The Mind Of The Fraud.
Jul. 22nd, 2006 01:41 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
icarusA Trip Inside The Mind Of The Plagiarist
First, I was just plagiarized on ff.net by someone calling themselves Cedric17. Their story (like mine) is called Skinny Dipping and was posted on 7/11/06.
My story Skinny Dipping was posted on my own site and adultfanfiction.net on 7/12/2003. Please take a moment to contact Fanfiction.net to let them know to take it down. You just click the Review button and there's an option to report abuse.
That said, I am not surprised. A lot of Harry Potter fanfiction writers have been plagiarised. I have been prepared for this since my first fanfic in Harry Potter, and have gone through great trouble to spread my fic far and wide -- with my name stamped in neon across it -- to prevent it from succeeding. The more people who recognise my stories, the more likely the plagiarist will be caught.
Here's why. In 2002, my first beta for Primer to the Dark Arts was extremely strange (not CLS, who ended up beta-ing the whole thing). After reading the first three chapters she emailed me, "This sounds very familiar. You didn't take this from someone else did you? You can tell me, nudge, nudge, wink-wink."
I was floored.
What freaked me out most was her positive attitude about plagiarists. In my experience (and yes, I have experience with very bad people, unfortunately) con artists invariably accuse other people of the sorts of things they themselves do. Because they think they're normal and that "everyone does it."
It occurred to me that I was not established writer and I could be very, very screwed if she plagiarised my stuff. How would I prove that the I was the original author if it hadn't even been posted yet? So I posted the first three chapters of Primer to the Dark Arts wiht alacrity, unbeta'd, then sent her a quick note that I'd update it with her changes. She was furious and commented in reviews that the story "could have been great!" had she continued as the beta. (Later I ran across messages from a mod to her on a twincest Yahoo Group. Apparently she'd been making veiled threats to members, so yeah, not the most stable person.) Her attempt to "stake a claim" to the story made me feel like I'd dodged the bullet.
When![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
cursescar, loupnoir, and cybele_san were plagiarised, I wondered what on earth the plagiarist got out of this? In all cases they grabbed an obscure story, not one that would garner a lot of attention (Skinny Dipping is Harry/Percy, not exactly a magnet pairing). Then, once they were caught, they got all kinds of nasty reviews. What could they accomplish?
I have dealt with in my life two millionaire con-artists (one of whom faces criminal charges if he sets foot in the US, the other was arrested and is being investigated by the IRS), one petty con-artist who ripped off an employer and myself, a coworker from a well-to-do family who stole tens of thousands from an employer of mine, and one online con-artist who attempted to scam myself and a number of other people in the Harry Potter fandom in 2004. Apparently it's my karma.
Drawing on my experience with such people, I would like to take you on a trip inside the mind of the plagiarist. Bring a flashlight. It's a scary, dark place. With spiders.
Entitlement. First, these types all seem to believe that they are owed something by the rest of the world. They all have this song and dance about how hard their life was compared to others, it was so unfair -- the world (by which they mean you) owes them. They are not ripping you off, they are being given their due. The means are acceptable because, the world being unfair, they won't be given what's rightfully theirs otherwise. What is their due? Why, everything they want, of course.
Arrogance. Second, it's fun for them. They enjoy the scam. They like what they can get out of it if they win, sure... the money, the reviews, the attention. But the process itself boosts their ego. Every person they fool makes them feel smarter than the rest of the world. The more clever the scam, the more loops they manage to slip, the better they feel. It's proof that yes, they are owed more, because look how much smarter they are than these suckers. When they're caught, all they do is try to figure out where they slipped up so they can play the game better. Any police officer can tell you that murderers and bank robbers will admit what they did was wrong, but con artists never do.
Minimizing. Third, they all seem to say, yes, "everyone does it" and "these idiots would be taken by someone, so why not me?" They believe that there is no harm done and that the world is unaffected by their actions. This "stupidity" (in their eyes) is a like a terminal disease: the end is inevitable.
Laziness. Fourth, it's easier to take what someone else has than to work for it yourself. Writing a story can take days of effort, while plagiarising only takes minutes -- with the same results (in their minds). And fewer risks. Why marry a woman who might gain weight, when you can steal someone else's wife after seeing exactly how she turned out, post-wedding?
Envy. Fifth, and this goes with that sense of entitlement, these people seem to want so much. There's no end to it. They look at a beautiful house, and instead of seeing "hey, what a nice house" they say, "why isn't my house that nice?" And once they've stolen something or conned someone into buying them that house, they just want something else.
Self-absorption. Sixth, and this varies in degree from con to con, but inevitably they are far more important than anyone else in the universe. It's almost childish, their focus on "me." One extreme is the sociopath (and yes, I have run into this). As it was explained to me, they don't even view people as beings with thoughts and feelings like themselves. People are like furniture to them. They may like that piece of furniture but they don't have any personal feelings towards it, of course not. So they can be very pleasant... and then slit your throat for your wallet. Nothing personal. They just needed the wallet.
