BOOKS

Move Over, ‘Meerkat Manor’

A nature writer suddenly finds himself at the heart of a hot plagiarism scandal.

Newsweek Web Exclusive

Jan 15, 2008 | Updated: 1:14 p.m. ET Jan 15, 2008

« Return to Article

Discuss

Posted By: SheilaE @ 03/21/2008 1:55:56 PM

Comment: Though it seems a bit unfair to stereotype all romance novels as "trashy", I can't fault the writer for sharing their own opinion, espeically if that opinion is based off of what was just read out of that novel. That was terrible! But, it is also not reflective of romance novels of today. Many of romance novels today are written by well educated and/or trained people. Many doctors and attorneys write romance these days. It just isn't the same genre it was back when Edwards started writing romance.
I think the author here should be given kudos for being able to laugh it off .
I also think that Cassie Edwards should have at least apologized when the author called her. It's one thing to be ignorant of the law, but another to be ignorant of simple etiquette. My 6 year old know when she owes an apology!
I felt sorry for Edwards. She got crucified online. I hope she has learned a valuable lesson. I'm sure there are a lot of people who learned from her very media-visible mistake.
Posted By: Xavienne @ 03/01/2008 1:40:36 PM

Comment: You're going to call him out as ignorant after someone plagiarizes his work and then claims they didn't know they had to quote source?
Oh, and FYI? Just because something sells well, doesn't mean it's good, nor classy. Uggs and Crocs are prime examples of this.
Posted By: jacywilder @ 02/19/2008 6:03:17 PM

Comment: For someone who writes non-fiction research related pieces, this piece was certainly not researched. Call romance what you will but it is almost 55% of the paperback market. With those kind of numbers your comments only make you seem small and ignorant.
Posted By: JayneGray @ 02/19/2008 2:34:54 PM

Comment: Shame on you for using a term as archaic as "Trashy Romance Novels". It might not be an in depth look at something as intriguing as say, ferrets, but it's still hard work writing genre fiction! Something you obviously know nothing about.
Posted By: JayneGray @ 02/19/2008 2:32:55 PM

Comment: Shame on you for using a term as archaic as "Trashy Romance Novels". It might not be an in depth look at something as intriguing as say, ferrets, but it's still hard work writing genre fiction! Something you obviously know nothing about.
Posted By: Raylene @ 02/10/2008 11:38:01 AM

Comment: So is there really a book about ferrets? And if so where can I get a copy?
Posted By: Raylene @ 02/10/2008 11:36:58 AM

Comment: So is there really a ferret book? If there is where can I purchase it?
Raylene Hampton....ujustpushplay@att.net
Posted By: vale @ 02/06/2008 3:17:30 PM

Comment: As a Newsweek reader and Defenders of Wildlife member, i was curious about this story! Tolmes wrote an amusing article. THe romance novelist ought to apologize for this and donate fto Defenders of WIldlife. Tolmes b emusement of being quoted (unattirbuted) was priceless..
Posted By: BBesold @ 02/06/2008 3:11:08 PM

Comment: OMG! This is one of the funniest articles I've read in a long time. I am both a Defenders of Wildlife supporter and a trashy romance novel fan. While Paul Tolme could simply have erupted in anger and followed through with a lawsuit (rightly so) I LOVE the fact that he went out and bought this novel,then took the time to read through it. His comments are hysterical ~ what an entertaining writer!
Posted By: BBesold @ 02/06/2008 3:03:32 PM

Comment: OMG! This article is one of the funniest things I've read in a long time. I am a Defenders of Wildlife supporter and a long time reader of trashy romance novels as well. Kudos to Paul Tolme for his entertaining outlook on the blatant plagiarism of his black-footed ferret article. While he could have just erupted in anger and a lawsuit (rightly so), I love the fact that he went out and bought the novel and actually read through it. His comments throughout this article are priceless!
Posted By: LiteraryRX @ 01/25/2008 8:31:05 PM

Comment: Well this is just rediculous. It sounds to me like she is just a lazy writer. They teach about plagiarism the minute you learn your alphabet. She is, I'm sure, aware of her rights as an author and that plagiarism is illegal. In fact I'm sure she's got a contract that says it in a file folder somewhere. With stories of plagiarism floating around the internet and the news CONSTANTLY she can't plead ignorance. She's not only a plagairizer, but a lousy liar. A works cited page is SOOOO easy to write too. Not to mention, if she had put it in her own words and she had written a works cited page I would have been terribly impressed! Lots of authors do research for their books and that includes romance writers. The more research done the better the book. I have a fitting punishment: Write a 50 page paper on the problems with plagairism, how it hurts the original author and the plagairizer, and why (as every four year old knows) it is rude to be a copycat... all in HER OWN WORDS. Does anyone else hear sinister organ music playing in the background?
Posted By: LiteraryRX @ 01/25/2008 8:21:34 PM

Comment: This totally shocks me to the core! I'm a literature major and a pharmacy student (random, but it works). Plagiarism of scientific information is rediculously hard and I wonder how much of her high school papers this Edwards woman wrote were plagiarised. Kids write papers about their favorite animals in first grade to get them familiar with the library and their taught that they should not write anything word for word, list facts, and write down sources in a bibliography.... these are FIRST GRADE PAPERS! Not published works. If this Edwards has enough sense to call her lawyer when she's been caught she has enough sense to write a small works cited page and put something CLEARLY scientific in her own words. This is a sign of a lazy writer. Romance writer, researcher, first grader, it doesn't bloody matter. Plagiarism is plagerism and its all over the news (obviously) all the time. Pleading ignorance (which is BS in my opinion) is not a way out. I say we make her sit down and write a book on plagerism and how it not only hurts the original writer, but the plagiarizer as well. And no plagiarizing this time. Seriously. You're a professional writer... how hard is it?
Posted By: VenividiVicky @ 01/20/2008 4:06:36 AM

Comment: For the record, Georgette Heyer is abysmal. I was dumb enough to read one "Regency" book. Never. Again. Not only it wasn't good literature, it wasn't even passable. Characters were acting absolutely ridiculous for their time, and icky forced molestations that heroine, of course, just loved. (All in times and class of Jane Austen!) I was insulted as a woman and a reader. I am sure she have read some, maybe lots of info about times she's using for her offensive shlock, but it doesn't make her a good writer, or someone who actually understands this time period. There are many serious writers who create historical fiction which doesn't concentrate on who screws who, but rather on portraying the spirit of the era.
- Posted By: wdtcm @ 02/08/2008 18:17:50
  
  Comment: A point about Georgette Heyer. There are no sex scenes in her books. Ergo, there are no "forced molestations." At the time when she was publishing, noone wrote sex scenes, and, being the kind of writer she was, there wouldn't be.
  
