Jan 10 2008
My Open Letter to Penguin
Dear Mr. Shanks, CEO of Penguin, and Susan Peterson Kennedy, President of Penguin:
I am writing to share with you my disilllusionment with your publishing house after the response you gave to the allegations of plagiarism against Signet author, Cassie Edwards.
As a reader, when I buy a book, I assume that my money is spent paying for original work. I know that you believe this is important to readers because you have taken the time and cost to alert readers when books are “first time in print” from popular authors who have often have reprints out on the shelf such as Ms. Edwards.
It seems to me that not deceiving the public is an important thing for you and I sincerely applaud that. Many of the authors from your house are big favorites of mine. You recently published a historical romance by Joanna Bourne which was revelatory within the genre.
The troubling thing is that your defense of Ms. Edwards seems contrary to your stated position that you “take[] plagiarism seriously”. The specific part of the statement I find most troubling is this:
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.
Perhaps your definition of plagiarism is different than mine, but the persistent copying of passages from sources other than Ms. Edwards own fits my definition. At least 16 passages in her book, published by your house, bore “identical language and/or common scene structure.” (I borrowed this phrase from the Forbes article on Opal Mehta plagiarism scandal. I would be happy to provide a link if you would like to look at it).
While it might be true that what Ms. Edwards did is not illegal, it still appears to be ethically incorrect. I disagree with the idea that there is a different ethical standard for academia and commercial publishing. It all boils to intellectual and creative honesty. I can certainly accept that there are different interpretations of the standard. What I cannot accept as appropriate is the condoning of the pattern of repeated offense as shown by Ms. Edwards in Shadow Bear.
I can believe you wanted to stand up for your author but in doing so you have actually chosen to harm all other authors within your house. Essentially you have declared publicly that it is appropriate to copy from another’s work so long as it does not rise to that of copyright infringement and subject themselves and you to a lawsuit. This does not appear to be the acceptable standard even within the romance genre whose readers you deem unworthy of a higher ethically edited product (and more importantly earns publishing houses lots of money).
In looking at the Romance Writers of America Code of Ethics, the following is a violation of the code and subject to investigation and possibly penalty:
16.2.4. Intentional copying of the written works of others (including but not limited to books, articles and/or manuscripts) with an intention to claim such work(s) as the member’s own.
You also stated that attribution for copied text is not done in fiction but that is simply untrue. Romance novelist Susan Johnson included extensive footnotes in many of her historicals such as Forbidden, Touch of Sin, Brazen, Pure Sin, for example. If you want further example of footnoting in fiction, please visit the following site: http://www.miskatonic.org/footnotes.html (link provided by Meezergrrrl).
The public affirmation of Ms. Edwards may endear her to your house and ensure that she remains with you for a long time. However, your actions cast a shadow of doubt over the ethical standards of your editorial department. It is possible for readers to now infer that the “first time in print” label you so proudly proclaim on Edwards’ books is actually false. Part of her work has been in print before.
It is also possible for readers to infer that because of your stance on what plagiarism is not that a whole host of other books, particularly those that might draw on public domain for references and inspiration, are also tainted thereby tarring authors within your house, unfairly, with the same unsavory brush.
I urge you to reconsider and ask yourself whether you want Penguin to be known as the house that supports plagiarism because, in my mind, that is what you have become.
Best regards,
Jane
***
Readers, if you want to send an email to these folks, you can find their emails on Google with certain key phrases like “online directory publishers”.
Send to Kindle
Jan 10, 2008 @ 05:54:10
Letters like this would be noted, should have impact.
Jan 10, 2008 @ 08:37:11
Beautifully done, Jane.
*leads enthusiastic cheering section*
Jan 10, 2008 @ 08:49:59
Well done Jane!
Let’s hope that the PTB actually read this and take heed.
*moves over into the cheering section with Kimberly*
Jan 10, 2008 @ 08:59:07
Jane, you’re on fire! Good job.
Jessica
Jan 10, 2008 @ 09:12:06
You’re very eloquent, Jane. Well said.
