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

Wow!  So I just read Jane’s letter and learned something new...Romance novelists do have a Code of Ethics.  That’s cool!

Now if only CE had read it…

I wish I could be as eloquent as Jane and Sarah…

I’ve written and I wholly encourage you all to do the same.  I posted my letter up at dearauthor.  This is really the only way to get our point across to the leaders of the company.  I as I said over there, Rock on grassroots warriors!

I wrote my letter.  I just hope it, and all of the others, do some good.

Just and FYI, the Canadian Press (the Canuk version of AP) picked up the story.  You all are international now.

I’ve written. I stressed that while there are authors I will always buy (Nora Roberts, Barbara Metzger) my faith in Signet is gone and that will make me reluctant to try new authors. Which is sad for author and publisher. I also indicated that I felt the reply lacked respect for the seriousness of the apparent transgression and respect for the purchasers of those books and I hoped a more considered response would correct that.

I’ve written.  It’s here if anyone’s interested.

I am in the middle of crafting my letter right now.

I also wonder if it isn’t worthwhile to contact the companies that sell these books, and outline what is going on, and why we will not longer be buying these novels. That will hurt their bottom line, too. If booksellers get mass letters stating that people will no longer be buying products that they have for sale, they might put pressure on the publishers to make things right. The publishers won’t like it if booksellers pull certain novels, or threaten to, to appease their shoppers.

I see nothing wrong with her research.  Looks legal to me.

Legal doesn’t alway equate ethical.

Plagiarism doesn’t always constitute copyright infringement.

I am not a lawyer, but I’ve managed to grasp these differences.

Mary Ellen, I see nothing wrong with her research either, and I’m glad to know she did some.  The problem comes with the use of her research, claiming the words of the authors she’s read as her own.

I don’t think that kind of fraud is legal, though it may well be that no action can be brought because of the problem of proving causality.  It’s certainly not ethical. 

Do you see that there can be problems other than merely legal ones?

I understand the rage and ire against Cassie Edward’s either ignorant or intentional plagiarism of her research--I’m ticked off, too, not only because it’s wrong, but because it reflects badly on other romance writers and they’ve fought hard for respect.  But refusing to buy all Signet books?  There are some hard working and conscientious authors like Jo Beverley, Mary Jo Putney, Carla Kelly, and other historical and Regency authors who have written for or still write for Signet.  Do you really have to punish all Signet authors for the actions of one?

Write to Signet, don’t buy Edwards’s books if you believe it the right thing to do, but why refuse to buy the works of other authors who are honest and hard working?  They have to put food on the table and clothes on their families’ backs like everyone else.

Karen,

please believe that refusing to buy ANY Signet authors is a topic that has been covered in-depth, and I believe no one has any plans to do so. For one, La Nora is a Signet author and she is highly respected by everyone posting and reading here, and no one wants to penalize Nora because of CE.

I encourage you to read some of the other threads, starting with the first string of these CE articles to get a feeling for what people are really thinking and planning on doing about it.

And you are right; it is NOT fair to any other author at Signet, to boycott Signet specifically.

If you truly believe in freedom of speech, then I am going to be “devil’s advocate” concerning how SBTB’s blog is handling this specific topic.

From reading this SBTB blog, it seems that four days ago, one of the SB’s recommended CE’s book as ‘a bad example’. Then someone else found on google, that some of CE’s background info dump was copied from unattributed sources.

So, we have an author, CE - who has spent years of her life, building her reputation as a writer, and building up her income from writing - and in a mere FOUR DAYS, the two females at SBTB has LOUDLY and PUBLICLY attacked CE’s works, and are destroying her reputation.

Are you thinking, that SBTB, is entitled to atr the whim of a few blog entries, to destroy CE’s entire lifetime of hard work? I think SBTB could have dealt with the issue of copying sources, but also do it more thoughtfully and privately.

I think SBTB is too full of herself! Are you so reckless? that you don’t care how publicly destructive you are, toward a writer, CE, who has worked for years! SBTB does this reckless work in a mere 4 days?!!

We have an author, CE, who has profited from the original work of other writers for years. By all means, let’s handle it privately so as not to hurt her reputation.

/sarcasm

Here’s my letter to Penguin:

“It has come to my attention that Cassie Edwards, a Penguin author, has been accused of plagiarism. This is not an accusation that I, a faithful Penguin reader, take lightly. I had hoped that it is not an accusation that Penguin would take lightly either, however the only official statement to come from anyone associated with the Penguin Group seems to suggest otherwise. The official statement from Signet was nothing short of shocking. According to Signet, Cassie Edwards has done “nothing wrong”. It remains to be seen whether or not Ms. Edwards has done anything technically illegal, but she has certainly done something wrong.