The less extreme cases figure out ways where their victims "deserve it." They'll say "oh, well, he's a rich asshole" or "that person's a BNF." It's similar to the way the military brands their enemy as "Japs" or "Terrorists," stripping away the human underneath, leaving a label instead.
How's that flashlight holding up? Yeah, I know, it's a little dank, with low ceilings. Watch your step, we're now getting into the next chamber: Why That Fic from That Author.
This last item is why plagiarists (especially kids) tend to steal from people they consider BNFs instead of stealing stories from new authors (where they could get away with it more easily). New authors are more likely to be "people" to them; they relate to them in ways that they don't relate to the BNF.
They steal obscure stories (I thinkcursescar had a Ron/Ginny story ripped off) because they want to succeed. Plagiarising Cassandra Claire's "Draco Trilogy" is like stealing from the front of the store; a little hard to pull off. But grabbing the "Durmstrang Chronicles" from loupnoir? That's more doable. "Beg Me For It" is a hard to get away with... but "Skinny Dipping"? It's on the back shelf. You can slide it under your jacket.
Okay, now into the light... What Do You Do? (beyond the obvious of course)
Knowing what we know about the con (and make no mistake, although plagiarism is theft, its purpose is to con people into thinking they wrote that story) what do you do? You can't reform the plagiarist or con-artist. They are not concerned with the feelings of others. Instead, you have to lay down the law.
1 - get "their" story taken down. Take away the object that they want. Take away the house. Take away the stuff -- that's what they want.
2 - rob them of the pleasure of fooling people. Cut off that feeling of superiority. Let them know they were caught, and how easily. How transparent they were. Public humiliation works best.
How will the con-artist respond?
Have your evidence ready. For plagiarism this is pretty easy. But be aware:
The con-artist invariably plays their role to the hilt.
Once they are caught, well, they've had no compunction about lying until now. Of course they stick to their guns. More than that, suddenly they become the falsely accused martyr. Their only recourse is to distract, muddy the waters, switch the blame, and put the victim on trial.
The new game is to convince as many people as possible that they have been wronged by the person they stole from. The more empathy they can garner, the more they can continue to get that happy feeling of fooling other people. Plus they get to hold on to the "thing" (whatever it was they wanted) just a little bit longer while it's in doubt. I've seen a con even use the supposed "attack" as a fundraiser. They created a "legal fund," garnered donations, and then just walked off with the money.
This is the part that makes me particularly sick. Because they play on the good-heartedness of people and their faith in humanity. The actions of a con-artist can be difficult to believe. So the con's new victims are their friends and supporters. While they're being offered kindness, they're enjoying tricking the very people who care.
The care is not reciprocated. There will be a lot of signs. If the friends shift the topic to themselves away from what the con wants -- they'll be cut short. Or the con will listen, and then complain about having to listen, or extract a price for it, "I've listened to you and now you won't listen to me." Nothing is for free with these people. Or else their interest will be quite superficial and, well, it'll be apparent they're just saying what their friends want to hear. In person, you'll see an out-of-place expression flicker across their face. They'll turn hard-eyed for a moment while they're playing the concerned listener.
The more they want from you the harder they will work to play their part. That's why con-artists are often caught by kids. The kids don't have the cash so the con doesn't play the role that well. Ask the kids what they think. Also, ask the receptionist. The janitor. The waitress. The people who go unnoticed.
If you manage to convince the supporters that they've been had, well, maybe they won't be fooled in the future but they also will become a little less trusting, perhaps even a little less kind. To my mind, that's where the real harm lies. Not in the original fraud but in the way they compound it later.
ETA: Here's where Skinny Dipping was first posted in LJ, 7/03.
Great news! It's been pulled. It's gone. The plagiarist is done for. FF.net yanked the story within twenty-four hours. Thank you all for sending the Abuse reports. *Icarus breathes a heavy sigh of relief*
First, I was just plagiarized on ff.net by someone calling themselves Cedric17. Their story (like mine) is called Skinny Dipping and was posted on 7/11/06.
My story Skinny Dipping was posted on my own site and adultfanfiction.net on 7/12/2003. Please take a moment to contact Fanfiction.net to let them know to take it down. You just click the Review button and there's an option to report abuse.
That said, I am not surprised. A lot of Harry Potter fanfiction writers have been plagiarised. I have been prepared for this since my first fanfic in Harry Potter, and have gone through great trouble to spread my fic far and wide -- with my name stamped in neon across it -- to prevent it from succeeding. The more people who recognise my stories, the more likely the plagiarist will be caught.
Here's why. In 2002, my first beta for Primer to the Dark Arts was extremely strange (not CLS, who ended up beta-ing the whole thing). After reading the first three chapters she emailed me, "This sounds very familiar. You didn't take this from someone else did you? You can tell me, nudge, nudge, wink-wink."