Jan 10, 2008 @ 09:24:56
That’s a great letter and I think you make just the right points. I plan to send something later today.
Jan 10, 2008 @ 09:28:04
Good job!!
Jan 10, 2008 @ 09:33:54
*applauds*
having worked for Penguin Books Canada as an editorial secretary WAY back in the 80′s, I can tell you that the people I worked for would have *NEVER* put up with that type of garbage.
it’s a sad reflection of the industry when something like this is allowed.
:(
Jan 10, 2008 @ 09:59:15
Well done. It burns me as an academically trained historian when people scoff at the amount of care taken when researching historicals by saying “Oh, it's just a romance novel!†A glaring example of plagiarism is offensive no matter the audience.
Jan 10, 2008 @ 10:23:42
Excellent letter Jane. I hope that it has some impact on The Penguin Group.
Jan 10, 2008 @ 10:28:41
all cheering aside, which is nice, I hope that other readers send letters, emails, etc. Please feel free to copy any part of it.
Jan 10, 2008 @ 10:36:10
Dear Jane,
I think I love you now.
Sincerely,
Moi
Jan 10, 2008 @ 10:39:46
Excellent letter, Jane, thanks for leading the way. I’m struggling with the composition of my own letter, too, which actually brings me to my next comment:
It strikes me as a little “off” somehow to use all or any portion of a letter someone else (Jane) has written and sent, when what we are complaining about is a blase attitude towards plagiarism. I know you explicitly gave permission, Jane, but for some reason I have the feeling that the powers-that-be at Penguin might be less inclined to take our outrage seriously if we ourselves can’t be bothered to come up with original, individual letters. Just a thought. YMMV.
Jan 10, 2008 @ 10:50:02
I’m not Jane, but I think she meant feel free to copy any portion of YOUR letters here in the comment section.
Jan 10, 2008 @ 11:11:15
Email addys taken from Gerard Jones’s comprehensive Anyone Who’s Anyone site:
David Shanks, CEO, Penguin-Putnam, Inc.
david.shanks@us.penguingroup.com
Susan Peterson Kennedy, President, Penguin-Putnam, Inc.
susan.kennedy@us.penguingroup.com
Jan 10, 2008 @ 12:00:03
Therese, thanks for the e-mail addresses. I just sent a letter off to David Shanks. Hopefully, it will have some impact.
Jan 10, 2008 @ 12:15:29
Romance novels can be and should be educational. Readers complain when historical facts are wrong in a book. I know I’ve asked history professors to back up or elaborate more on things I read in romance novels. I remember asking a professor for details on King George IV and his divorce because I had read about it so many times in romance novels.
But what I read was the writer taking historical facts and working them into the background of the story. It was not the writer quoting word for word from someone else.
As a history student it has been pounded into my head over and over how to interpret and reword historical documents. I can historically analyze just about anything and reword it. At the university I attended it was required of all history students to take a class that was basically a research methods class. We learned how to analyze all kinds of material. We had to write a 15 to 20 page research paper on any topic using the methods we had learned.
Cassie Edwards obviously never learned how to analyze and reword her research. This is not a difficult skill to acquire. Her publisher should know the difference between copying almost word for word and rewording something.
Jan 10, 2008 @ 12:23:23
Go to the Smart Bitches’ blog for more examples of word-for-word copying from these reference materials right into Ms. Edwards’ books. There is a difference between summarizing facts and word-for-word copying. As far as I am concerned this is plagiarism. I don’t care if it is an historical romance or not.
Jan 10, 2008 @ 12:41:44
Jane – I am just a little confused here. Your letter asks Penguin to “reconsider”. Reconsider what, specifically? That the publisher give its author an initial benefit of the doubt, or it’s view of the actual charge?. It seems that you have stopped short of actually making your request/expectations known. From the multiple blog entries both here and on the SB site, it is clear that nothing less than a complete disavowl of Mrs. Edwards and an immediate cancellation of her contract will be sufficient, although, you would also prefer that she be made a complete pariah and that the publishing house take steps to ensure that she is never able to publish so much as a grocery list ever again.