The extensive evidence provided, by Penguin readers I might add, shows that Ms. Edwards has reproduced long passages of works previously published, by other authors, verbatim in her own fiction without any citation whatsoever. Her excuse, and the justification given by Signet, appears to be that these passages are evidence of “research”. I beg to differ; these passages are evidence of plagiarism. Authors of historical fiction must necessarily do extensive research, and certainly they are not expected to provide an academic bibliography. Ms. Edwards’s actions, however, go beyond research. The verbatim lifting of passages from an outside source into ones own work is not research, it is theft. It is at most offensively dishonest and at best lazy. Indeed, in my opinion, it is both.

I am not a lawyer, and thus cannot attest to the legalities, or illegalities, of Ms. Edwards’s actions. I am, however, a reader. And I will say that, as a reader, I expect quality and integrity from the authors I read. I expect quality and integrity from their publishers as well. It is not only Ms. Edwards who has effectively flushed her integrity down the metaphorical toilet, but Penguin has as well. I expected better from Penguin and Signet. The publication of plagiarised works is a serious literary offence, and an alarming blemish on Penguin’s reputation. Your readers expect better. Indeed, your readers demand better. You have a responsibility to provide quality fiction to your readers. If you shirk this responsibility, readers will respond appropriately: they will refuse to buy Penguin products.

What is becoming an increasing groundswell of reader outrage is under way. I suggest you begin to treat this matter with the appropriate severity.

Sincerely,
***** *******”

Hopefully they’ll start to get the message if a lot of us keep writing letters.

And… to Lucy S: Cassie Edwards doesn’t deserve a good reputation if indeed it is true that she’s a theif.

Lucy S, it should be clear to you that Signet intended to do nothing about this. They’ve publicly stated that she’s done nothing wrong. Do you know what would’ve happened if this had been drawn to their attention in a thoughtful, private way? Absolutely nothing. A cyber-pat on the head. The point of making a public deal out of it is to bring attention to the fact that stealing another author’s words is wrong and a company (or a group of writers or fans) cannot make the decision that it isn’t wrong. Plagiarism sans copyright violation is not a crime. It is an ethical violation policed entirely by one’s peers whether in academia or the world of fiction.

But I do concede something… If I were a plagiarist, would I want it handled privately? No doubt about it. But that is no the point.

Why not a boycott of Penguin Group books?  If plagiarism is allowed, I don’t want to read anything from their respective houses until they correct this.  A boycott is sometimes the only effective way to get the CEO’s and the President’s attention.

A lot of my favorite authors (Nora Roberts included) write for the Penguin Group, but I can’t, in good conscience, purchase anything until they resolve this matter. This is hurting me as much as I hope it will hurt them.

I realize I’m in the minority on this issue, but I can’t believe that Cassie is the only writer or romance writer that has used the “same words” as her research material.  I guess I would like to know why she is singled out and why.

Mary Ellen

As a follow up I agree with those (not many of course) that feel this blog has gone too far and has ruined a good reputation, possibly without good reason.

I for one will be writing Signet and telling that I WILL be buying and reading their books.

Mary Ellen

Mary Ellen Carmody, I see that you consider yourself a writer. Can I take some of your “same words” and slap them into my work, Mad Libs style? Because you’re right, that doesn’t sound like a good reason to ruin someone’s reputation. Because it isn’t like CE herself actually stole those words. Obviously Sarah and Candy went back in time to steal them and place them in her manuscripts so that here in 2008 we could ruin her.

What. In. The. Hell.

Are these people being obtuse on purpose? SHE HAS STOLEN FROM PEOPLE. It is the same as if she had walked into their houses many years ago and walked out with their written work and then slapped her name on it. She has taken credit for passages that she has lifted VERBATIM. This isn’t a case of paraphrasing or inspiration, this is a case of word for word transcribing.

Mary Ellen, I don’t understand. Are you saying you don’t think there is such a thing as plagiarism or that you just think it’s okay?

Ruth, I don’t know about you, but I keep thinking I am done with this, but what keeps dragging it out is this idea that, Hey! It’s not plagiarism! It’s just research!

Those of us who do actual, ethical research don’t appreciate it.

Yup, Victoria, that’s what keeps bringing me back. I simply cannot fathom the idea that people can’t see the word for word copying when they look at the passages.

God, let’s go get a drink together, shall we? We can stumble down the street screaming ferret-research quotes at passers-by.