  Heyer was a classy writer who emulated Austen's tone beautifully and also hewed to the etiquette and other conventions at the time of the Regency.
  
  Perhaps VenividiVicky is thinking of Kathleen Woodwiss or Rosemary Rogers bodice-rippers? These ladies wrote such "forced molestation" (er, is there such a thing as an unforced molestation?) scenes/rape fantasies that have since been abandoned by contemporary romance writers (both those who write well and those who write abysmally - Ms. Edwards is a case in point).
Posted By: BarbaraTK @ 01/19/2008 2:26:14 PM

Comment: I'm going to try and explain this again. In no way, shape or form did I compare The Eye of Argon to Ms. Edwards' book.
I was simply trying to show how Mr. Tolme's statement of "The prose is standard romance-novel shlock." went from a comment on Ms. Edwards' novel to a comment that described all romance novels as shlock.
Another example would be if I took any SF book at random______(insert title in blank space) and then stated that "the prose in that book is standard science fiction novel shlock."
Posted By: BarbaraTK @ 01/17/2008 8:13:20 PM

Comment: Thanks Delle for checking into it.
You're right. A legal historian would probably know the answer.
Posted By: BarbaraTK @ 01/17/2008 5:19:24 PM

Comment: I agree that Mr. Tolme bought Cassie's book for research purposes and that he quoted the book accurately. However, when he posted the statement of "The prose is standard romance-novel shlock." he moved from commenting on Cassie's book to a comment on all romance novels regardless of author or cross-genre of romance. I don't believe that reading Cassie's novel made him an expert on the prose of all romance novels. Instead I see him taking his personal opinion of one book and then labeling all romance-novels with that same opinion.

For example, I could state that the prose in The Eye of Argon
http://www.dcs.gla.ac.uk/SF-Archives/Misc/eyeargon.html
is shlock but I could not state that the prose in The Eye of Argon is standard Science Fiction and Fantasy shlock. That statement would have me labeling the prose of all Science Fiction and Fantasy books as shlock.
- Posted By: Wrenn @ 01/18/2008 10:09:03
  
  Comment: I've seen worse sci fi shlock then the "Eye" . I've been to many Eye of Argon readings, (even the one where it got read through, and the 'competition' won, by Greg Bear, who was promptly disqualified because he was a professional author (and a filker). There is no conclusive evidence that the "Eye" was written to be professionally published, however. It was first published as fan-fic. when Jim Theis was 16 years old. He never attempted to publish any fiction.
  
  CE is, on the other hand, is considered a professional romance writer, and has 100 books professionally published.
  
  You can't compare the two.
  - Posted By: BarbaraTK @ 01/19/2008 13:47:38
    
    Comment: My point wasn't to compare The Eye of Argon to Ms. Edwards' book.
    My point was that Mr. Tolme after reading Ms. Edwards' book stated that "The prose is standard romance-novel shlock."
    That would be akin to me saying after reading The Eye of Argon that "The prose is standard SF and Fantasy shlock."
    By making a broad statement of "The prose is standard romance-novel shlock." he commented on all romance novels instead of just one novel.
Posted By: BarbaraTK @ 01/17/2008 4:05:32 PM

Comment: One last try: I can understand why you're upset. Mr. Tolme states in this article that "The prose is standard romance-novel shlock." Per my copy of Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, Tenth Edition Pg. 1082: shlock var of schlock. Pg. 1044: schlock adj: of low quality or value.
On the other hand, he bought a copy of Ms. Edward's book, a purchase he would not make under normal circumstances based on his opinion of romance novel prose as shlock. I wonder how many additional sales occurred for Ms. Edwards that wouldn't have occurred prior to theses accusations of plagiarism?
- Posted By: Wrenn @ 01/17/2008 16:44:56
  
  Comment: I rarely read romance novels, but have been known to grab one now and again for the popcorn entertainment value. But I do the same for certain of the 'lighter' sci fi writers too. There's good writing and there's bad writing. Throughout all genres.
- Posted By: Wrenn @ 01/17/2008 16:40:20
  
  Comment: Dunno. Perhaps for proof for a lawsuit? (^.^)
Posted By: BarbaraTK @ 01/17/2008 3:57:44 PM

Comment: I'm going to try this again. Hopefully, those extra question marks won't show up in this comment.
I can understand why you are upset. Mr. Tolme states in this article that "The prose is standard romance-novel shlock. Bramlett's bosom heaves. Shadow Bear feels a longing in his loins." Per his statement, he denigrates the prose in this book and in all romance novels as shlock.
Per my Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, Tenth Edition, the definition of shlock is as follows:
Pg. 1082: shlock, var of schlock
Pg. 1044: schlock adj: of low quality or value
On the other hand, he also admits he purchased Ms. Edwards' book, a purchase he wouldn't do under normal circumstances based on his opinion of romance novels in general as books where the prose is "of low quality or value" according the the dictionary definition of shlock. I wonder how many sales have occurred that wouldn't have happened prior to the accusations of plagiarism?
Posted By: BarbaraTK @ 01/17/2008 3:38:19 PM

Comment: I can understand why you are upset. Mr. Tolme states in this article that ???The prose is standard romance-novel shlock. Bramlett's bosom heaves. Shadow Bear feels a longing in his loins.??? Per his statement, he denigrates the prose in this book and in all romance novels as shlock.