It seems to be that you have been somewhat disingenuous with your letter. The rage directed at Mrs. Edwards (and now the publisher) indicates a desire for severe retribution, and yet your tone is rather one of chastisement (with a nicely veiled threat – Bravo there). It seems that if you really want her evicerated, the only honest thing to do is to state so unequivocably.
At least that way, we can all follow lead with the same demand for her head on a pike (can’t have some of us just expressing a little dismay, now can we?).
Jan 10, 2008 @ 12:58:05
MFS,
Your post sounds a little disingenuous to me.
Jan 10, 2008 @ 13:00:36
MFS, I’m obviously not Jane, nor one of the SBs, but I am a reader, and curious.
Do YOU think Ms Edwards plagiarized material, or not?
Do YOU think doing so is a good thing to do, or not?
If YOU think she did plagiarize other writers’ work, and that by doing so she did something wrong, do YOU honestly think that “expressing a little dismay” is enough of a reaction?
Is that showing respect for writers who actually write original works? Or for readers who buy so-called original works?
What do YOU suggest be done?
Jan 10, 2008 @ 13:43:41
Here is my piece. Rock on grassroots warriors. :)
Dear Mr. Shanks, CEO of Penguin, and Ms. Kennedy, President of Penguin:
I must say that I am deeply disappointed that your company is not taking a stronger stance on the recent revelations concerning Cassie Edward’s writing practices. As a publishing house who publishes many strong names in writing, spanning many different genres, the ethical issue of intellectual theft should be very important to you whether it is a legally actionable case or not. Your business exists because you have made a trust between authors and the public. You have promised the authors that you will present their hard work to the public and that you will do your best to make it shine in the genre it is printed. You have promised the public that you are presenting an author’s honest work, that you are receiving their money in good faith that what you are selling them is fresh and new. To hear and see that one author has taken the hard work of another without even acknowledging it is terribly upsetting to me. I don’t care if the plagiarized work is new or old, academic in nature or fiction. It represents someone’s dreams and hard work. Please look deeper into what has been discovered and ask yourself how you would feel if someone had used your words and your research without thanks or acknowledgement. Your seeming lack of care about what has occurred sends out a message of, “We don’t care about plagiarism unless it loses us money.” Is that really what you want your company to stand for?
Respectfully,
Bonnie L.
Jan 10, 2008 @ 14:25:30
It seems to be that you have been somewhat disingenuous with your letter. The rage directed at Mrs. Edwards (and now the publisher) indicates a desire for severe retribution, and yet your tone is rather one of chastisement (with a nicely veiled threat – Bravo there). It seems that if you really want her evicerated, the only honest thing to do is to state so unequivocably.
She/he/it is nothing but a troll wanting to wag her fingers at Jane, rather than any real concern over whether or not Cassie Edwards gets ‘eviscerated’.
She should also be honest enough to state her intentions unequivocally.
Jan 10, 2008 @ 14:26:23
Do you authors or people in publishing know if printed and sent through the mail letters make more of an impact than an e-mail? My gut feeling is that I should be sending it the old fashioned way, even if it is a waste of paper. :-/
Writer Unboxed » Blog Archive » What is Plagiarism?
Jan 10, 2008 @ 14:28:40
[...] at Dear Author wrote a compelling letter to both the CEO and President of Penguin-Putnam and has encouraged us to do the same. If after [...]
Jan 10, 2008 @ 15:04:49
“I urge you to reconsider and ask yourself whether you want Penguin to be known as the house that supports plagiarism because, in my mind, that is what you have become.”
Oh, the memories.
I’m a children’s book reviewer. Some years ago, I posted in a mailing list about some disturbing similarities between a book I was reviewing and another, much older book. The only result? Their publicity manager removed me from their review list. Take a wild guess which publisher it was.
Jan 10, 2008 @ 15:31:32
Jane, this letter is a fantastic model for all of the readers and/or writers who want to make their displeasure known. I appreciate your effort in keeping the issue both relevant and professional.
I will be writing my own letter to Signet/Penguin, so rest assured that you are not the only letter-writer.
