Tweak

InsaneJournal

Tweak says, "Gravity really gets me down"

Username: 
Password:    
Remember Me
  • Create Account
  • IJ Login
  • OpenID Login
Search by : 
  • View
    • Create Account
    • IJ Login
    • OpenID Login
  • Journal
    • Post
    • Edit Entries
    • Customize Journal
    • Comment Settings
    • Recent Comments
    • Manage Tags
  • Account
    • Manage Account
    • Viewing Options
    • Manage Profile
    • Manage Notifications
    • Manage Pictures
    • Manage Schools
    • Account Status
  • Friends
    • Edit Friends
    • Edit Custom Groups
    • Friends Filter
    • Nudge Friends
    • Invite
    • Create RSS Feed
  • Asylums
    • Post
    • Asylum Invitations
    • Manage Asylums
    • Create Asylum
  • Site
    • Support
    • Upgrade Account
    • FAQs
    • Search By Location
    • Search By Interest
    • Search Randomly

AngiePen ([info]angiepen) wrote,
@ 2009-10-11 17:07:00

Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
Another Plagiarist
My apologies if this is already all over the place; I'm behind on this Flist. I had to post about this, though.

[info]gwendolynflight, over in the Merlin fandom, decided that she didn't want to do the work to learn to write and refine her technique and develop her own style. She wanted hugs and pats and e-cookies for her wonderful writing right now. So instead of writing a novel of her own, she grabbed a copy of Jordan Castillo Price's ([info]jordan_c_price) first PsyCops book, Among the Living, did a bit of editing to change the names and the setting and such, and posted it to her journal as a Merlin fanfic. And of course, she got a lot of applause and e-cookies for it, because it's a very good story. (Jordan isn't a particular friend of mine, I don't even have her journal friended, but we both publish with Torquere Press and I have Among the Living -- it's a good read.)

Of course someone figured out what was going on -- 'cause there are fanfic readers who also read original m/m books, who knew?! -- and after some incredibly lame excuse-making, the plagiarist took the story down. But check out this screencap and read through the comments. :/

I love the part where [info]gwendolynflight assures a commenter that "it is completely and fully beta'd." Umm, right, because the real writer polished it, then sent it to a publisher where a line editor and a proofreader went over it. [eyeroll]

And then lower down where she actually admits that the story is a "fusion" with Price's PsyCops series. o_O This is where I get the idea that she's actually just that stupid, rather than a bold-faced thief. Not that being a moron is an excuse, but you know, it's something different to smack her for.

Then a few comments later where she's talking to a reader about how dark the story is, and mentions that Book Two is particularly dark, and she's glad that isn't turning the reader off. So she fully intended to go on doing this, through the whole series? Once she'd ripped off all the available novels, since she seems to think she's doing absolutely nothing wrong, I wonder whether she'd have had the balls to, like, write to Jordan and nudge her about hurrying up on the next installment. :P

Finally, about 2/3 of the way down, [info]throwawayreview calls it what it is and clues poor [info]gwendolynflight that this isn't a "fusion," it's not fanfic, it's plagiarism. And of course Ms. Gwen has all sorts of excuses, because plagiarism is "a social concept" and not absolute. And later on she says that "plagiarism isn't an inherent moral wrong - it's an issue firmly bound up in economic and patriarchal issues." Umm, right. It's a weapon of the Patriarchy. So her stealing the actual words of another woman writer and posting them as her own and accepting praise and credit for writing the words another woman actually wrote, is actually Ms. Gwen sticking it to the Patriarchy. Wow, good to know. [eyeroll]

Note that Jordan has no problem with fanfic. She said, in her reaction to this situation:

I'd also like to say that fanfic is an entirely different thing. If a reader said, "Wouldn't it be funny if Victor and Jacob got a flat tire...?" and wrote that story, using my characters and storyverse but their own plot and words, that would be fanfic. I've written half a million words of fanfic; it's how I learned to write, for good or ill. This re-tooling of Among the Living was not fanfic.

