I’ve been quiet online about the Cassie Edwards possible plagiarism affair thus far.
(Check out Smart Bitches and Dear Author for multiple posts detailing the discovery and research into the use of non-fiction sources on Native Americans by Ms. Edwards.) Which is not to say that I’ve been entirely silent. Have had a conversation with The Biochemist, whose perspective is academic. Her initial response:
[A]s scientists, we tend to be really harsh when people don't attribute, even the smallest bit of data that's being reproduced, or repetition of an idea. That's how it is. Maybe rivals do it sparingly and grudgingly...but it gets done. (Specific names of scientific rivals deleted to protect the innocent.)
My perspective is pretty consistent with hers, though it comes from a slightly different training background. As Jane explains in her
treatise on plagiarism and copyright, the practice and theory of law are built on using arguments and decisions that others have made and written – and about citing those works. There is even a book (
The Blue Book, now on what, the 18th edition?) on how to properly cite every type of material under the sun. And law students are given a crash course in how to properly attribute and cite in the first year, just in case they haven’t been taught that plagiarism and/or lack of attribution to source material is wrong in their earlier academic endeavors.
Candy and Jane contacted CE's publishers about this, to get their perspective. Here’s what Signet said, copied from
SBTB:
Signet takes plagiarism seriously, and would act swiftly were there justification for such allegations against one of its authors. But in this case Ms. Edwards has done nothing wrong.
The copyright fair-use doctrine permits reasonable borrowing and paraphrasing of another author’s words, especially for the purpose of creating something new and original. Also, anyone may use facts, ideas and theories developed by another author, as well as any material in the public domain. Ms. Edwards’s researched historical novels are precisely the kinds of original, creative works that this copyright policy promotes.
Although it may be common in academic circles to meticulously footnote every source and provide citations or bibliographies, even though not required by copyright law, such a practice is virtually unheard of for a popular novel aimed at the consumer market.
What I know about IP would fit on the head of a pin with space to spare, but I don’t think that cutting and pasting sentences from other texts counts as
reasonable borrowing and paraphrasing or that it is protected under fair use.
Let me repeat this:
But in this case Ms. Edwards has done nothing wrong. My first thought is that this sentence reminds me of Nixon's
I am not a crook. Next thought: this isn't a smart thing to write. Especially as an initial response to an allegation of plagiarism. What she's done may not be
illegal, assuming the sources are all out of copyright (although there may be an argument to be made about fraud -- check out the discussion on Fandom Wank). Sometimes law and ethics overlap and sometimes they don't; I think of them as a Venn diagram or concentric circles. Right, wrong, fair, unfair, words like these have a place in arguing legal merits but do not belong in opening responses to the report of a potential problem IMO. This as a first response lacks PR savvy, I think, and comes across as defensive, heavy-handed and closeminded.
And from the
AP report: Ms. Edwards was not aware that romance writers using historical information were required to cite her sources. Were the basics of research and writing not taught in her secondary school? (I have no idea what education Ms. Edwards has, but expect through high school.) Except this also is consistent with Signet's response. At what point does using another's words and work without attribution become acceptable? Is it because this is fiction? That doesn't make sense -- I've read a lot of fiction with footnotes and endnotes.
Since I've never read Ms. Edwards (Native American romance is not my thing), I have no personal stake in this. But as a reader of fiction, I do have a stake inasmuch as it is emblematic of the legitimacy that any reader has a right to expect from any author. As I wrote to The Biochemist yesterday, I have an unspoken relationship with the authors I read, albeit an impersonal one. We are not friends nor do I have the right to expect anything from them other than a good book. They do not have the right to expect anything from me other than an honest opinion about their work. Honest does not necessarily mean favorable, either. When I buy an author’s book, I am relying on her/him to have submitted the best book s/he can write, each and every time s/he is published. Maybe there are things I won’t like, maybe it isn’t the “best” for me, but I’m expecting her/his best efforts, and in return, I don’t mind paying for the book (instead of borrowing it from the library or buying it used). If an author plagiarizes or uses the work of others without attribution or however you’d like to say it, s/he is violating that unspoken agreement between us; if I can’t trust that the book I’m paying for is *his/her* then why should I pay for it (or anything else s/he writes) ever again?
Ms. Edwards hasn’t lost any sales on my part since I wasn’t inclined to buy from her in the first place. But the publisher’s response is telling, although not a huge suprise to my cynical self. It says to me that unless there is the possibility of legal consequences (and costs), plagiarizing is okay. Except, I’m sure, when one of that publishing house's authors is the one whose work is paraphrased and/or reasonably borrowed from. All bets would be off then, I'm sure.
Afterthought: WTF re: borrowing. If one borrows, then one must return. At what point will the words be returned? And if they were "borrowed", will they be returned with the income they earned while CE was using them?