Jan 10, 2008 @ 15:47:35
Well, I’ve sent mine to David Shanks, Susan Petersen Kennedy and Claire Zion.
I hope it helps.
Jan 10, 2008 @ 15:49:00
I just sent my email (2 pages in Word). Now we wait and see whether they’ll read any of it. Or even care.
This is all utterly depressing to me. The reaction becoming almost more so than the originating act. I was over at Crusie’s blog yesterday and tried to read the long ramble, that basically said nothing, while trying to sound incredibly smart.
I find it more than disappointing that an author would trivialize something so important to the trust between reader and author and the integrity in the publishing industry as a whole, and her own bottom line if it were her who was plagiarized.
Obviously, according to the gospel of Crusie, if you aren’t nice to everybody every time, she will not believe you have anything worthwhile to say.
Oh wait, that applies only to other people, not to her…
GrowlyCub
Jan 10, 2008 @ 15:49:50
Oh, here’s the text of mine, in case anyone’s interested/looking for ideas…
Dear Mr Shanks,
I am writing concerning the recent allegations surrounding several of the books published by Penguin, under its Signet wing, by Cassie Edwards. I am certain that by now you will be not only aware of this case but will also have taken the time to acquaint yourself with the details of the plagiarised passages.
I am concerned that your editorial process permitted such work to be published without taking the most basic steps to ensure its originality. The copied passages were easily and quickly identified by (i) noticing places where the prose style was distinctly different; (ii) using an internet search engine to check for plagiarised expressions. How is it possible that the editors of these books were unable to take these basic steps for themselves? You must be aware that sophisticated software is currently available for checking plagiarism in academic writing. Would it not be advisable for a publishing house such as Penguin to avail themselves of this technology as well, in order to avoid future embarrassments of this kind?
Second, I was very disappointed by the response from Signet which claims that Ms. Edwards has ‘done nothing wrong.’ This suggests that the kind of copying evidenced in Ms. Edwards work was known about by her editors and condoned. Let me be clear: I understand perfectly that an author must do research and that this will involve the gathering of factual information and ideas. However, the writing process involves the use of this information within one’s own style and story. The evidence is clear that Ms. Edwards copied more than information and ideas, she copied large sections of text verbatim. Aside from the copyright infringement where this work was not in the public domain, this is a clear attempt to deceive the reader.
When I buy a book, whether fiction or non-fiction, I do so on the understanding that it contains original work. In particular, when I buy a novel, I expect the mode of expression – the words used – to be the original creative work of its author. I do not expect it to contain sections copied from another book, of any kind, included as if they are part of the original work. If quotations are used, I expect them to be clearly indicated. And if a source text has been particularly useful or influential, I think it is appropriate for this to be acknowledged briefly somewhere in the front or end matter.
However, it seems that I can no longer trust books published by Penguin Putnam to adhere to this standard. How will I know what I am buying in the future? If your staff see nothing wrong with this kind of copying (whether or not it can be legally challenged), then I think they have failed to understand the normal level of trust that exists between the reader and the author.
You will understand that this is a very serious matter since it impugns the credibility of the whole of the publishing industry.
I hope you will address these concerns and I look forward to your response.
Jan 10, 2008 @ 16:48:26
That letter totally rocks Ros. I do hope they respond. You sound a sightful better than I could.
Jan 10, 2008 @ 17:40:47
Ros, your letter was wonderful. I wish mine had been as eloquent. I got my point across, but you did it so much better.
Jan 10, 2008 @ 18:28:01
Sorry for not posting sooner. I was out all day and am currently eating dinner with one hand, reading comments with the other. and in a minute, I have to and play with my daughter. But, I meant that anyone was welcome to use the thoughts expressed as a basis for their own letters.
I do think it is more effective if everyone who contacts Penguin does so in their own words
And the letters posted here are wonderful and by wonderful, I mean eloquent and meaningful and nothing else lest someone ascribe some terrible motivation to me.
Jan 10, 2008 @ 18:48:17
Thanks for the clarification, Jane, although I liked Nora Robert’s interpretation of what you meant, too.
