As for starting with the academic standards, IMO where else do you start since no one seems to even agree on the fictional ones, let alone have a clear understanding of what they are or are not. I think starting somewhere the bar is high makes it easier to set the bar somewhere else. But as I said above, I’d like to know how you’re drawing the line with Edwards such that what she did isn’t okay, because what you’re saying there about the use of certain things in historical fiction still doesn’t get Edwards or fiction writers off the hook, IMO, relative to the basic assumptions driving the plagiarism definition in academic or any other kind of prose — namely the prohibition against claiming another’s work *as your own*.

Apples and oranges because what would be considered plagiarism in academia is not necessarily considered plagiarism in fiction. Again, I’m taking historical romance as an example simply because that’s what I write and because I know how I incorporate research into my novels. Most of the times, what I use for research are books on aspects of everyday life, ranging from Mark Girouard’s LIFE IN THE ENGLISH COUNTRY HOUSE to C. Willett Cunnington’s ENGLISH WOMEN’S CLOTHING IN THE NINETEENTH CENTURY, and to a lesser exten primary texts such as Captain Gronow’s or Harriet Wilson’s memoirs. And in most cases, I use these research books to fill in bits and pieces: in Steven Parissien’s REGENCY STYLE you can find lists with wallpaper designs and colors that were popular in the Regency era, e.g. “‘Picture Gallery Reds’ (red being by far the most popular background for pictures)” (139). Hence, one of the country houses in my next novel will have a picture gallery done in shades of red — no attribution necessary. However, if I were to write an academic article about wallpaper designs and colors in the early nineteenth century, and would use the aforementioned bit of information from Parissien’s book, I’d need to properly document my source, of course.

Similarly, in an academic article on food, I can’t just write, “In the early nineteenth century, people greatly enjoyed chicken baskets, and considered black butter as a special treat,” but would need to give my source (either primary or secondary; in this case the info is taken from Maggie Black and Deirdre Le Faye’s THE JANE AUSTEN COOKBOOK), whereas if I use this for a novel and have my characters eat black butter for breakfast, I don’t need to give any sort of attribution.

Sandra, would it make a difference to you that someone found evidence of verbatim “borrowing” from a Pulitzer Prize winning novel that is still under copyright?

Jackie, I’ve tried to make it clear from the beginning that this is definitely a no-go area, and that I’m not trying to make excuses for Cassie Edwards. I’m sorry if that didn’t become clear. However, in the course of this discussion on both the Smart Bitches blog and here on Dear Author, so much has been said about plagiarism, standards of academia applied to fiction, why can’t authors properly document their sources, etc. (and I’m including the comments here), when it’s obvious that a lot of people either don’t know what would constitute plagiarism in academia or how research is incorporated into fiction.

When it was just “copying” somebody else’s paper in the guise of very sloppy research, I was thinking, ok, an apology, don’t plagiarize again,

Uhm. Actually, if one of students did that, I would fail them and they would get the dressing down of their lives. In addition, I would be flipping mad, cause I told them at least half a dozen times that they ought to document their sources, whether they are using direct quotations or simply summarizing somebody else’s findings.

My objection on TMT was to the notion that I or Jane or Candy or Sarah are demanding full-on academic standards for fiction, which I’ve said at least three times I’m not (and I haven’t seen any of them make that claim, either).

Robin, in one of the blog posts at the very beginning of this whole discussion, namely in Plagiarism Is a Community Issue, Jane used academic standards as a jumping board to discuss plagiarism in fiction and wrote, “In a profession that makes its money off the written word, the ethical standard should be of the highest form. It should exceed that of what is required by Universities of its students.”. What I’ve been trying to do ever since, is to point out that, well, this whole issue is more complex than it seems to be on the surface on things.

Oh good! I’ll look forward to that. It seems like a very interesting topic, even if it would lead the thread off at a bit of a tangent to pursue it here.

I commented a lot on the SBs about this intertextuality issue, too, and made basically the same point you just did about some of these sticker points of acknowledgment.

Yes, I noticed those comments, and I thought they were important ones because it seems like there does need to be clarification of these greyer areas, even if they’re not directly relevant to the Cassie Edwards case, which is clear-cut.

And apologies if this seems obvious. I seem to have been a bit unclear on the TMT thread, or at least, I seemed to have given you a wrong impression, and I don’t want to do that here too.

in a genre like Romance, where so much of what happens in the genre is already borrowed across texts

But isn’t that also true of literary fiction? Is genre fiction more prone to borrowing? Is it a different sort of borrowing? Is it a similar sort of borrowing but perhaps the borrowing comes from different texts (e.g. romance readers might be expected to know Woodiwiss, whereas literary fiction authors perhaps would be less likely to expect their readers to know that particular author’s work)? Obviously there are the constraints of writing within the genre (i.e. the ending is “optimistic” and there has to be a “central” love story in romance) but does that in itself mean that romance borrows more “across texts”? I don’t know. Hmm. Would this tie in at all with your ideas about how readers “do the work” (I think that’s how you phrased it) sometimes of filling in the gaps in characterisation in some romances?

