Sunday, May 11: The A.D.D. Detective
SCANDAL SHEETS
by Leigh Lundin
The Case of the Purloined Prose |
---|
First there was the Cassie Edwards incident. Cassie Edwards, highly regarded romance writer, has sold more than ten million copies of her 100 novels in 25 years. She’s been honored with Romantic Times Lifetime Achievement Award, the Reviewer’s Choice Award, and named one of Affaire de Coeur’s top ten favorite romance writers. Then Smart Bitches became involved with Google Books.
Smart Bitches, Trashy Books is the blog site of two flip-lip women who rip into– and occasionally review– romance novels. One of them, a law student, discovered a dismaying correspondence between Edwards’ novels and other sources. She delved deeper, and uncovered a mounting pile of evidence. In January, Smart Bitches published their findings on the web, prompting further digging.
The New York Times and our colleagues at Women of Mystery reported on it as well as several romance-oriented sites. Immediately, the world of romance responded to the charges of plagiarism. One of those voices was another top writer, Nora Roberts, who spoke out against Mrs. Edwards.
My friend Sharon, member of the RWA, brought the story to my attention. Looking at the PDF’d evidence, it appears clear that Mrs. Edwards lifted phrases, sentences, and entire passages from her research material. Last month, Signet stopped publishing her books "due to irreconcilable editorial differences."
One of my English teachers advised students that if they wanted to use material to be sure to change something in it. Recently, I brought the Cassie Edwards case to the attention of a law professor and asked his opinion.
Merely altering a word or two is not sufficient, he said. Unless it’s a quotation (which can be perfectly legitimate), it has to be clear that the text wasn’t copied verbatim with a word or two altered. Think paraphrase or rephrase, not copying. However, Cassie Edwards might have escaped censure if she’d simply cited her sources.
By all accounts, she was a fine writer and avid researcher. Women enjoy her books. Cassie herself has stated she didn’t know she had to cite references.
I feel sorry for Mrs. Edwards.
I don’t feel sorry for Deborah Anne MacGillivray.
The Case of the Amazon Stalker |
---|
Deborah MacGillivray hasn’t achieved the reputation or panache of Ms. Edwards, but nonetheless she’s a well received writer and principal of controversial Highland Press. What MacGillivray doesn’t accept well is criticism.
According to list servers and blog sites, her shenanigans came to light when a reader dared, dared, give her a mere 3 stars in an Amazon book report for MacGillivray’s novel, In Her Bed. This amateur reviewer, as you can see, gave her a mild review, pleasant but disappointed, as kind as it was insightful. She didn’t know she committed a sin by going against the grain of a claque of positive reviewers with her wee few words of dissent.
For that mistake, Ms. MacGillivray allegedly criticized her, privately calling her a bitch and publicly telling her in oily terms that any problems she had with the book were her own. But Ms MacGillivray didn’t stop there; she went to work to get her fan, Reba Belle, bounced off of Amazon.
Before long, Reba’s review was sidelined by batches of clicks on the "not helpful" buttons. Concurrently, Amazon’s "report abuse" program began to bog down with incoming complaints about Reba.
On 14 April, Amazon deleted Reba Belle’s comments from the Amazon boards, placed her account in “bad standing”, and denied her the right to upload reviews, post comments, or even defend herself. She was, as DearAuthor.com pointed out, still allowed to spend her money on products.
DearAuthor.com is the Romance version of Criminal Brief, six women (mostly named Ja(y)ne) who write about the gender genre. They’re terrific detectives, though, because once MacGillivray and cohorts learned they were under a microscope and began deleting their posts, the Ja(y)nes kept up by falling back on Google cached pages.
And what exactly was MacGillivray and her coven up to?
For one thing, they’ve been accused of stalking, bragging about obtaining the names of Reba’s family members, her phone number, home address, and other personal information. According to one eMail, someone even engaged a private investigator to help ‘get the bitch’.
But who are MacGillivray’s friends? And what kind of pull do they have to get a reader/reviewer ejected from Amazon?
It turns out, the conspirators are members of a private Yahoo group called Ladies in Waiting, which claims it is "dedicated to supporting fellow authors". Uh-huh, you betcha– like Frank Nitti supported Al Capone.
Posts revealed prior to an orgy of deletions show that MacGillivray asked her group for "clickies", not-so-secret code for members to not only stack the deck with positive reviews, but to gang up on their victim and click the "not helpful" and "report abuse" buttons, effectively drowning Reba Belle in an avalanche of negativity until Amazon shut Reba down.
Once DearAuthor became aware of the situation, they floated a petition to have Reba Belle reinstated, and it appears Amazon has responded to the outcry. DearAuthor also submitted proposals to change how Amazon handles reviews, in the wake of this scandal on the heels of Amazon’s BookSurge offering to give positive reviews for $399.