Per my Merriam-Webster???s Collegiate Dictionary, Tenth Edition, the definition of shlock is as follows:
Pg. 1082: shlock var of schlock
Pg. 1044: schlock adj: of low quality or value

On the other hand, he also admits he purchased Ms. Edwards??? book, a purchase he wouldn???t do under normal circumstances based on his opinion of romance novels in general as books that are ???of low quality or value??? per the dictionary definition of shlock. I wonder how many sales have occurred that wouldn???t have happened prior to the accusations of plagiarism.
- Posted By: Delle Jacobs @ 01/17/2008 16:05:59
  
  Comment: I'd say he bought the book for research. He did quote from it properly, and I assume accurately. And that is the difference that seems to be confusing to some people. An author does not own the facts he cites. He owns the words he chooses to express the facts. I can write about the Battle of Salamanca, but if I say, "Wellington may have expected- even hoped- that Marmount would attack him on 19 July, but the French marshal wisely..." then I'd better say these are the words of Rory Muir in Salamanca 1812.
  - Posted By: Delle Jacobs @ 01/17/2008 22:54:26
    
    Comment: --Except that Rory Muir does seem to spell the French marshal's name better than I did. It's Marmont.
- Posted By: BarbaraTK @ 01/17/2008 15:40:45
  
  Comment: I'm still having problems with those extra question marks showing up in my messages instead of the apostrophe and s that I'm using. My apologies for that.
Posted By: BarbaraTK @ 01/17/2008 2:42:44 PM

Comment: PS: I have no idea why the extra question marks appeared in my previous comment in place of the apostrophe's I used there.
Posted By: BarbaraTK @ 01/17/2008 2:38:58 PM

Comment: This is why I mentioned in my first comment that she apparently told the information as a cut and paste info-dump system instead of showing her information gradually during a scene, i.e. the SHOW versus TELL writing instruction that is preached to many beginner writers. Plus, she neglected to cite the sources of her factual information at the end of the book.

Did Herman Melville cite the sources for the factual information he inserted on whales/ceteceans in Moby Dick? It???s been such a long time since I read that book that I don???t remember if he cited his sources or not.

I did notice how Scott Westerfeld quoted and cited many detailed facts about parasites in his YA SF novel Peeps. They made the story very interesting and informative for me.
- Posted By: Wrenn @ 01/17/2008 16:38:07
  
  Comment: At the risk of being snarky...
  
  Moby Dick was published before 1923, and therefore is public domain.
  - Posted By: BarbaraTK @ 01/17/2008 16:58:16
    
    Comment: I know Moby Dick is public domain. I wanted to know if Herman Melville cited all the sources for the pages and pages of factual information he inserted into Moby Dick.
    - Posted By: Delle Jacobs @ 01/17/2008 19:59:50
      
      Comment: Melville published Moby Dick in1851, and copyright laws were very different from today. The US did not join the Berne Convention until 1989, so the legal constraints of Melville's time were not the same as today, and he may not have been violating any law or convention. A legal historian might have this answer.
      
      the original work and artist.
Posted By: Wrenn @ 01/17/2008 1:51:55 PM

Comment: They are two different things. Virtual word for word copy/paste, using the same descriptions in the same order with the same adjectives and adverbs is plagiarism. Sentence after sentence of it. If she wanted to use the information she should have 1) paraphrased it AND 2) cited her source in a bibliography. She did neither, in numerous instances.

I was taught that, if you could easily see that it's the same text as a previous work, it's plagiarism.
Posted By: BarbaraTK @ 01/17/2008 12:46:19 PM

Comment: I'm aware that there are multiple instances of these info-dumps being discussed at "smart bitches..." This is why I see it as sloppy writing because of the cut and paste nature of the inserted information. I see this as the SHOW versus TELL situation where many writers are instructed to show the information within a scene instead of simply telling it to their readers and boring the crap out of them with the obvious info-dumps.

Because I write Science Fiction, I'm just curious as to where do you draw the line between inserting factual information into a fiction story and plagiarism?
- Posted By: lcowper @ 01/18/2008 17:47:47
  
  Comment: There's dumping information and there's quoting whole paragraphs. Let's say there's a science writer who writes about the speed of light in an odd style, for instance, "The speed of light, the speed of light, it's speed, that of light, is 186000 miles per second, give or take, close enough for government work, that's the speed of light." Now if I were to read this author's book and then state somewhere "The speed of light is
- Posted By: lcowper @ 01/18/2008 17:46:30
  
  Comment: There's dumping information and there's quoting whole paragraphs. Let's say there's a science writer who writes about the speed of light in an odd style, for instance, "The speed of light, the speed of light, it's speed, that of light, is 186000 miles per second, give or take, close enough for government work, that's the speed of light." Now if I were to read this author's book and then state somewhere "The speed of light is 186000 miles per hour," based on reading that book, I'm using a fact. If I say, "The speed of light, the speed of light, it's speed, that of light, is 186000 miles per second..." etc., etc. I'm plagiarising.
Posted By: BarbaraTK @ 01/17/2008 11:58:43 AM

Comment: If you write Science Fiction and you insert the fact that light speed is approximately 186,000 miles per second, would this be considered plagiarism? Should every author avoid inserting any factual information into their story for fear of being accused of plagiarism?

I see Ms. Edwards as guilty of inserting facts as cut and paste info-dumps into her story instead of trying to weave the facts into the plot in small increments and because she failed to cite the sources of her factual information at the end of her book.
- Posted By: Wrenn @ 01/17/2008 12:19:07
  
  Comment: Barbara - Not citing it is very bad. But this is not a single incident. One thing I don't understand though is how some people seem to think that taking someone elses words from a non-fiction source is somehow better than taking it from a fiction source. Explain it to me?
  
  Facts are facts. Taking wholesale word for word someone's descriptions is not the same as stating a phrase "light speed is approximately 186,000 miles per second", which is a phrase found in many a physics text book, attributable to anonymous... we don't know who said it first. Taking sentence after sentence of copyrighted material easily recognizable as someone elses work is the issue here.
  
  CE has done the same from fiction sources as well as non-fiction. I've read most of what is on "smart bitches...'" We've discussed it over at pgdp.net .
  
  (And as someone heavily active in the east coast sci fi community, as in I volunteer and run regional (book and author) conventions and Worldcons, I can say that I can't think of any author I've met who wouldn't giggle at your first sentence.)
Posted By: fallacy @ 01/17/2008 11:28:59 AM

Comment: I for one find caring and writing intelligently about the plight of endangered species far sexier than the thought of making love on a mossy riverbank. Wouldn't that be unpleasantly...slimy?

