Are ppl that jealous of Cassie that they have to pick on her about 7- 10 words in her book that was so called taken from another book!!

Deanna, you are obviously an irredeemable idiot, so my response is not for you, but to the people who might be deluded by your trolling into believing Edward’s plagiariasm was of a very minor nature, involving a few words. It wasn’t. It was hundreds and hundreds of lines from many books, full pages and paragraphs, not isolated words. Please look at the completely referenced document here for a full listing.

I’m not jealous of Edwards. Unlike her, I use my own words and don’t need to steal anyone else’s. I have no interest in what she writes, and she isn’t even the most successful author in the genre. (That, arguably, is Nora Roberts – also a victim of a plagiarist.) What she is, is a thief. An elderly thief, certainly, and one aided and abetted by people who should have known better. But she stole, not just from the long dead, but current living authors entitled by law and moral right to decide themselves who takes their writing and uses it.

She won’t be sued for plagiarism – I doubt, Deanna, you have the wit to distinguish between a moral crime and a legal one – but she most certainly could be sued for copyright violation. Which is undoubtedly why she was dropped by Signet books. She was setting them up for huge law suits.

I read all of her Indian Romance Novels and they are the best books I could have ever read.

I’m sure in your case, that’s literally true. However, it’s utterly irrelevant to the issue at hand. A likable thief is still a thief. And a screeching idiot screaming abuse at those who point out the crime, lessens the crime in no way at all.

some people still don’t know what plagiarism is.

And that’s really so sad, because there have been so many attempts to explain it simply and clearly, and to explain why it’s more than a trivial faux pas. I guess some people just don’t want to know the truth.

I see by the post above that some people still don’t know what plagiarism is.

the stress Mrs. Edwards was put through by certain people caused her to have a massive stroke.

Six months after the story broke? That’s some cause and effect, dear. Not to mention
1. Mrs Edwards is an old lady, and old people are at greater risk of stroke.
2. Did her doctor say the plagiarism scandal caused it? You do realise there are many causes of stroke, right?
3. Did any one here make Ms Edwards repeatedly commit copyright theft and plagiarism?

Being caught out in wrongdoing is stressful. It’s a shame it took so long for it to come out because she would have stopped doing it sooner, and dealt with the fall out when she was younger and presumably better able to cope with the stress.

No one’s mentioned it because I doubt anyone realised. Googling ‘cassie edwards stroke’ brought up one link. I sincerely hope she’s making a good recovery, but no one involved in uncovering this mess is to blame. She got caught, and there were consequences. No one, but no one, would have wanted her to suffer illness as a result – but then again, you’ve offered nothing to indicate that it was as a result.

I think it’s absolutely vile of you to claim anyone ‘made’ Mrs Edwards sick. You should be ashamed of yourself.

I never saw anyone mention it. As far as I’m concerned everyone who had a hand in this crap is responsible for her stroke!

People need to get lives instead of going around ruining other people’s lives.

I do see some similarities in the passages pointed out and think, perhaps, Mrs. Edwards could have chosen to write her story in her own words better. But I think some of the focus has been lost here. Is it really this big of a deal? Plagerism is wrong, no doubt about it. But all of this??? TOO much hype. I’ve been reading historical romances for a long time and I’m certainly not going to “throw the book” at this genre just because of this.

The lady (CE) could had done a better job about rephrasing her dialogue(and I think we all agree on that) but is it really this important that this girl(s) had to call and contact so many different avenues of the media just to say “hey-I got you!” to a lady they don’t even know???

There’s not a lot of information about authentic Native Americans out there concerning customs and traditions that hold true. I’m one myself so I should know. So, I understand she was probably limited to the number of resources at that time.

I think the girl(s) who have gone to extreme lengths to humiliate and embarass another human being just for kicks is the worse kind out there. I don’t know if what CE is accused of is true or not, as do none of the rest of us, but this girl(s) is just as guilty for simply not taking their issue up with the publisher instead of the media.

Now, they’ve portayed themselves as couple of immature trouble makers who have nothing better to do than try to find fault in someone elses life on a dateless Friday night. Since discovering this “monumental tragedy”, and having been kind enough to share their information with any and everyone who would read or listen; I hope you don’t make any mistakes in life. What a shame to be publicly nailed to the cross by a couple of bored girls who think that they got one up on someone else. You really need something to fill the void missing in your lives. Two wrongs don’t make it right ladies. You should had handled this privately with the publisher.

In other cases, the line has become such a well-known piece of the culture that no acknowledgment is needed when it’s used in fiction. “Play it again, Sam” (a misquote from Casablanca) is frequently used in movies and literature with no attribution at all. None is needed, because everyone knows where it comes from.

I haven’t read the latest J.D. Robb book, but my guess would be that the usage falls into one of the two categories I’ve given above, particularly if we’re talking about one line that is obviously recognizable as Buffy-speak. If I recall correctly, Ms. Roberts is a Buffy fan herself, so it could very well be an homage.

What Ms. Edwards did is in a class all by itself. Whole passages were copied nearly verbatim from relatively obscure sources, so the “homage” defense couldn’t possibly apply.