Send via SMS
Shots In The Dark
Thursday, April 27, 2024
  Will the Real Plagiarist Please Stand Up?
There's a rather astonishing fact in today's Times piece on book packaging and Kaavya Viswanathan: both Viswanathan and the woman whose work was plagiarized from shared the same "editor."

Here's the Times:

....the same editor, Claudia Gabel, is thanked on the acknowledgments pages of both Ms. McCafferty's books and Ms. Viswanathan's "How Opal Mehta Got Kissed, Got Wild, and Got a Life." Ms. Gabel had been an editorial assistant at Crown Publishing Group, then moved to Alloy, where she helped develop the idea for Ms. Viswanathan's book. She has recently become an editor at Knopf Delacorte Dell Young Readers Group, a sister imprint to Crown.

Ms. Gabel did not return calls for comment. But Stuart Applebaum, a spokesman for Random House, the publishing company that owns Crown, said Ms. Gabel, who worked at Alloy from the spring of 2003 until last November, had left the company "before the editorial work was completed" on Ms. Viswanathan's book.

"Claudia told us she did not touch a single line of Kaavya's writing at any point in any drafts," said Mr. Applebaum, who added that Ms. Gabel was one of several people who worked on the project in its conceptual stage.

Could Claudia Gabel be the woman who plagiarized material from one author to use in Viswanathan's "book"?

That is an interesting quote from Stuart Applebaum—"did not touch a single line of Kaavya's writing." Careful readers will note that it does not say whether Ms. Gabel added any material to Viswanathan's writing, which may have constituted ten pages, for all we know. Visnawathan herself says that her first contribution to the book was an autobiographical e-mail sent to the good people at Alloy, and they took it from there.

Here's a hilarious mistake from the Times, by the way:

Ms. Viswanathan was, in some ways, an unusual Alloy author. She was not recruited by the packager, but rather, was introduced to it by William Morris, the agent.

Um...William Morris is not an agent; William Morris is a literary agency (which, by the way, happens to represent me) founded in 1898 by one—surprise—William Morris. It is rather astonishing that the reporters who cover publishing for the New York Times could make that boo-boo. (Well, on second thought, maybe it isn't.)

One final thing: Readers of the Times piece may also note that everyone at Little, Brown is very careful to say that Alloy Entertainment couldn't have been responsible for the act of plagiarism and that it was, boo-hoo, Kaavya Viswanathan.

Little, Brown, for one, was not blaming Alloy. "Our understanding is that Kaavya wrote the book herself, so any problems are entirely the result of her writing and not the result of the packager's involvement in the book," said Michael Pietsch, the publisher.

Read between the lines: The Little, Brown people are distancing themselves from Viswanathan...cutting her loose, because they care more about preserving their relationship with a book packager.

Note that quote too: "Our understanding is that Kaavya wrote the book herself...."

This is not the same as saying, "Kaavya wrote the book herself...."

In other words, Michael Pietsch is giving himself some wiggle room, because, frankly, Kaavya probably didn't write the book. But now that Viswanathan has publicly claimed that she did, Pietsch, who probably knows the truth, can say that "our understanding is that Kaavya wrote the book," thus letting Alloy off the hook.

Later, if it comes out that Alloy wrote the book, Pietsch can come out with a statement like, "We were, sadly, led to believe by Kaavya Viswanathan that she had written the book by herself..."

The legal interests of Little, Brown and those of Kaavya Viswanathan—because that's what this language is really about—are starting to separate. Viswanathan herself is quoted all over the place, in this article and elsewhere, and her quotes are not helping her case. If her publisher were still in her corner, you have to think they'd tell her to shut up already. My bet is, she's out there on her own, exiled by the lawyers at Little, Brown.

This is getting ugly.
 
Comments:
Uh, Mr. Bright Eyes, William Morris, the well-known literary agency, WAS "the agent" in the transaction. It would have been equally correct had the sentence read "ICM, the agent". It's an acceptable contraction, in short. You're scroot'nizing too much.
 