When scanning Amazon reviews, I’ve long suspected friends of some authors must sit down and submit a clump of sweet-smelling write-ups to help offset a tide of terrible postings. If so, at least a reader has a chance to make his or her own decision because all those reviews are available to be read.
Not so in this case. Ladies in Waiting, not content to allow any review to question the author’s brilliance, decided upon intimidation. According to the evidence, these women had discovered a way to manipulate Amazon’s reviews and took it upon themselves to punish a fan simply because she had the temerity to question the mediocrity of one of their books.
The story has caused me to reflect upon something James said in New York last year when he welcomed me as a new writer. He told me that mystery writers are genuinely good and giving people, kind and willing to help.
To this day, I’ve seen nothing to the contrary. It’s an honor to be counted among mystery writers.
I recently helped host a panel at the university where I work on how to help students avoid plagiarism. One faculty member told a story about a former student, now teaching elsewhere, who received a term paper that had formerly been an article in Newsweek. When he pointed this out to the alleged author of the term paper the student said: “Damn! I paid good money for that.”
Ms. Edwards has lots of company, alas.
Wow, What a tangled web. Talk about not dealing well with criticism.
Geeez! I read a lot of the political blogs and this Edwards case makes the pols sound like happy flower arrangers. As for your final commen, I add my heartiest agreement!
Both of these situations are extremely unfortunate.
I don’t know any of the four people who reviewed Murder New York Style on Amazon. We are very grateful for the nice things they said. Still, if they had said less nice things, hello, freedom of speech and all that.
As to the mystery community, I have to agree. I have had nothing but support and kindness. My first venture at saying out loud that I am a mystery writer took place two years ago at Sleuthfest and every step I have taken since then has been lauded by writers far more experienced and talented than I am.
May we never have acrimony in our midst.
Terrie
Thanks for sharing this information, Leigh! Good job!
I’m a longtime member of Romance Writers of America, and I want to say that these recent messes are extremely atypical. Overall, the members of RWA are kind, generous women who go out of their way to help each other — in legitimate ways.
I’m glad your fellow mystery writers welcomed you after you were published. Romance writers welcomed me BEFORE I was published. RWA is the only national professional writers organization that offers full membership and benefits to all writers who are actively pursuing a career, whether they happen to be published yet or not. Our national and local conferences are packed with presentations for all levels of writers–and yes, that includes workshops on fair use and plagiarism.
Don’t judge all romance writers by a couple of folks who have gone off the rails. I’m sure we could all find mystery writers who have done the same, and spec fiction writers and literary writers and even Christian writers. The point is, both of these recent instances of bad behavior were outed by none other than romance fans, and authors immediately jumped in to decry the bad behavior.
I think that says a lot for both our readers and us.
I love this!
Divas rule! And if their domain is threatened they send you to the “not helpful buttons.” A new kind of purgatory.
Welcome, Lisa, and thank you for your comments and great defense of the overwhelmingly good of romance writers. You make an excellent observation that it was romance readers who brought to light the scandals. Governments should clean their houses so well.
The MWA and RWA have similar structures and membership levels, including a class for unpublished members. We travel the same angst-ridden paths when it comes to self-publishing and other issues. You have Sandra Brown; we have, um, Sandra Brown. MWA might have a little less controversy but RWA has a classier magazine.
Leigh–Thanks for the welcome to CB and your response to my comments. MWA and RWA do have a lot in common, but there is one crucial difference: RWA doesn’t have a separate class for unpublished writers.
According to the Bylaws posted online, MWA distinguishes between professional writers (Active members) and aspiring writers (Affiliate members). Active members can vote. Aspiring members cannot. (MWA also has Associate membership for related professionals, plus corresponding members for non-US members, and Life and Honorary members. Except for Life members, none of these vote)
RWA doesn’t make this distinction. Paid or unpaid, if you write romance and are actively pursuing a career in the field, you are a General Member, with full voting privileges. There are special classifications for published and pro (someone who has completed and submitted a full ms), which are technically called Communities of Practice. These are separate from membership and designed less to ghettoize a certain class of writer than to allow opportunities for specific workshops and networking appropriate to different needs — kind of like uber-chapters within the organization. (RWA also has Associate membership for related industry professionals, Affilliate membership for booksellers and librarians, Honorary membership and Charter membership. The first two don’t vote, the last two vote only if they concurrently hold General membership)
I would suspect that some of RWA’s additional controversy — and the classier mag —arises from the simple fact that RWA has over 9500 members, considerably more, I believe, than MWA (though I couldn’t find a number on the website). There is power in numbers —but there is also a correspondingly greater chance that someone will slip the track.
However, as you said, what the organizations have in common is more important: the logistics of wrangling all those introverts, the ever-present tension between corporate publisher and creative writer, the problems that arise from new technologies in publishing … and Sandra Brown.