First round is on me. I feel like there is steam coming out of my ears. The ferret one is KILLING me. Why aren’t articles citing that? I feel like the passages they are citing may not necessarily be as damning as the ferret one.

Ruth, Victoria, the next round is on me.

M. E. Carmody, the horse is not just dead, but old glue at this point, yet here we go:

---something that is not illegal can be profoundly unethical.
Specific to this case: it may not be copyright infringement, but it’s still plagiarism.

---research does not equate wholesale copying of other writers’ passages smack in the middle of dialogue/action/description in your own work.
Specific to this case: check the threads with side by side comparison.

---a good reputation should be earned by behaviour that can stand analysis by the public and one’s peers, not something granted on the basis of how long it took for people to discover wrongdoing (nor on the basis of motivations ascribed to those who blew the whistle)
Specific to this case: if CE ‘earned’ her reputation through the plagiarism of other people’s work, she doesn’t deserve it.

So, we have an author, CE - who has spent years of her life, building her reputation as a writer, and building up her income from writing - and in a mere FOUR DAYS, the two females at SBTB has LOUDLY and PUBLICLY attacked CE’s works, and are destroying her reputation.

Lucy S.--
Based on the evidence I have personally found and documented, Cassie Edwards has spent years of her life building her reputation as a writer using other authors’ words. 

In 1983, she wrote a book called SAVAGE BELOVED.  In fact, it was the first book in the famous “Savage” series.  I’m only halfway through the book but I’ve located four sections of copied material from non-fiction references that were still copyrighted.  That’s right--not public domain.  I’d be happy to share the info with you or anyone else who asks. 

Candy and Sarah have not attacked Cassie Edwards.  They’ve brought to light the fact that Ms. Edwards acted unethically.  If her (Edwards’s) reputation is destroyed, then it is her own fault because she got caught stealing.

Are you thinking, that SBTB, is entitled to atr the whim of a few blog entries, to destroy CE’s entire lifetime of hard work?

Hard work?  Creating a book using your own thoughts, ideas, and beliefs is hard work.  It is NOT hard work to “borrow” from reference materials to use as dialogue or narrative throughout your novel. 

I think SBTB could have dealt with the issue of copying sources, but also do it more thoughtfully and privately.

Why privately?  So that the media wouldn’t be aware of the situation?  The only person who would benefit from that is Cassie Edwards and she’s the individual in the wrong here.  NOT Sarah and Candy.

Also, a word of unsolicited advice. When accusing others of attacking an individual, you may want to choose your words and tone a little more wisely.  May add more weight to your argument.

So, we have an author, CE - who has spent years of her life, building her reputation as a writer, and building up her income from writing - and in a mere FOUR DAYS, the two females at SBTB has LOUDLY and PUBLICLY attacked CE’s works, and are destroying her reputation.

So, Lucy S., we have an author, CE - who spent years of her life STEALING from anthropologists, biologists, and other authors - building up her income and reputation.

The fact that it has taken only four days to uncover this theft is immaterial. Do you have any idea how long those anthropologists worked, under what kind of conditions? They didn’t get that information from Google, or from someone else’s library book. They lived amongst their informants for years, in many cases. They changed their lives, they changed the lives of their informants with their intrusiveness, and then these anthropologists wrote all of that information on what they observed by hand, and then they typed it up (or their wives or graduate students did) and then it got published and probably earned them a pittance of what CE earned with her use of the same information.

Are you so reckless? that you don’t care how publicly destructive you are, toward a writer, CE, who has worked for years!

Are you so reckless that you would support a writer that has stolen YEARS of work that other (much less appreciated) authors sweated, cried, and bled to produce?

I want to add something to the discussion.

I know that Penguin is the only one to say publicly that CE did nothing wrong, but they’re not the only publisher CE wrote for. 

Although other CE publishers didn’t say anything, that doesn’t mean they plan to do something about the situation.

If you want something done about the situation—truly want something done—you should write to other publishers who published CE’s “guilty” works as well.  Otherwise, other publishers may merrily sign and/or continue to reprint her backlist, therefore letting her earn income on books with stolen passages.

Randi, I wish you were right, but several people ARE talking about a Penguin boycott, and I truly thing it would be the wrong thing to do.

To anyone who’s thinking of doing this, the rationale that “it’s the only way to get the CEOs’ attention” just doesn’t hold up in this situation.  The story of CE’s plagiarism is on CNN.com’s Top Ten most viewed list, at #4 last time I checked--not something the aforementioned CEOs can ignore.  People are writing letters left and right, and letters from disgruntled readers get attention, you’d best believe it. Yeah, they’ll blow off blogs, they’ll dismiss a few customers, but many people writing to tell them where to shove their “nothing wrong” statement?  Not so ignorable.