Maybe you should try for a loincloth and rippling abs shot on your website. Can't hurt.
Posted By: Dana B @ 01/16/2008 10:29:23 PM

Comment: In response to this, over at http://www.smartbitchestrashybooks.com/ Nora Roberts has offered to match donations of up to $5000 to the Defenders of Wildlife. For details on this see this blog post: http://www.smartbitchestrashybooks.com/index.php/weblog/nora_roberts_matching_donation_program_for_defenders_of_wildlife/
Posted By: teshie @ 01/16/2008 9:57:22 PM

Comment: As a romance writer I have to agree with Mr. Tolme wholeheartedly.
And to say she didn't know she had to cite research? Every child over 5th grade knows how to write a bibliography. And she didn't use it for research. She just copied it.
And after reading parts of the book, the whole thing would have been a slow, unsuccessful suicide attempt, I have to say calling it 'trashy' was quite kind.
While I don't think his work lent anything to her novel rather than a rather bizarre conversation, the writing was not hers and the insinuation that you can steal others work willy nilly because you need filler text is unethical to say the very least.
Posted By: Maizing @ 01/16/2008 7:34:06 PM

Comment: I have to laugh at the protestations of the posters who are offended by the terms "trashy romance novel" and "bodice ripper." I'm sure that the author used these terms to differentiate the type of novel his work was cut and pasted in from the more worthy romances by such authors as Georgette Heyer.

It is well known that there are trashy romance novels, just as there are cliche ridden westerns, or other bad prose in any of the many other genres of literature. I can't help but wonder, however, if these different posts are actually all by the same person using different names/email addresses.
- Posted By: Delle Jacobs @ 01/16/2008 22:33:20
  
  Comment: An interesting observation. However I'm sure I'm only one person. With well over ten thousand romance writers in this country, there's no reason to be repetitive. But personally I've never heaved a bosom or throbbed whatever might be throbbed, or even ripped a bodice in any of my books. Although I suppose a clumsy heroine might trip- catch the corset strings on a hoe handle- tumble down a hill and snag her bodice on a ferret claw.
  - Posted By: Maizing @ 01/17/2008 13:50:59
    
    Comment: Wait a minite! Are you ADMITTING that you are the same poster as "Frangipani" and "Kizzycat?"
    
    Also... if you are saying that the novels that you write do not belong to the sub-category of "Trashy Romance," then why are you offended by Mr Tolme's use of the term to refer to a book that plainly DOES belong to that sub-category?
    - Posted By: Delle Jacobs @ 01/17/2008 14:49:27
      
      Comment: No, I think that was your thought, not mine. I'm just me, and I don't know them. That must mean we're not all the same poster.
      
      Likely you are right about the quality of the particular novel. No objection there, although it's not one I'm willing to read to find out. I don't have a lot of reading time. Unfortunately, the words "trashy" and "bodice-ripper" no longer imply j, and pretended they hadn'tust one book in the public mind. They have been so consistently used to denigrate romances in general for so long, they have become an insult to all romance authors. They don't apply to one book or one author anymore. They are associated with all books of the genre just as surely as racial epithets are to all individuals of a race. And they are insulting.
      
      Bodice ripping went out of style decades ago, yet it is still flashed around as an overall ridiculing term, and almost always by people who have never read any romance novels, or who just read the sex scenes in the 1970s. No one author or book should be held up as an example of all others in its genre. I will continue to defend Mr Tolme regarding plagiarism. But it never feels good when one author insults the works of other authors. Oh, and it's Jane Austen, not Jane Austin.
      - Posted By: Maizing @ 01/17/2008 21:25:48
        
        Comment: Well, after reading more of your posts, it is obvious that you are indeed not the posters I had been referring to in my first post. You did confuse me a little though, when you said, "However I'm sure I'm only one person."
        
        I am not an author, so perhaps I am not as sensitive as you are regarding the statement which I personally took to refer to a specific sub-category of romance novels and which you seem to feel was directed at all romance novels. I have a wide and varied taste in literature, ranging from the classics such as Bronte and Austen, to science fiction, more modern romance, non-fiction, horror, westerns... pretty much you name a genre and there is at least one author of that category that I like... and I have consistently found that any time there is a popular category, there will be "authors" undeserving of the title who crank out crap in an effort to cash in on that popularity.
        
        It has been my experience that even good authors aren't always so. In an early novel by one of my favorite western authors, he once referred to the very same horse as a mare, a stallion and a gelding all in the same paragraph.
Posted By: Delle Jacobs @ 01/16/2008 5:00:20 PM

Comment: Until just a few minutes ago, I was your staunch supporter and empathizer. There is no excuse for plagiarism. But then I read your awful slam aimed at thousands of fellow authors who have not plagiarized your words. I will always find it amazing that sex written into a novel meant to appeal to women is considered trashy, but sex in a male-dominated genre is a good read. Women like sex too. Get over it.
Posted By: warsickloner @ 01/16/2008 3:41:05 PM

Comment: To Frangipani: Mr. Paul Tolme did not call it trashy first! The link he was sent was where the "trashy" started. So perhaps instead of trying to defend trashy romance novels, you should read more closely yourself. And no one aside from you has used the words "trashy," and "bodice rippers" in description of Emily Bronte (with an E, not without as you spelled it) or Jane Austin!
- Posted By: sunflower33 @ 01/17/2008 15:27:27
  
  Comment: It's Jane Austen, not Austin.
- Posted By: sunflower33 @ 01/17/2008 15:26:55
  
  Comment: It's Jane Austen, not Austin.
Posted By: Stormie @ 01/16/2008 3:40:01 PM

Comment: You should be thankful, I am sure more people read that "trashy novel" vs. your book.
Posted By: Frangipani @ 01/16/2008 3:34:48 PM

Comment: You shouldn't comment on something you apparently know nothing about. Not all romance books are "trashy" nor are they all about "bodice rippers". Some are very well written, recognized pieces of literature--ever hear of Jane Austin? Emily Bront??? It is unfortunate that someone stole your work and you should be compensated for it, but mocking and propagating a stereotype does you a disservice and as an author you should know better.
Posted By: Frangipani @ 01/16/2008 3:30:45 PM

Comment: You shouldn't comment on something you apparently know nothing about. Not all romance books are "trashy" nor are they all about "bodice rippers". Some are very well written, recognized pieces of literature--ever hear of Jane Austin? Emily Bront??? It is unfortunate that someone stole your work and you should be compensated for it, but mocking and propagating a stereotype does you a disservice and as an author you should know better.
Posted By: Frangipani @ 01/16/2008 3:19:32 PM

