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

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!

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.

....

....

....

I do not believe this nonsense.

To re iterate:

Not actionable/not illegal DOES NOT EQUATE “ethical”

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.

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.

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.

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.

precedent not precident

Why do I never see errors until they’re published?

*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.

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….

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

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.

>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.

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.

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.

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.)

I’m not surprised, but on the other hand I’m boycotting Signet from this moment on.

~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.

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.

fair-use doctrine permits reasonable borrowing and paraphrasing

But she didn’t.  Paraphrase, that is.

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.

Does anyone else feel that statement reads as incredibly patronizing or is it just me?

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.

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!)

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.)

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.

Call me a cynic, but I’m not particularly surprised that the letter of the law is Signet’s concern, rather than ethics.

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

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.

“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.

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.

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

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)

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?

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.

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…

Inspired by Cassie Edwards, but certainly not plagiarised, oh no!

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.

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.

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!

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.

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).

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.

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*

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.

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.

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.

Another sigh.  Not going to feed the troll this time.

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.

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.

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

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?

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.

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!

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

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.

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!)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

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.

*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.

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*

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.)

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.

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.

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.)

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.)

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.

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.

Maybe it’s time to hop onto Amazon, Borders and Barnes & Noble online and get some -real- reviews on CE’s books going…!

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.

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)

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.

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!

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.

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.”).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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:

  Dear Jenny–

  Oh–with regard to your last sentence…in fact, you _can_ legally use absolutely anything that’s in the public domain (i.e., out of copyright). And in fact, at least two of the “sources” they were mentioning almost certainly are. Given the peculiarities of style in some of the bits quoted, I still don’t know why one _would_–but it’s totally legit to do so.

  Bottom line being that no, in fact, you _can’t_ plagiarize a source that’s out of copyright. You can do anything you want to with it.
  –Diana
  http://www.dianagabaldon.com

That came from this discussion, which contains other erroneous advice and information: http://tinyurl.com/2hcwpb

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.

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?

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.

Will start selling my Penguin ARCs now because clearly right and wrong is defined by what is legal.

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.

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!

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.

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?

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.

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, 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?

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

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.

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.

Would NO be committing plagiarism.  Sorry.

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.

Wouldn’t boycotting Signet include Nora’s books? Nu-uh, sorry, not gonna do it.

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.

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.

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?

~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.

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.

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?

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 . . .

grr can’t edit..

anyway the wiki article says
“a blog”
instead of naming “THE” blog lol

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.

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.

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’.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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…*

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.

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.

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.

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.”

“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.

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…

<

>

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!”

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.”

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.

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.

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!

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?

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.

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.

~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.

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.

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.

“Resistance is futile”
Sorry couldn’t resist-loved the Borg comment.

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.

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.

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.

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.

~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.

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.

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.

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.

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!!!!

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?

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?

E.Ann..
Stolen Thunder for reals?

LMAO that has to be the FUNNIEST thing I’ve read in DAYS.

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.

karibelle said,

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

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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….”

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….

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.

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.

“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.  /;+)

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.

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.

”  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.

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.

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.

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!

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.

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

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’.

I believe instances of people calling CE anything harsher than “plagiarist” on this board are few and far between.

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.

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.

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?

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.

~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.

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.”

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.

Victoria sayeth earlier

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.

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.

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.

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.

~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.

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.

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.

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

>>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?

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.

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.

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.

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?

Out of curiosity, Rick, what romance authors do you read and enjoy?

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?

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,

And I write too. Only it’s non-fiction and I don’t repeat myself.

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

The romance genre is, for the most part, plagiarism.

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.

~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?

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.

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.

Victoria,

You beat me to it but I was about to say Poo which starts with P and ends with O’rly.

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.

“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.

AJ,

I suppose I could, to what end?

Rick asks (somewhat disingenuously, IMnot-at-all-HO),

I suppose I could, to what end?

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.”~

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

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.

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.

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. :D

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. :D

“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.