Move Over, ‘Meerkat Manor’

Newsweek Web Exclusive

« Return to Article

Discuss

Member Comments

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

    Thanks Delle for checking into it.
    You're right. A legal historian would probably know the answer.

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

    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 4:38:07 PM

      At the risk of being snarky...

      Moby Dick was published before 1923, and therefore is public domain.

      • Posted By: BarbaraTK @ 01/17/2008 4:58:16 PM

        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 7:59:50 PM

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

    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 4:44:56 PM

      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 4:40:20 PM

      Dunno. Perhaps for proof for a lawsuit? (^.^)

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

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

    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 3:27:27 PM

      It's Jane Austen, not Austin.

    • Posted By: sunflower33 @ 01/17/2008 3:26:55 PM

      It's Jane Austen, not Austin.

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

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

    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 11:58:43 AM

    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 PM

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

    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 PM

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

    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: jlr820 @ 01/15/2008 7:25:20 PM

    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 9:45:05 AM

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

    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

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

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

    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

    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

    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

    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

    "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

    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.

Reply

Report Abuse

Enter comments if any for reporting abuse