Morris County, NJ.

Hi there, newspaper readers. Hayadoin?

My point is, this isn’t a blog story anymore, and it’s not just a concern for the romance community, either. It’s a national story about what is and what isn’t plagiarism. Candy, myself, Jane at Dear Author, Nora Roberts and other readers say it is. Signet Publishing and Cassie Edwards say it is not.

Some of the comments I’ve seen on our site and in my inbox sent to me personally ask in irate tones how dare we, why didn’t we pursue it privately, and how can we BE so MEAN!?

Accusations as to Candy’s and my morality notwithstanding, this isn’t really about Cassie Edwards so much as it is a debate of ethics. The entries we’ve posted as to the passages that match her novels speak for themselves. This became about plagiarism and the ethical debate surrounding fair use the minute Signet said she’d “done nothing wrong.” I personally, as a reader, consumer, and writer, think there is something very wrong when sections of dialogue in a fictional novel match a previously published source identically and without attribution, particularly when the novel in question is published by a bestselling, nationally recognized author and thus she and her publisher presumably profit from the contents therein.

In my opinion, the debate here isn’t about reputation and HOW we should handle information on this site. The question for me at this point is HOW the romance writing community, including writers, readers and publishers, responds to plagiarism, and so far, I’m deeply amazed and cheering on the readers who say, “That is NOT right and I’m writing to Signet, and Penguin/Putnam to say so.”

As a wise friend of mine, RB, just said: “In the modern age, everyone’s a writer.” All our blogs and journals and published and digitally published works all constitute writing. A good writer cites their sources, acknowledges them, and in my opinion does not drop identical passages without attribution to the original writer.

Moreover, for every hate email I have in my inbox, I have readers who grabbed an Edwards novel and did their own research by not only searching online but taking a trek to the library to consult additional sources.

(Want to move on to other Smart Bitch topics? I’ve got a Friday video today that will make you snort liquid up your nose. I recommend you put down the beverage before you watch it. It’s like whoa, merde, and mon dieu.)

Nora Roberts has been quoted in a revised AP article regarding the Cassie Edwards story:

Roberts, whose fiction has sold hundreds of millions of copies, told The Associated Press on Thursday that “it seems clear” Edwards acted improperly.

“Given the side-by-side comparisons I’ve read, it seems clear Ms. Edwards copied considerable portions of previously published work and used them in her books without attribution to the original source,” Roberts wrote in an e-mail to the AP. “By my definition, copying another’s work and passing it as your own equals plagiarism. As a writer, a reader and a victim of plagiarism, I feel very strongly on this issue. I’m not a lawyer, but I can’t see it as fair use, or fair anything when one writer takes another’s work.”

Both Roberts and Edwards are published by Penguin Group (USA), which on Wednesday defended Edwards, saying: “She has done nothing wrong.”