Comment: You shouldn't talk about what you don't know. Romance novels are not all trashy and some are well-written, recognized pieces of literature--ever hear of Jane Austin? Emily Bront??? It is unfortunate that your work was plagiarized and you should be compensated, but slandering an entire industry that makes up for the bulk of books bought does you a disservice.
Posted By: FreddyJones314 @ 01/16/2008 3:05:38 PM

Comment: "Admittedly intriguing", as described by maczenith; i guess I will have to schlep through 5 more web pages of 3-5 paragraphs (with 3-5 ads per page) to find out what this story is about... Honestly, I hope i make it. Or perhaps, I'll go back to random surfing half way through
Posted By: Kizzycat @ 01/16/2008 3:03:12 PM

Comment: I don't think you should generalize on an entire industry (in this case romance writing and books) by one author. Your comments were insulting to readers of these books. Of course we feel awful for you and that your work was used in this manner, but calling romance books "trashy" and "bodice rippers" is a gross generalization.
Posted By: Kizzycat @ 01/16/2008 3:01:30 PM

Comment: While it is awful that your work was plagiarized I find it insulting that you belittle and generalize about the romance books and call them "trashy" and "bodice rippers". One author and one author's book hardly represents the entire industry.
Posted By: maczenith @ 01/16/2008 2:46:44 PM

Comment: This is my first visit to Newsweek online, and I can only guess that this admittedly intriguing article was distributed over six pages to discourage rural readers with dial-up connections from reading the magazine.
Posted By: maczenith @ 01/16/2008 2:44:03 PM

Comment: This is my first read of a Newsweek posting, and I can only guess that distributing this admittedly intriguing article across six separate pages is a ploy to discourage rural readers with dial-up from reading the magazine.
Posted By: dewcooper @ 01/16/2008 2:32:26 PM

Comment: Why am I not suprised, in a world that thinks Wikipedia is a credible source (read their home page if you have any doubt). The biggest part of this, lightly touched on by the author, is that the practice of 'cut and paste' without credit is rampant in HS and College, and it is an excepted practice!

It's only wrong if you get caught...
Posted By: heavingbossoms @ 01/16/2008 2:23:17 PM

Comment: As a writer of "trashy" romance novels I would love to make this up to you. You could appear on one of my covers. You are smoking HOTT!! Just saying.
Posted By: DawnaGene @ 01/16/2008 1:45:05 PM

Comment: Hmmm, did I miss the ferret's bombing Israel or anywhere else or talking about Arab oil? This was a great and hysterical read on plagerism.
Posted By: DawnaGene @ 01/16/2008 1:43:22 PM

Comment: Hmm, I didn't see anywhere in the text about ferrrets bombing anything. Perhaps I missed that part. Anyhow, it was a hysterical read on plagerism, especially the comment..."Wow, that was hot!:
Posted By: babyselle @ 01/16/2008 12:26:05 PM

Comment: um, I thought this was about the ferrets.
Posted By: babyselle @ 01/16/2008 12:24:56 PM

Comment: umm,wasn't this about ferrets?
Posted By: eddiewhere @ 01/16/2008 4:18:48 AM

Comment: eUROpE IS HOME TO THE MOST ANTI SEMETIC pEOpLE IN THE WORLD. WHY DOES ISRAEL NOT BOMB FRANCE OR GERMANY. bECAUSE THEY CAN BOMB BACK. IT IS ALL ELEMENTARY. THOSE WHO ARE pROFITING CONFUSE THE MASSES INTO THINKING ONLY THEY HAVE THE KNOWLEDGE. SWISS BANK ACCOUTS THAT NAZI S OpENED AND ARE STILL ACTIVE TODAY. wHY IS ISRAEL NOT BOMING SWITZERLAND. dID IRAN pROFIT OF OF THE DEATH OF SIX MILLION JEWS. dID THE EUROpEANS NOT KICK THE JEWS OUT OF EUROpE. BE HONEST AND BE FAIR.
- Posted By: wdtcm @ 02/08/2008 18:21:02
  
  Comment: This has nothing to do with the story being discussed.
Posted By: eddiewhere @ 01/16/2008 4:16:33 AM

Comment: If the Arabs did not have oil and own thirteen per cent of the U.S economy would we be in this situtation. Africa is in a state of chaos and genocide yet we do nothing. WHY. It is not profitable. Lets be honest. We know that the trade of nuclear material in eastern europe is the new trend. Yet we ignore the real threat and pusue Iran a country that is joke and can be annihilated in a second. We all know that Iraq is home to over twenty five secret bases in the dessert some the size of the Washington MALL. THE embassy in IRAQ looks like the VATICAN. THis is BIG BUSINESS. WHY aRE WE NOT pUNISHING THE pOWERS THAT GAVE IRAN NUCLEAR TECHNOLOGY. wHY DOES ISRAEL NOT BOMB THE SOURE. BECAUSE THEY HAVE THE pOWER TO BOMB BACK. iRAN IS NOT THREAT, THEY ARE A DESpERATE REGIME AND IN FACT ARE VERY WEAK. if THEY WERE STRONG THEY WOULD HAVE DONE SOMETHING. THEY CANNOT DO NOTHING. AMERICANS NEED TO WAKE Up AND UNDERSTAND THAT OUR GOVERNMENT HAS ITS OWN AGENDA.
- Posted By: wdtcm @ 02/08/2008 18:20:06
  
  Comment: This has nothing to do with the story being discussed.
Posted By: improbable @ 01/16/2008 1:20:12 AM

Comment: I'd like "esbee" to know that although I am sorry he/she has been the victim of piracy, to say 'the Chinese steal art' is the same as saying, 'the Americans are hypocrites'. Don't make sweeping statements. Discipline your language - refrain from tarring an entire ethnic group with your antagonistic brush.
Posted By: esbee @ 01/15/2008 8:09:41 PM

Comment: the Chinese steal art from hard working American artists and copy it brush stroke for brush stroke or through the miracle of the internet and printing, just cut and paste it straight into their item to sell on ebay and other places...mine was lifted and is selling on many items...and other than stop that auction i cannot spend all my time looking for that image
there are no teeth in the laws, besides I got bigger things to worry about like the USDA program tht wants me to tell them everywhere i take my horse...see nonais.org for more info on that travesty....
Posted By: Silvershiara @ 01/15/2008 7:40:02 PM

Comment: Oops. Sorry for the double post.
Posted By: Silvershiara @ 01/15/2008 7:34:37 PM

Comment: found out a while ago that Ms. Edwards was in the hotbed for some of her novels when there was an article on how Nora Roberts basically says, "stealing someone else's work is a big fat NO NO." Yet to see it even clearer in this instance really makes me wonder about the rest of her novels as well. She's a prolific and YES best selling romance writer. She's been writing for YEARS. Although I have never read her- and now I most certainly will not. I like cheesy romances, I like fantasy, I like good thrillers. I will read anything that looks good. The link for the Nora Roberts statement and story was through MSN in their Entertainment, Books and Arts sections, but I don't recall it offhand, so I can't accredit it like a NORMAL, EDUCATED, MORAL person should.

