jmc_bks

I hate it when an author uses the wrong word.  A while back I read a suspense novel in which the author described exsanguination as the cause of death but kept calling it evisceration.  Both pentasyllabic words starting with the letter "e", both describing a fairly horrific and surely painful way to die.  But not the same thing.  And I don't think it was the author having the narrator make an error as part of her character.  The word was just used incorrectly.

Today's language pet peeve?  Specifically bequested.  Here's the thing:  "specific bequest" is a noun meaning that in a will, the testator left a particular item to a particular individual, specifying its disposition; it is distinct from the residuary or bulk disposition.  As in, I leave my collection of Barbie Dolls (TM) to my favorite niece, all other tangible personal property to be divided among my children, if they survive me, in as nearly equal shares as is practical given the nature of the property.

The verb for this?  Bequeath.  A specific bequest is not specifically bequested.  It is bequeathed specifically.

And that is all I have to say on the matter.

Okay, maybe it's just me being overly touchy because I've written many, many wills and trusts.  It just jumped off the page at me.   

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? 

Deep breath. Inhale. Hold. Exhale.

Parents are offended because erotic romance is in the library, corrupting the minds of young readers? Courtesy of SBTB.

WTF? Is it the public library’s job to monitor what your children read? No – it is YOUR job. The public library is a holding place for many, many books that aren’t appropriate for children. Hell, for some books that aren’t appropriate for some adults. If you don’t want your children checking erotica out, then maybe you should pay attention to what they are selecting. 

Here's the thing -- my mother had NO idea what I was checking out of the library.  Would she have nipped my romance reading in the bud if she had known some of the stuff found in the local library?  I don't know.  And in retrospect, some of the stuff I read was perhaps not appropriate for a 13 year old.  But that wasn't the library's fault.  

So, the Metro advertisement that I complained about last fall (see my post here and the much longer thread over at Smart Bitches) is still being used. Hadn't seen it on the Metro, so it slipped out of my mind. But recently billboards have been added to the train platforms for the Amtrak/MARC/VRE tracks at Union Station. And guess what's up (on track 10, I think)? Yes, that ad. Grr.

Of course, I'm less than thrilled with all of the ads I've noticed. One is for HIV drugs. My problem isn't with the drugs, but the implied message about coolness and the inconvenience of medicine-taking. WTH? Big Pharma's new lure isn't that it'll save your life but that the drugs/dosages will be more convenient for you? And the breast feeding ones which imply that only bad mothers choose not to breat feed.

Or maybe I'm just being contrary and would find something to bitch about no matter which ads were posted. :shrugs:

Last night’s train ride home was icky on so many levels.

( Let me count the ways. )

I bounced around via a bunch of links to this BBCNews piece on Jane Austen's continued popular appeal.

And I listened to yesterday's episode of Democracy Now! Which was utterly demoralizing. Goodman focused on women in the American armed forces as part of International Women's Day. She interviewed a researcher and several women who were or still are in the armed forces and served in Iraq. Transcript is here. Or you can use the link on that page to download the podcast or listen/watch online. ( Be prepared to be saddened and disturbed. )

Gah!  On the radio this morning, one of the deejay's was talking about how he wants to see the movie 300 this weekend.  Cool, me too.  Except his co-host was all, "Oh, right, that movie about Spartacus."  Wrong reference:  wrong empire, wrong peninsular country, wrong fight altogether.  

Spartacus:  Roman slave turned gladiator turned rebellion leader in the 1st century BCE.

Sparta:  militaristic Greek city-state with strict warrior code and stoic living conditions; root of the term spartan, meaning utilitarian and plain; enemy of the Athenian city-state, against whom it fought the Peloponnesian War; its warriors were the heroes of the Battle of Thermopylae (subject of the movie 300) which effectively ended Persian expansion into Europe in the 5th century BCE.

This is basic Ancient Civilization information, stuff learned in 10th grade, then repeated in HIST 100 in college.  Bah!

You know, I am very sympathetic to the antiwar march in DC today. If I didn't have class and work, I'd probably participate. But these marchers/protestors are doing the same thing that all people unfamiliar with public transportation (and public places?) seem to do: stop dead in the middle of briskly moving foot-traffic to get their bearings without considering the hundreds of people right behind them; seem unable to negotiate a turnstile (it's not complicated, but some people don't get it); and -- this is what drives me INSANE -- don't understand the "walk on the left, stand on the right" rules for escalators. There are signs, people! And footprints painted on the freaking elevators. Have you been locked in the basement for your entire lives that you can't manage these rules?

Okay, I've felt really bitchy lately. It's not hormonal. I shouldn't feel so grouchy. But I do. Which is scary, because usually November is a good month for me -- I like the fall season and I love Thanksgiving. [Why Thanksgiving? 'Cause The Biochemist and my birthday usually falls on or around Thanksgiving and we visit each other and indulge in food, books, movie and football gluttony.] After Thanksgiving, I spend most of December feeling irritated with the faux holiday cheer promoted by the shopping industry, then in January I'm back to normal. But the pissy mood has started very early this year and is more intense than usual. It's a combination of pessimism on a larger level and frustration on a personal level, I think, combining into a big black cloud. If mood could be seen, mine would be like Pigpen's dust cloud in the Peanuts cartoon. I'm not sure how to get myself over it; I'm trying to resolve the personal frustrations, but the larger pessimism isn't going to go away until 2008 at the earliest and even then I have my doubts.

The retail holiday season has arrived already, it was here even before Halloween. Target had ornaments and stuff out. And I've begun getting flyers and catalogs. And this morning I noticed that Starbucks has announced that the holiday drinks have arrived: Peppermint Mocha, Gingerbread Latte and something else. Along with the holiday themed cup holder thingees. Yay. Not.

I picked up Women of the House last night and put it back down. The part that I read was good, I just wasn't in the mood. Instead I skimmed a bit of Memory in Death as prep for next week's release of Born in Death.

Romance related query: I noticed today that a recent Harlequin Presents uses the words "erection" and "clitoris" in a love scene. Never noticed it before; when I thought about it, I don't think I've ever read an HP that "graphic". Usually they stick to vaguer terms and euphemisms for sex parts and sex acts. I went back to an older book by the same author. Very similar story, characters, etc., but vague euphemisms, nothing so specific. Is this a change in HP? Inquiring minds want to know.

Got my hair cut and highlighted this evening, which is normally an experience I enjoy. Tonight not so much. I left feeling irritated. The cut is fine; color is fine. So what irritated me? The shampoo. The shampoo is the part I like best. It just feels decadent to me, to be seated with my feet up, reclining, having a scalp massage. Usually it completely unwinds me. But the shampoo girl tonight felt like she was tearing my hair out at the roots. When not making me prematurely bald, she was gouging my scalp with too long fingernails and spraying water into my ears. My scalp hurts and I can't get the last drop of water out of my right ear.

I would've gotten over that EXCEPT she used this new conditioner on me that smells like sandalwood, my least favorite cologne. Normally I leave feeling bouncy and thrilled, hoping I don't end up with Pyscho Hair (term for bedhead coined by a grad school roommate of The Biochemist) so I can wear it to work without attempting to style it myself (it never looks as good). Tonight? All I wanted to do was get home fast so I could to wash out that conditioner and make the sandalwood smell go away.