Back to writing my letter.
Jan 10, 2008 @ 19:18:23
Great letter Jane! This matter is certainly making its way through a variety of blogs, bulletin boards, and romance websites (and their boards). I haven’t followed it closely enough to know where in the process Penquin is in evaluating Edwards’ conduct. I know that SB pointed out a lot of instances in which it appears that Edwards has plagiarized historical sources and that certainly should not be condoned. I have to agree with MFS, that until ALL facts are in, i.e. Penquin has reviewed her books along with the sources she allegedly plagiarized and reached its own conclusion, that she is entitled to the benefit of the doubt. I am not justifying what she may or may not have done. But Penquin, IMO, has an obligation to do its own independent research, rather than rely on what’s being said on the blogs and other websites, most specifically SB.
The question in my mind is how does one penalize her for it, should she be quilty? Will they do what James Fray’s (sp?) publisher did and offer a rebate to readers who were mislead to believe he wrote an autobiography that was in reality, more fiction than fact?
Cancel her contract and ask her to repay her royalties? Banish her from the publishing world altogether? Readers can make their views known by not purchasing any of her books.
Jan 10, 2008 @ 20:04:43
This is the body text of the letter I have printed, signed, addressed and stamped – obviously, since the mail has long since come and gone, it will have to wait until tomorrow for actual mailing.
Dear [Exec]:
I am writing to voice my displeasure at the recent response given by Signet, a Penguin imprint, over the allegations of plagiarism by Cassie Edwards.
Regardless of Ms. Edwards' legal culpability, the issue of plagiarism is still in question. For Signet to disregard the ethical ramifications of plagiarism based on the fact that copyrights have lapsed seems unsatisfactory at best.
In the response to Jane Litte (of Dear Author), Signet indicates that “Ms. Edwards has done nothing wrong.†At the very least, I would expect some further investigation into the allegations before dismissal. In this particular case, entire passages of material seem to have been lifted verbatim and inserted into Ms. Edwards work. It seems that the people at Signet are using “copy-right violation†interchangeably with “plagiarism,†and this is not necessarily the case. Obviously, there is significant overlap, but the terms are not equivalent.
Additionally, the statement that citations and/or bibliographies are “virtually unheard of for a popular novel†is fallacious. Diana Gabaldon, for example, provides source information. Laurell K. Hamilton also includes source material, as do a number of historical authors. It seems ridiculous to assert that this does not happen in popular fiction.
I don't believe that anyone expects fiction of any sort to read like my doctoral dissertation, with footnotes at every turn. However, I do believe that a reasonable acknowledgment of source material is warranted, especially when those source materials not only informed the writer's imagination, but clearly (at the very least) influenced her prose.
I can only hope that Penguin will work with Signet to straighten out their misunderstanding of the term “plagiarism.†I also hope that Penguin will hold all of its authors to a reasonable standard of honesty and responsibility.
Please be assured that, while I will not punish other authors at Penguin for the mistakes of one, the Signet response does not endear that imprint to me.
Sincerely,
[me]
Jan 10, 2008 @ 21:32:50
May I add something to this discussion?
Although Penguin is the only publisher to make a public statement re: CE situation, Penguin is NOT THE ONLY PUBLISHER who’s published CE’s works. CE has books with Dorchester, etc.
If the plan is to write letters to let them know that you want something done about the situation, you should write to every publisher who ever produced CE’s works. Dorchester was silent, but that doesn’t mean they plan to do anything about it (yank CE’s “guilty” books off the shelf, etc.).
Jan 10, 2008 @ 21:39:47
Ms. Low – I was dead serious in my disappointment with the letter in question; It skirts a threat of boycott, but then fails to make that stand. I don’t have any problem whatsoever boycotting a publisher who harbors and maintains contracts with plaigerists. As I read her letter I kept waiting for her to throw down that gauntlet, but it did not happen – so I guess it has left me somewhat cynical about the whole thing.