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

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

With these things in mind, see why it burns me up to hear people talking about boycotting Penguin?  It’s definitely not out of any sympathy for Edwards or the publisher.  Authors who had nothing to do with this scandal, who haven’t stolen anything, will be the ones who would be deeply hurt by it--not Cassie Edwards, and certainly not Penguin.  And I think that is wrong, wrong, wrong.

(btw, I’m not a Penguin author.)

Yayyyy, FINALLY!  Been trying to post that comment for a solid hour… now watch it show up 28 times.

Something to keep in mind, regarding the publisher’s initial public statement, and the statement from RWA.

I can tell you, from my own experience, the process of checking, comparing, documenting takes time. It would be irresponsible of a publisher or an organization to make a definitive statement, basically, within 48 hours of the initial discovery and report.

It’s one thing for me--or anyone--as an individual to read, study, form an opinion and state it.

While I agree Signet’s initial statement was poorly worded, no one should assume nothing is being done. I would have to assume this is being handled as my case involving Dailey was handled. People are reading the books, comparing the passages. This takes time.

I do believe informing the publisher of your feelings is a good way to voice them. But I wouldn’t agree that concluding nothing is being done, and no actions are being taken is correct.

I’d certainly rather the publisher be thorough and equitable in its due diligence than speedy. Exactly the same for RWA.

Nora, you’re right, of course. In my irritation, I overstated the case. It’s not that I believe Signet planned to do nothing, but I do believe there is a big difference in the way they would “take care of it” if it were kept quiet as oppposed to being public. I’m certain they are looking into it, and I feel sorry for the poor souls who’ve had this added to their inbox! I was shocked that they’d make that kind of knee-jerk definitive statement right off the bat.

-Victoria, whose blood pressure is near normal now

Jane recently posted on Dear Author my argument against a publisher boycott, if anyone’s interested.

IIRC, it was Katie W. who talked in another thread about how readers talking about this issue on the blog was a way of standing up for against plagiarism and as testimony to our own intelligence, advocacy, and belief in the importance of intellectual honesty.  I think now, more than ever, her point is really well-taken. 

One thing, too, about the so-called calls about the “mean bloggers.” Those who want to use that as an excuse not to take this seriously are, IMO, making themselves look far worse than whatever they claim to be protesting.  But, as I’ve said before, I think it’s indicative of the way the whole “critical attention on Romance” idea gets bound up with the alleged mean v. kind thing. 

If people are against snark, then I think that’s one thing, but I don’t know how anyone can seriously suggest that Candy and Sarah are responsible for the decisions a Cassie Edwards made when she researched and wrote her books. I just can’t take those kinds of suggestions seriously, and I don’t think it’s the blogs they reflect badly on.

For those worried about Edwards’s reputation, an author’s reputation is based on what they write—or what they don’t.  Authors are not entitled to anything; they write, and if they hit with an audience, they sell, and we should all be able to expect that their work is original and honestly presented to readers.  The respect they earn or lose is—or should be, IMO—measured in the space between the covers of their books. 

If readers find an author amusing or disappointing or inspiring outside the covers of the book, that, IMO, is a different thing and is similar to the way we find those qualities in *any* person we are superficially acquainted with in this online environment.  I can name a number of authors whose work I love and whose online personae I don’t, and vice versa. 

I have no idea what kind of a person Edwards is beyond her books. I haven’t even read her books.  I have no idea why she did what she did with her books.  All I know is that what the SBs have uncovered is startling and unsettling.  If these were student papers, there would be BIG PROBLEMS for the student. Shouldn’t professional authors be held to even higher standards than young students? 

Regardless, the SBs uncovered an important issue, and one publisher has responded to readers in a way many of us have found disturbing. What ultimately happens to Edwards is not in my hands, and I am terribly grateful for that.  But this issue still affects me as a reader because I want to know that when I support a book with my money and time, the work is original. That I’m not inadvertently or unwittingly supporting intellectual dishonesty.

As an academic, using uncredited sources in my work would be straight up plagiarism, and I don’t see why publishing should be held to any different standard, especially since if it were Edwards who was plagiarized, Penguin would likely be pursuing the other party—academic or fiction writer—with lawyers in tow.  That is an issue that is of great interest to me, and one I think I have a perfect right to speak out on.  That doesn’t make me mean or a Cassie Edwards hater. It just makes me someone who cares about reading great books I can trust to be held to the highest possible standard of intellectual honesty and creative originality.  And for that, IMO, I owe no apologies.  Nor, IMO, do the SBs or Jane or anyone else who has participated reasonably in the breaking and discussions of this story.