So this isn't a case of one of the uptight pro writers trying to stomp on the poor fanficcers. Actual fanfic would've been fine. Copying a whole freaking novel (with plans for the second one) and swapping out the names and places and a few police procedure details, but keeping the other ninety-some percent of the original author's verbage is not fanfic, in any way, shape or form. [info]gwendolynflight is one of the people who gives all fanfic writers a bad name. She's one of the people whose actions convince the New York publishers and the Hollywood producers, and their writers and their lawyers, that we're all a bunch of pathetic, talentless thieves who are too lame to write our own stories and get credit and praise and e-cookies for our own work, so we steal from them and pretend their work is ours and claim credit for the wonderful writing we didn't do. That's what they think of all of us, and one of the reasons they think that is because there are people who do it in exactly that way. Because that's pretty much what's going on with [info]gwendolynflight.

She's gone into hiding now -- her journal's been completely locked down, although it hasn't been deleted. I'm kind of disappointed by that, because it means she might slink back out from under her rock at some point. I'm sure she has her own little group of friends who are all rallying 'round her now, giving her pets and hugs and feeding her chocolate and assuring her that she did Absolutely Nothing At All Wrong, and that all those evil mean people are just being so meeeeeean to her, isn't it just terrible?! Those bitches!!

But you know, this isn't the sort of person we need in fandom, any fandom. And if she were eventually to pick up her dolls and flounce away and find a new hobby, I'd be just as happy.

Angie, who's in no mood to give this idiot any slack whatsoever

ETA: [info]pecos pointed this out, from [info]gwendolynflight's profile:

This journal is primarily for whinging about school and/or teaching, and for posting the fanfic and fanvids which i occasionally, sometimes, rarely produce. You know, every once in a while.

This woman is a teacher. O_O


(Post a new comment)


[info]lilithilien
2009-10-12 03:04 am UTC (link)
I stayed up late last night reading about this, and looking at her defense in her journal (before it was locked down -- wish I'd grabbed a screenshot). It was totally baffling. Her complete refusal to accept that she'd done anything wrong ... and to blame her appropriation of another woman's words as some kind of war on patriarchy ... it just makes my head hurt.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]angiepen
2009-10-12 05:35 am UTC (link)
to blame her appropriation of another woman's words as some kind of war on patriarchy ...

Exactly! I'm sorry, but that is just a massive WTF. Not that it would've been any better if Jordan were a man, but still. [eyeroll]

Also, check out the ETA above -- she's a teacher. O_O

Angie

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)


[info]lilithilien
2009-10-12 06:03 pm UTC (link)
Oh wow. Wonder what she'd think of a student who turned in another student's work with just a few details changed. *boggles*

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)


[info]angiepen
2009-10-12 06:09 pm UTC (link)
Oh, I'm sure that would've been a Completely Different Thing. [cough] Unless it wasn't, in which case she's adding significantly to the problem. :/

Angie

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]janecarnall
2009-10-12 09:11 am UTC (link)
I think that stupidity really does cover it. (The recent Pride and Prejudice and Zombies, while hilarious, is basically just Pride and Prejudice with zombie horror amendments: I have been having fun with Rodney's Adventures in Wonderland.) The difference is that Jane Austen and Lewis Carroll are (a) long dead (b) their works are long out of copyright. No one is being harmed by doing that kind of fusion - it's just a question of whether you can do it well.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]angiepen
2009-10-12 09:31 am UTC (link)
There's also the issue that the author of P&P&Z, and you writing Rodney in Wonderland, aren't trying to pass them off as completely their/your own work; even though you're using mostly Carroll's text, you're not standing around taking bows and accepting praise for the wonderful writing Carroll did; you made it clear that you were adapting and not writing. :/ But yes, the fact that those books are out of copyright, coupled with the clear acknowledgement of who actually wrote most of each "fusion" book, makes that all right. Gwendolynflight just grabbing Jordan's very much in-print book, and doing nothing to correct the people who praised her for Jordan's work, is a very different matter.

Angie

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)


[info]janecarnall
2009-10-12 12:18 pm UTC (link)
Absolutely. I'm in agreement that plagiarism is a social concept - it's not a b/w on/off thing, any more than fanfic or parody is.

But the point is that although there's a very, very broad line across which many works of art/fanvids/written works may fall, there is no doubt that taking a book that's in print, in copyright, with a living author, doing a search-and-replace on names and details, and reposting the adapted text without acknowledgement to the original author - no matter how broad a sweep of artistic creation falls within the grey line, Gwen's "work" is well on the wrong side of it.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)


[info]angiepen
2009-10-12 12:23 pm UTC (link)
See, I disagree that the line is broad. To me it looks very sharp and clear, and people who claim that there's a huuuge grey area (usually as they're indignantly trying to justify their own plagiarism) get no sympathy whatsoever from me.