As a student, I learned you give credit where credit is due in all your papers. How could she not know that? How could she consider herself a writer and not have learned that? Any style manual like the Little, Brown Handbook or the MLA Style Manual will say the same thing and tell you how it should properly be done. She must not have taken any ENGLISH COMPOSITION classes in JUNIOR HIGH OR HIGH SCHOOL OR COLLEGE FOR THE MATTER AT ALL. So she can say, "Oh I didn't know." But that is one lousy excuse to say.

In this age of instant information through search engines off all kinds, plagiarism is sure to abound. That's why teachers have the technology to look for such things in students' papers. Maybe editors and publishers should have that as well.

Just my thoughts.
Posted By: Silvershiara @ 01/15/2008 7:34:22 PM

Comment: I found out a while ago that Ms. Edwards was in the hotbed for some of her novels when there was an article on how Nora Roberts basically says, "stealing someone else's work is a big fat NO NO." Yet to see it even clearer in this instance really makes me wonder about the rest of her novels as well. She's a prolific and YES best selling romance writer. She's been writing for YEARS. Although I have never read her- and now I most certainly will not. I like cheesy romances, I like fantasy, I like good thrillers. I will read anything that looks good. The link for the Nora Roberts statement and story was through MSN in their Entertainment, Books and Arts sections, but I don't recall it offhand, so I can't accredit it like a NORMAL, EDUCATED, MORAL person should.

As a student, I learned you give credit where credit is due in all your papers. How could she not know that? How could she consider herself a writer and not have learned that? Any style manual like the Little, Brown Handbook or the MLA Style Manual will say the same thing and tell you how it should properly be done. She must not have taken any ENGLISH COMPOSITION classes in JUNIOR HIGH OR HIGH SCHOOL OR COLLEGE FOR THE MATTER AT ALL. So she can say, "Oh I didn't know." But that is one lousy excuse to say.

In this age of instant information through search engines off all kinds, plagiarism is sure to abound. That's why teachers have the technology to look for such things in students' papers. Maybe editors and publishers should have that as well.

Just my thoughts.
- Posted By: Wrenn @ 01/17/2008 12:06:13
  
  Comment: Silvershiara - take the link on the first page of his article to "smart bitches..." and there is an ongoing PDF comparing CE's various works and other instances of taking either word for word or very close to it. 2 days ago it was up to 48 pages... and in the case of one multiple passages from a Pulitzer Prize winning novel (which is still in copyright)
  
  This is not a single incident.
Posted By: awynative @ 01/15/2008 7:29:07 PM

Comment: An incredible story!!
If your anger has abated, you've hit upon something--using the medium of romance novels to advocate for environmental issues! Edwards' publisher should re-issue the paperback with an epilogue informing the reader, IN YOUR WRITING, of the challenge faced by ferret in competition with cattle.
Posted By: jlr820 @ 01/15/2008 7:25:20 PM

Comment: Mr. Tolme, I congratulate you on writing a roll on the floor hilarious piece about this otherwise infuriating issue. Dishonesty is abhorent in any of its forms, but this was so egregious as to defy description. I hope that you seek legal remedies for her actions. Having said that, your article regarding her god awful writing was quite a day brightener. Obviously, I was not alive in 1850; however, I have this idea that the act of "getting it on" as well as as post-intercourse activities were likely the same as they are now. I don't know anyone who would have an academic discussion about ferrets after a good roll, not even if you were an indian or pioneer woman in 1850 South Dakota. In addition to proving herself a plagiarist and thief, she also demonstrated that she is one of the sh***iest writers extant. Again, I am so sorry that you were the victim of this, and I hope that you sue the stupid b**ch for every stolen word. That said, I admire you for finding the humor in the situation, and for writing a wonderfully humerous story about it.
- Posted By: waterbaby423 @ 01/17/2008 09:45:05
  
  Comment: I could not agree more! Who on earth talks about the history of ferrets after sex?!? I agree with the author, the conversation is obviously akward and does not fit into the setting that Edwards has put it in.
  
  As for the "offended" people out there. I'm sorry, but trash is trash. This book just proves it. The author was not intelligent or accomplished enough to write a good love story. Her editor should get the boot. It is writers like Jane Austin or Bronte that show the true meaning of forbidden love without the "heaving" and "bodice ripping" and unrealistic expectations of this obvious filth. I have no problem with romance novels or the people who read them. However, this is just really low. The issue is this woman has no business writing anything, romance or otherwise.
Posted By: delores77 @ 01/15/2008 7:23:01 PM

Comment: Wow...its pretty darn bad when you have to plagarize to write a trashy romance novel. Makes the rest of us who work for a living suffer heaving bosoms of jeaousy.
Posted By: bookseller @ 01/15/2008 7:21:32 PM

Comment: So Very glad you could ferret out the truth. Cassie has been writing for a long, long time and I am sure knows better. She just happened to get caught with her big girl panties down. Your sense of humor aside - she messed up big time. Beware - there are a gazillion women and men reading those trashy romance
novels. The hate mail will pour in. Cassie needs to say sorry and donate money to a ferret rescue group or you. Have to go now........my boobs are heaving, I am gasping for breath, mindless, wanton and just your plain ole hussy.......
Posted By: dhernand @ 01/15/2008 6:53:32 PM

Comment: maybe you can take the plagerist to court for royalties and then use the that money for some sort of Ferrat aid. Heck you may not need to even involve the court, she may want to do it simply not to lose anymore face.
Posted By: dhernand @ 01/15/2008 6:49:24 PM

Comment: maybe you can take her to court for royalties and then use that to fund some sort of Ferrat aid program
Posted By: doctorwho? @ 01/15/2008 6:48:42 PM