Great post Robin!

If people want conspiracy theories maybe the SB’s posted about Cassie Edwards to get better emails than “ You CAN improve the size of your penis” or “ OPRAH wants to be YOUR friend!” or the killer “ Claim YOUR 500 dollar gift card from Barnes and Nobles” AAACK

Yeah, I get too much junk mail.. I get excited when I get notification “ SOMEONE HAS RESPONDED TO YOUR COMMENT” when I forget to deselect the lil box down below.

The Eerie Similarities are clearly a case of Cheyenne racial memory kicking in, and anyone here who says otherwise is a meannastytalentlessbitch. The passages agree word for word not because they were transcribed from other authors’ works, but because Edwards is tapped into a Higher Cheyenne Consciousness which expresses ideas in exactly the same vocabulary, style, and syntax to any mortal who comes into contact with it. She’s a brilliant writer who is channeling the Great Cheyenne Spirit, and you guys are (chant it with me now, people)...just jealous!

Oy. I’d gladly stand you both a round, Victoria and Ruth. If there’s one idea I hope I always modeled for my students it was that the integrity and rigor of the intellectual process they were engaged in was worth taking seriously. If you have no respect for your own intellectual integrity, no respect for the effort and integrity of those from whom you are learning, no respect for the integrity of the field to which you hope to contribute, then for God’s sake at least show some respect for the fact that you are being paid to do a job. (Which in this case was composition, by the way, not transcription.)

And the argument stands whether you’re publishing in a scholarly journal, writing fiction, or sorting dog crap for a living.

Hi - enough is enough - “bitch” is a good word for this place.  If this is all you do, I won’t be visiting again.

I realize I’m in the minority on this issue, but I can’t believe that Cassie is the only writer or romance writer that has used the “same words” as her research material.  I guess I would like to know why she is singled out and why.

Mary Ellen,

Speaking as a historical romance author with many friends in the business, I say there are very few of us who copy other writers’ words.

Most of us are smart enough to understand that copying is wrong and in violation of the Warranties and Indemnities sections of our contracts.

Most of us want our romances to reflect our individual writer voices.  NOT to read like textbooks.  We get a rush from creating original work.

And most of us are nice people who would not steal the work of other writers.

The few who cheat take the risk being “singled out”.

Too bad I’m late into this discussion.  Had an afterthought for Mary Ellen--even if it were true, how does “everyone is doing it” make it right? I never let my kids get away with that one.

Many have talked about writing letters and boycotting Signet and/or the entire Penguin Group, not just CE.  How many people are going to write their local bookstores, or the buyers for BN, Borders, BAM, etc?  Spamming CE listings on Amazon is wrong (though deliciously satisfying in a junior high sort of way), but a true boycott of her work can be achieved in a rational, organized, mature, and suchlike fashion.

Many of us reading and posting comments have mentioned, “But I *already* don’t buy her garbage!”

Helping educate those responsible for CE books reaching the store shelves, thus ringing up sales for her and Signet, would be a public service.  A strongly worded letter to Signet/Penguin, book buyers, libraries, Independent Booksellers, companies that stock the big chain stores (Target, Wal-Mart, etc), Cassie Edwards herself, would be healthy avenues to pursue in a true boycott of a proven and unrepentant plagiarist.  And thusly her publisher.

Oftentimes the romance genre is maligned.  If we defend it loudly and demand all authors be held to the same ethical standards, it can only chip away at that negative public image.  No business should knowingly sell plagiarized work, legal or no, when so many other deserving authors deserve that shelf space.  Have earned that shelf space.  Letters far and wide will go a long way to 1) educate those who may not know the issue; 2) support the removal of Cassie Edwards’ books from store shelves; 3) prove that the romance genre is full of smart people who demand the highest ethical standards—no different from any other genre; and 4) send a loud and clear message that stealing is just plain wrong, in all forms.  I trust business people will appreciate that stealing is wrong.

I imagine the letter could be accompanied by links to all the appropriate places.  Those who choose to continue with business as usual are free to do so—but it will not be for lack of knowledge on their parts, or trying on ours. 

Kim B.

Mary Ellen,

You may be a minority here but that doesn’t mean you’re not entitled to your opinion.

With that said, you have made a number of accusations about people being mean and bitchy. Responders have asked you to clarify your stance, several times, only for you to come back and call them mean and bitchy again.

I am more interested in your thoughts on plagerism, which you have not yet told us, than that you consider a few folks here mean and bitchy.

I hope you come back and let us know your position on plagerism. ;)