And I realise that what I’m really trying to do now is tempt you into writing a full-length post about that. Which is bad of me, because I know you’re busy and I’ve already been pestering you to write about other things too. It’s meant as a genuine indication of interest in your ideas, even if it comes across as pestering.

I’m hoping, praying, wishing… that out of all this discussion, some sort of baseline standard for research vs plagiarism will be agreed on. Even if it’s relatively informal, a widely acknowledged consensus would help educate both readers and writers.

I’ve been both baffled and saddened by people arguing that changing punctuation–punctuation!!!–is enough to make wholesale lifting NOT plagiarism. And this person claims to be an ex English teacher!

Laura, as I said in my response to Sandra above, I think the key is the distinction between *conversing* with other texts and *trying pass them off as your own words, ideas, symbols, etc.* And in cases where there might be confusion in the readers’ minds, I think some form of acknowledgment — say in an author’s note — isn’t out of line.

It’s particularly difficult, IMO, in a genre like Romance, where so much of what happens in the genre is already borrowed across texts, and in that sense, the entire genre is one big vat of intertextuality. So, for example, I don’t think Jennifer Crusie’s Bet Me requires anything by way of acknowledgment of its fairy tale structure, but if an author were to use passages or characters or the plot of a pre-Norman Invasion fairy tale that is only available in Anglo-Saxon and hasn’t been published since 1800, I think an author’s note is a good idea.

I wonder if maybe you’re distinguishing between plagiarism of fiction and plagiarism of non-fiction in this way because you think of non-fiction as “facts.” As an author of non-fiction, I can tell you this isn’t the case. Anyone who wants to write readable non-fiction needs to spend time choosing their words carefully in order to describe things accurately, vividly etc. We also spend time polishing our words, just as the authors of fiction do. So, as Sarah Frantz has said over at Teach Me Tonight, Edwards “stole the creative expression of the facts she wished to incorporate into her novels.”

I’ve also posted at Teach Me Tonight, because I think Sandra’s got a point and I wanted to look at the issues she raised in a bit more detail. Lifting large amounts of text (from fiction or non-fiction) and plonking it down in your own work, without attribution, knowing that the sources are relatively obscure and will therefore be assumed to be your own work, is clearly plagiarism. But there are some greyer areas, and I think that Sandra’s been trying to encourage discussion of those much more complex cases of intertextuality, homage, use of real characters in fiction, use of common plots (e.g. writing a reworking of a Shakespearian play. West Side Story isn’t a case of plagiarism, even though it uses the plot of Romeo and Juliet), use of historical texts in historical fiction (e.g. an author writing a romance set at the time of the American War of Independence might include part of the real text of the Declaration of Independence in the novel, and that almost certainly wouldn’t be considered plagiarism, at least, I don’t think it would).

When it was just “copying” somebody else’s paper in the guise of very sloppy research, I was thinking, ok, an apology, don’t plagiarize again, and let CE keep publishing because getting anybody to read anything nowadays is just short of miraculous.

But utilizing the words, even if they’re 80 years old, of a Pulitzer Prize winner is crossing a line in the sand for me.

I’d like to see Janet (Robin) or Jane’s take on this new finding.

That’s exactly what you don’t do in academia.

When you write academic articles or books (entries for encyclopedias are a different matter), you enter into a discussion with the secondary sources that already exist on the topic. Hence you constantly refer to these sources and embed direct or indirect quotations (always, always attributed) into your own argument. At least, that’s what you do in the philologies. The natural sciences might handle documentation of sources a bit differently.

Often the ways they’ve personally attacked authors, as opposed to their works, makes me wonder if they’re frustrated writers who have never been published.

I’ve seen this many a time when someone doesn’t like a review or a comment some random reader/blogger/reviewer made. Why is that? This is right up there with the “Mean Girls” invectives. So what if they are frustrated writers? Does that mean they can’t offer their opinion on a book they bought and read? I’ve read some commentaries on their blog that have been more laugh-out-loud funny than some romantic comedies I’ve picked up. And I say all this as a person who doesn’t visit the SBTB blog much.

BTW, didn’t I read about a book deal for the SB’s in Publisher’s Lunch? I guess their frustrations will soon be at an end.

As for SBTB…they’ve never reviewed me, thank goodness (though they do plan to read AA romances for Black History month, so I might stand a chance) but while their reviews have been mouth-covering stunning, I’ve never read one that attacked an author personally.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/rra-l

Hope posting this is not against DA rules.

Please DO!!!

The more awareness and education of READERS, the better.

I loved your comments. They sum up my frustration with the whole situation perfectly.

Would it be okay for me to forward this entry to the Romance Readers Anonymous list on Yahoo (I’m the moderator there)? The list has been very quiet about this topic, which frustrates me no end, because the little participation we got when I tried to start a discussion all seemed to be of the ‘is it really legal theft’ variety.

Sigh.

Thanks.