Comment: Not having done a google search myself, being somewhat lazy today, it strikes me that before the Darwinain theory of evolution, the world was thought of as a static and unchanging place, and no one even imagined a land bridge, much less what may have crossed it. And if they perhaps did, it would not have been in a post-coital moment. And why anyone reading a romance nove would care about the nocturnal habits of ferrets is beyond me. There are nature books out there for that. Can you now put historical romance novelist on your CV?
Posted By: Tonguencheek @ 01/15/2008 6:42:42 PM

Comment: I initally "pelt" sorry for Mr. Tolme until I realized that Shadow Bear spoke of the ferrets in 1850. Who plagiarized whom, Mr. Tolme?
- Posted By: jlr820 @ 01/15/2008 19:28:57
  
  Comment: Um...duh. Didn't you read Mr. Tolme's article? Edwards set her stupid story in 1850, and took Mr. Tolme's words and ideas and used them, practically verbatim, in her own work. If you are intimating that Mr. Tolme is in the wrong here, you need to reread his article. I don't think you got it the first time.
  - Posted By: cmills88 @ 01/15/2008 19:53:36
    
    Comment: Lol...the guy was obviously kidding around...come on, his name is "tongue in cheek"...
  - Posted By: Twin_Momma @ 01/15/2008 19:51:19
    
    Comment: Uh, did you not get that was a joke that "Tonguencheek" wrote? He jokes that Shadow Bear "said" all that in 1850?! (Sad when you have to explain a joke). Anyhow, as a former Publisher, I can tell you that it is legal to borrow and reprint up to 300 words from a work without obtaining the original authors' permission, HOWEVER, you still have to cite the original source!! Shame on Ms. Edwards' publishers as well!
Posted By: liz_lamasney@hotmail.com @ 01/15/2008 6:39:53 PM

Comment: She must get paid per word? Or was she trying to elevate her craft by tossing in a bit of educational material?? I'm so glad you can have a sense of humor about this. I love the sheer nonsense of it. Notice the cover describes her as a New York Times bestselling author? Better investigate that, too!
Posted By: Junecleo @ 01/15/2008 6:34:11 PM

Comment: I'm sorry you were plagiarized, but except for that, this is hysterical! It belongs in "News of the Weird". Does this "author" (copier?) seriously think that people who read trashy romance are interested in facts about ferrets? Did she do any research about the land-bridge theory and when it came into existence? How could she possibly become a writer without knowing she has to give credit to her source....we learned that in
elementary school!
Thanks for the laugh! Personally, I find the ferrets more interesting than the very unbelievable Indian/pioneer woman relationship.
Posted By: cyrons13 @ 01/15/2008 6:29:00 PM

Comment: Cassie Edwards has bad prose and dialog to begin with but to steal from a nature book!? She should be ashamed.
Posted By: rachied18 @ 01/15/2008 6:25:47 PM

Comment: Wow, who'da thunk it!
Ferrets in a romance novel?
Posted By: bluesbob @ 01/15/2008 6:09:51 PM

Comment: I'm more in shock that a pioneer woman in the 1850's could discuss the land-bridge theory. Whatever book she read that in was a hundred years ahead of it's time! WOW!!
Posted By: bluesbob @ 01/15/2008 6:07:54 PM

Comment: I'm more in shock that a woman in 1850's Dakota region could say she read about the land-bridge theory in a book! That theory didn't come to be widely accepted until the 1930's!
Posted By: BlackHillsCougar @ 01/15/2008 5:59:33 PM

Comment: Being a freelance writer, I have great sympathy for Mr. Tolme and great disgust for Ms. Edwards lack of ethics. However, I have also a keen resentment of Mr. Tolme's apparent need to add some humorous "oomph" to his otherwise droll tale by using the community of Wall and the area of western South Dakota as a punching bag and punchline to one of the oldest varieties of put-down humor - the citiy folk mocking the small town. I was born and raised in Detroit, have lived in cities such as San Diego, Cleveland and Indianapolis and I have come here to Rapid City by choice because I prefer the atmospher of small towns to those of big cities. I know both kinds of communities well, by first-hand experience and I would choose Wall over New York City in one of their proverbial New York minutes. And, Mr. Tolme, if the hotel you chose to occupy was indeed "dumpy" (I can't imagine which one it was), I'm sure that you would have found very fine and 'normal' accomodations at any one of the several national chain facilities that are in Wall.
Posted By: oliewankanobe @ 01/15/2008 5:48:20 PM

Comment: Wow. That was a very classy, articulate, and entertaining response to a terrible situation. Kudos to Mr. Tolme for rising to the occasion with such grace.
I am a ferret enthusiast, learning about the black footed ferret as a sort of peripheral bonus when I became an owner of domesticated ferrets. These poor guys are struggling. It would be lovely if, perhaps as a fair settlement in response to this abuse, Edwards and her publishers donated proceeds from her book to the ferrets.
On a side note-- I am a writer by trade and recently began writing romance. I swear, Mr. Tolme, not all of us are that pathetic, and there are some out there you may actually enjoy. But I've always found Edwards' work nauseating and you get SUCH A HUGE HIGH FIVE for hunkering down to read it.
Many kudos and a big crate of Malox to you, sir!
- Posted By: Arhylda @ 01/16/2008 14:13:49
  
  Comment: Nora Roberts, a victim of plagarism herself, has set up a fund to raise money for the ferrets. See the web-blog mentioned in this article for more information and how to donate:
  http://www.smartbitchestrashybooks.com/index.php/weblog/nora_roberts_matching_donation_program_for_defenders_of_wildlife/
Posted By: oliewankanobe @ 01/15/2008 5:48:01 PM

Comment: Wow. That was a very classy, articulate, and entertaining response to a terrible situation. Kudos to Mr. Tolme for rising to the occasion with such grace.
I am a ferret enthusiast, learning about the black footed ferret as a sort of peripheral bonus when I became an owner of domesticated ferrets. These poor guys are struggling. It would be lovely if, perhaps as a fair settlement in response to this abuse, Edwards and her publishers donated proceeds from her book to the ferrets.
On a side note-- I am a writer by trade and recently began writing romance. I swear, Mr. Tolme, not all of us are that pathetic, and there are some out there you may actually enjoy. But I've always found Edwards' work nauseating and you get SUCH A HUGE HIGH FIVE for hunkering down to read it.
Many kudos and a big crate of Malox to you, sir!
- Posted By: Arhylda @ 01/16/2008 14:12:40
  
  Comment: Nora Roberts, the victim of plagarism herself, has set up a fund to raise money for the ferrets. For more information , see the webblog mentioned in the article:
  http://www.smartbitchestrashybooks.com/index.php/weblog/nora_roberts_matching_donation_program_for_defenders_of_wildlife/
Posted By: talpianna @ 01/15/2008 4:40:52 PM

Comment: While I have every sympathy for Paul Tolme, and even more for the plight of the black-footed ferret, I'd like to point out that while there are a lot of "schlocky romance novels" like the one under discussion, there are also a lot of witty, well written, and well researched romance novels out there as well. Next time Mr. Tolme is staking out a shy species, he should take along a Georgette Heyer Regency romance to keep him entertained during the wait.