I was about to write EXACTLY what anon the first wrote.
 
Of course, then it would have been unnecessary to mention who else Mr. William Morris represents...
 
You people can't be serious.

Starting with the last, don't you think it would be easier for me *not* to mention that I am repped by WMA? After all, it's hardly politic of me to lambaste an author at the same agency. The reason I mention it is because journalists ought to disclose any possible conflict of interest or even just a connection with a party they are are writing about. But perhaps you didn't know that. In any case, while I'm delighted to be represented by WMA, it's hardly boasting for an author to mention that he has an agent. That's how books get sold.

Second, "William Morris, the agent"? Who says that? Sure, it's possible that you're right—but that would involve antiquated and confusing grammar.

Let's compromise: I'll agree that the writers of that story know that William Morris is a literary agency, if you'll agree that for whatever reason—deadline, exhaustion—they inadvertently suggested that William Morris was alive and well.
 
No, I won't agree. (And neither will he.) You start this disquisition by saying that we "can't be serious". You end up offering a "compromise". In the middle, though, other than a somewhat condescending paragraph on why you mentioned your agent (that is, your "literary agency"), you offer only the generalization that it would be "antiquated and confusing" to use the one word (agent) instead of the two (literary agency). In the absence of authority on proper usage, though, may I point out there's two of us and (so far) just one of you?
 
this is ridiculous. richard writes a fabulous blog that takes on vital issues of the day with sensitivity, balance and wit. you're off on a frolic and tangent about an offhand comment he made, which seems kind of pointless. give the guy a break!
 
I agree with the last poster...your argument is pointless and ridiculous. And what is condescending about the paragraph that simply states a fact...that's how books get sold. There may be two of you but there are more of us and we happen to think Richard writes a great blog.
 
I happen to have it on good authority that the "last poster" to which you refer is an imposter. I won't say who wrote it, but lets just say it lacks credibility.

Be that as it may, what is condescending about the paragraph in question is the way the information is stated, not the information itself. "But" -- to quote your favorite (condescending?) blogger -- "perhaps you didn't know that."
 
By the way, who is "lmpaulsen"? He presents himself as a blogger, but when you click on the link you get an empty shell. This is highly curious. Are you real? Are you a front for someone? If so, who? Are your words yours -- or are they someone else's? In which case, shouldn't you be cautious in weighing in on issues like plagiarism and truth?
 
This is all highly amusing.
 
I think I, Anonymous, am more interesting -- not to mention grammatically gifted -- than Richard Bradley. So why is this his blog instead of mine?
 
"lmpaulsen" is a she, not a he...and in my haste and irritation (and the fact that I don't usually comment)I "pushed the wrong button". I am very real (although that sometimes comes into question)...I'm a front for no-one and the words were mine, some "borrowed" from the poster before me to express simple agreement. I am a regular, interested and loyal reader of Richard's...I daresay longer than you have been. I am very cautious about weighing in on issues I am only learning about which is why I usually make no comment and leave it to others who know more than I, like yourself. I can recognize a pointless irrelevant argument, however, when I see one...it irritates and bores me...and I honestly did not see the paragraph in question as condescending. There's the truth. Anything else?

lmpaulsen
 
Post a Comment



<< Home
Politics, Media, Academia, Pop Culture, and More

Name:richard
Location:New York, New York
ARCHIVES
02/01/2024 - 02/28/2005 / 03/01/2024 - 03/31/2005 / 04/01/2024 - 04/30/2005 / 05/01/2024 - 05/31/2005 / 06/01/2024 - 06/30/2005 / 07/01/2024 - 07/31/2005 / 08/01/2024 - 08/31/2005 / 09/01/2024 - 09/30/2005 / 10/01/2024 - 10/31/2005 / 11/01/2024 - 11/30/2005 / 12/01/2024 - 12/31/2005 / 01/01/2024 - 01/31/2006 / 02/01/2024 - 02/28/2006 / 03/01/2024 - 03/31/2006 / 04/01/2024 - 04/30/2006 /


Powered by Blogger