I agree, though, that using an out-of-copyright source and making it clear that you're lifting lines from said out-of-copyright source, such that you're not taking credit for writing words which are not yours, is perfectly fine.

Angie

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)


[info]janecarnall
2009-10-12 12:40 pm UTC (link)
See, I disagree that the line is broad. To me it looks very sharp and clear, and people who claim that there's a huuuge grey area (usually as they're indignantly trying to justify their own plagiarism) get no sympathy whatsoever from me.

Well, to me it looks like a large greyish area in which such works as Shakespeare's plays, T.H. White's Once and Future King, fusions such as Pride and Prejudice and Zombies, fannish music vids, Ten Things I Hate About You, and Bridget Jones Diary: Edge of Reason may all fit in one way or another. And indeed, I'll indignantly justify it with reference to "Two Up Truly Queered", which I was reminded of when it showed up in Fanlore but which I originally wrote and flung out on the hatstand network as a squib based on Jane of Australia's work. *flames you, etc*

I'd never argue that there isn't a large grey area. But I can say that there is no way what Gwendothing did fit inside that grey area.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)


[info]stewardess
2009-10-12 10:54 pm UTC (link)
I think copyright can be quite gray, but plagiarism seems cut and dried to me. For instance, if someone takes a Jane Austen novel and turns it into Clueless, it's neither a copyright violation, nor plagiarism, because the author is long dead and the source is credited. In the case of The Wind Done Gone, which was accused of both plagiarism and copyright violation, courts found it was legal as a work of satire based on another work, Gone With The Wind, still under copyright. But if someone did a Clueless type treatment of Gone With The Wind, changing the setting and names only, and did not credit the original work, I'd see that as both a copyright violation and as plagiarism.

Plagiarism seems a clearer thing to me because it involves copying and reproducing so much of another work. Works alleged to violate copyright, though, may contain only a single aspect of an original work -- a character, a plot -- with the rest new work.

Speaking of which, I thought that Oliver Stone's "Alexander" plagiarized Mary Renault's historical fiction about Alexander the Great. Her psychological guesswork is the underpinning of the movie, and she isn't credited.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)


[info]janecarnall
2009-10-12 11:39 pm UTC (link)
Speaking of which, I thought that Oliver Stone's "Alexander" plagiarized Mary Renault's historical fiction about Alexander the Great. Her psychological guesswork is the underpinning of the movie, and she isn't credited.

But there you go: I'd say that can't be plagiarism, because (I haven't seen Oliver Stone's Alexander, or any other Alexander movie, I'd rather keep intact the the movie-in-my-head of Renault's Alexander trilogy) no matter how much Stone made use of Renault's ideas, ideas by definition are not copyrightable. Renault added to the world's mythology about Alexander: just as Anne McCaffrey added (the telepathic bond between rider and dragon) to the world's mythology about dragons, which Naomi Novik made use of in her Napoleonic War dragon books - and that's not plagiarism either.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]angiepen
2009-10-13 02:59 am UTC (link)
I agree that copyright, being a legal matter, can be very twisty and best handled by lawyers if one has a solid reason to be dealing with it. Plagiarism is a different issue. (And of course, Gwendolynflight's "fic" was both -- plagiarism because she was copying someone else's words and taking credit for them as her own, and copyright violation for distributing huge swathes of a work under copyright without permission.)

I haven't read Renault [duck] but I don't remember seeing much in the movie which I haven't seen or heard or read or debated elsewhere. The ideas about Alexander's relationships and his world view are pretty common to Alexander/Hephaestion fans and scholars and students. It's possible Renault originated them, but as Jane says, plagiarism isn't about an "idea," at least not in fiction. Plagiarism is about words in a row, and unless Stone lifted lines from Renault (which I wouldn't have recognized one way or the other, so that's an open question) it wasn't plagiarism.

If she truly originated some of the basic ideas about Alexander's relationships with Hephaestion or his parents or Bagoas or whomever, then yeah, it would've been classy for Stone to give her a mention in the credits. But I don't think not doing so was plagiarism, any more than it's plagiarism for the movie Apollo 13 not to credit Newton for gravity and orbital mechanics.

Angie

(Reply to this) (Parent)



Home | Site Map | Manage Account | TOS | Privacy | Support | FAQs