Top Story

Latest News

Move Over, ‘Meerkat Manor’

Discuss

Posted By: SheilaE @ 03/21/2008 1:55:56 PM

Posted By: Xavienne @ 03/01/2008 1:40:36 PM

Posted By: jacywilder @ 02/19/2008 6:03:17 PM

Posted By: JayneGray @ 02/19/2008 2:34:54 PM

Posted By: JayneGray @ 02/19/2008 2:32:55 PM

Posted By: Raylene @ 02/10/2008 11:38:01 AM

Posted By: Raylene @ 02/10/2008 11:36:58 AM

Posted By: vale @ 02/06/2008 3:17:30 PM

Posted By: BBesold @ 02/06/2008 3:11:08 PM

Posted By: BBesold @ 02/06/2008 3:03:32 PM

Posted By: LiteraryRX @ 01/25/2008 8:31:05 PM

Posted By: LiteraryRX @ 01/25/2008 8:21:34 PM

Posted By: VenividiVicky @ 01/20/2008 4:06:36 AM

Posted By: wdtcm @ 02/08/2008 18:17:50

Posted By: BarbaraTK @ 01/19/2008 2:26:14 PM

Posted By: BarbaraTK @ 01/17/2008 8:13:20 PM

Posted By: BarbaraTK @ 01/17/2008 5:19:24 PM

Posted By: Wrenn @ 01/18/2008 10:09:03

Posted By: BarbaraTK @ 01/19/2008 13:47:38

Posted By: BarbaraTK @ 01/17/2008 4:05:32 PM

Posted By: Wrenn @ 01/17/2008 16:44:56

Posted By: Wrenn @ 01/17/2008 16:40:20

Posted By: BarbaraTK @ 01/17/2008 3:57:44 PM

Posted By: BarbaraTK @ 01/17/2008 3:38:19 PM

Posted By: Delle Jacobs @ 01/17/2008 16:05:59

Posted By: Delle Jacobs @ 01/17/2008 22:54:26

Posted By: BarbaraTK @ 01/17/2008 15:40:45

Posted By: BarbaraTK @ 01/17/2008 2:42:44 PM

Posted By: BarbaraTK @ 01/17/2008 2:38:58 PM

Posted By: Wrenn @ 01/17/2008 16:38:07

Posted By: BarbaraTK @ 01/17/2008 16:58:16

Posted By: Delle Jacobs @ 01/17/2008 19:59:50

Posted By: Wrenn @ 01/17/2008 1:51:55 PM

Posted By: BarbaraTK @ 01/17/2008 12:46:19 PM

Posted By: lcowper @ 01/18/2008 17:47:47

Posted By: lcowper @ 01/18/2008 17:46:30

Posted By: BarbaraTK @ 01/17/2008 11:58:43 AM

Posted By: Wrenn @ 01/17/2008 12:19:07

Posted By: fallacy @ 01/17/2008 11:28:59 AM

Posted By: Dana B @ 01/16/2008 10:29:23 PM

Posted By: teshie @ 01/16/2008 9:57:22 PM

Posted By: Maizing @ 01/16/2008 7:34:06 PM

Posted By: Delle Jacobs @ 01/16/2008 22:33:20

Posted By: Maizing @ 01/17/2008 13:50:59

Posted By: Delle Jacobs @ 01/17/2008 14:49:27

Posted By: Maizing @ 01/17/2008 21:25:48

Posted By: Delle Jacobs @ 01/16/2008 5:00:20 PM

Posted By: warsickloner @ 01/16/2008 3:41:05 PM

Posted By: sunflower33 @ 01/17/2008 15:27:27

Posted By: sunflower33 @ 01/17/2008 15:26:55

Posted By: Stormie @ 01/16/2008 3:40:01 PM

Posted By: Frangipani @ 01/16/2008 3:34:48 PM

Posted By: Frangipani @ 01/16/2008 3:30:45 PM

Posted By: Frangipani @ 01/16/2008 3:19:32 PM

Posted By: FreddyJones314 @ 01/16/2008 3:05:38 PM

Posted By: Kizzycat @ 01/16/2008 3:03:12 PM

Posted By: Kizzycat @ 01/16/2008 3:01:30 PM

Posted By: maczenith @ 01/16/2008 2:46:44 PM

Posted By: maczenith @ 01/16/2008 2:44:03 PM

Posted By: dewcooper @ 01/16/2008 2:32:26 PM

Posted By: heavingbossoms @ 01/16/2008 2:23:17 PM

Posted By: DawnaGene @ 01/16/2008 1:45:05 PM

Posted By: DawnaGene @ 01/16/2008 1:43:22 PM

Posted By: babyselle @ 01/16/2008 12:26:05 PM

Posted By: babyselle @ 01/16/2008 12:24:56 PM

Posted By: eddiewhere @ 01/16/2008 4:18:48 AM

Posted By: wdtcm @ 02/08/2008 18:21:02

Posted By: eddiewhere @ 01/16/2008 4:16:33 AM

Posted By: wdtcm @ 02/08/2008 18:20:06

Posted By: improbable @ 01/16/2008 1:20:12 AM

Posted By: esbee @ 01/15/2008 8:09:41 PM

Posted By: Silvershiara @ 01/15/2008 7:40:02 PM

Posted By: Silvershiara @ 01/15/2008 7:34:37 PM

Posted By: Silvershiara @ 01/15/2008 7:34:22 PM

Posted By: Wrenn @ 01/17/2008 12:06:13

Posted By: awynative @ 01/15/2008 7:29:07 PM