Aztec lady – any author found guilty of plaigerism should have his/her contract canceled and all outstanding books recalled by the publisher. WRT Ms. Edwards in particular – do I think she plaigerized? Sadly, Yes I do. And I do feel dismayed and sad at the whole thing; it is sad and awful when something like this happens. It would probably go easier on me if I claimed rightous and indignant fury, but I’m not there yet.
Ms. Scott – I am a she – Troll? I guess that depends on who you ask (asked kids – they were curious about what I was doing on computer – big girl agrees; little girl says not – so it would appear you are in the majority). Point finger at Jane – well, I conceed it does indeed have that tone – but target was really the letter.
Regarding my own letter – a WIP with intention to convey that I will purchase materials from any publisher who maintains a contract with a plaigerist. Not for myself and not for my children. In fact, if I am to defend the principle, it would be hypocritical of me to continue to give them my money. It takes me a while to wordsmith, but hope to have an acceptable composition in next day or so and would like to see further reactions from publisher.
Also led to intersting conversation with kids regarding concepts of honesty and integrity and respect for other people’s property (including their works of lit and music); still working out how to explain the intensity of reactions tho…
If nothing else, this exercise has reminded me of something a professor told me a long time ago: “when you write something and send it out, you are not there to explain what you meant. Do not leave room for interpretation.” Old age must be taking it’s toll..I completely forgot.
Jan 10, 2008 @ 22:01:01
MFS, I agree with you on what the publisher should do–pulling the printed books and terminating contract with a plagiarist should be standard operating procedure, whether there is copyright infringement or not. IMO.
However, boycotting the entire publishing house will punish many authors who have done nothing wrong. A bit like tossing the baby with the bathwater, if you will. Indeed, as Ms Walker mentions elsewhere, midlist and new authors don’t have the clout nor the resources to withstand a boycott.
If the publisher doesn’t see sales of those authors’ books, the people in charge won’t stop to consider “This is the result of a boycott because of our poor handling of a public discovery of plagiarism.” What they will think is, “This author doesn’t sell; no more contracts for him/her, lets look at the next hopeful.”
Which is why, IMO, a letter writing campaign coupled with spreading information on the topic–so that others will write, so that others will be aware of the issue of CE, and JD, and others–is the way to go.
Jan 11, 2008 @ 05:20:56
Well said Jane. I’ll be typing up my own letter this weekend, using my real name of course :)
I found the letter to be well thought out, articulate and very effective. I think if Jane had threatened a boycott she would have appeared to be irrational, overly emotional and somewhat senseless seeing as how multiple authors would be hurt by such an action. The end result of such a threat would only be to undermine the impact of the rest of the letter. Instead, as it’s written, Jane comes across as intelligent, informed, passionate and rational.
Jan 11, 2008 @ 07:47:34
Wendy,
I find it very interesting that you came across this similar thing in your children’s book reviews and were basically dismissed from reviewing for them by getting too close to this discrepancy. Seems like it might indicate a pattern.
Eden
Jan 19, 2008 @ 02:26:38
Who says Mrs. Edwards had intentions to claim the work as her own? Over the past two weeks I have discussed this with a few authors in the romance industry who have said they were told NOT to list their research resources. Those who did said the information was not in their book when it was released. The authors in question are a lot more famous than the e-book writers and unknowns on this site and the SB site. All of you who are waiting to see if Mrs. Edwards’ publishers drop her. You can forget it. It’s not going to happen!
Feb 01, 2008 @ 15:28:46
My BIG question is this, Penguin Publishers, why it is impossible to purchase A New Earth by Eckhart Tolle, through Audible.com? Especially, when all his previous books are available!!!
Thank You,
Rebecca.
Give Cred or Get Burned
May 06, 2010 @ 11:45:07
[...] readers and fellow authors find what Edwards has done to be, at the very least, ethically wrong. Formal letters protesting Penguin's stance on the issue and expressing disappointment in both the publisher and [...]
Apr 22, 2011 @ 13:01:41
I had another entry planned for today, and never mind that I haven’t commented back on my entry below this one, but this week’s Friday link up Red Writing Hood Prompt at the red dress club was one that I wanted to give a go, so I have to post this today.