I was floored.
What freaked me out most was her positive attitude about plagiarists. In my experience (and yes, I have experience with very bad people, unfortunately) con artists invariably accuse other people of the sorts of things they themselves do. Because they think they're normal and that "everyone does it."
It occurred to me that I was not established writer and I could be very, very screwed if she plagiarised my stuff. How would I prove that the I was the original author if it hadn't even been posted yet? So I posted the first three chapters of Primer to the Dark Arts wiht alacrity, unbeta'd, then sent her a quick note that I'd update it with her changes. She was furious and commented in reviews that the story "could have been great!" had she continued as the beta. (Later I ran across messages from a mod to her on a twincest Yahoo Group. Apparently she'd been making veiled threats to members, so yeah, not the most stable person.) Her attempt to "stake a claim" to the story made me feel like I'd dodged the bullet.
When
cursescar, loupnoir, and cybele_san were plagiarised, I wondered what on earth the plagiarist got out of this? In all cases they grabbed an obscure story, not one that would garner a lot of attention (Skinny Dipping is Harry/Percy, not exactly a magnet pairing). Then, once they were caught, they got all kinds of nasty reviews. What could they accomplish?I have dealt with in my life two millionaire con-artists (one of whom faces criminal charges if he sets foot in the US, the other was arrested and is being investigated by the IRS), one petty con-artist who ripped off an employer and myself, a coworker from a well-to-do family who stole tens of thousands from an employer of mine, and one online con-artist who attempted to scam myself and a number of other people in the Harry Potter fandom in 2004. Apparently it's my karma.
Drawing on my experience with such people, I would like to take you on a trip inside the mind of the plagiarist. Bring a flashlight. It's a scary, dark place. With spiders.
Entitlement. First, these types all seem to believe that they are owed something by the rest of the world. They all have this song and dance about how hard their life was compared to others, it was so unfair -- the world (by which they mean you) owes them. They are not ripping you off, they are being given their due. The means are acceptable because, the world being unfair, they won't be given what's rightfully theirs otherwise. What is their due? Why, everything they want, of course.
Arrogance. Second, it's fun for them. They enjoy the scam. They like what they can get out of it if they win, sure... the money, the reviews, the attention. But the process itself boosts their ego. Every person they fool makes them feel smarter than the rest of the world. The more clever the scam, the more loops they manage to slip, the better they feel. It's proof that yes, they are owed more, because look how much smarter they are than these suckers. When they're caught, all they do is try to figure out where they slipped up so they can play the game better. Any police officer can tell you that murderers and bank robbers will admit what they did was wrong, but con artists never do.
Minimizing. Third, they all seem to say, yes, "everyone does it" and "these idiots would be taken by someone, so why not me?" They believe that there is no harm done and that the world is unaffected by their actions. This "stupidity" (in their eyes) is a like a terminal disease: the end is inevitable.
Laziness. Fourth, it's easier to take what someone else has than to work for it yourself. Writing a story can take days of effort, while plagiarising only takes minutes -- with the same results (in their minds). And fewer risks. Why marry a woman who might gain weight, when you can steal someone else's wife after seeing exactly how she turned out, post-wedding?
Envy. Fifth, and this goes with that sense of entitlement, these people seem to want so much. There's no end to it. They look at a beautiful house, and instead of seeing "hey, what a nice house" they say, "why isn't my house that nice?" And once they've stolen something or conned someone into buying them that house, they just want something else.
Self-absorption. Sixth, and this varies in degree from con to con, but inevitably they are far more important than anyone else in the universe. It's almost childish, their focus on "me." One extreme is the sociopath (and yes, I have run into this). As it was explained to me, they don't even view people as beings with thoughts and feelings like themselves. People are like furniture to them. They may like that piece of furniture but they don't have any personal feelings towards it, of course not. So they can be very pleasant... and then slit your throat for your wallet. Nothing personal. They just needed the wallet.
The less extreme cases figure out ways where their victims "deserve it." They'll say "oh, well, he's a rich asshole" or "that person's a BNF." It's similar to the way the military brands their enemy as "Japs" or "Terrorists," stripping away the human underneath, leaving a label instead.
How's that flashlight holding up? Yeah, I know, it's a little dank, with low ceilings. Watch your step, we're now getting into the next chamber: Why That Fic from That Author.
This last item is why plagiarists (especially kids) tend to steal from people they consider BNFs instead of stealing stories from new authors (where they could get away with it more easily). New authors are more likely to be "people" to them; they relate to them in ways that they don't relate to the BNF.
They steal obscure stories (I think
cursescar had a Ron/Ginny story ripped off) because they want to succeed. Plagiarising Cassandra Claire's "Draco Trilogy" is like stealing from the front of the store; a little hard to pull off. But grabbing the "Durmstrang Chronicles" from loupnoir? That's more doable. "Beg Me For It" is a hard to get away with... but "Skinny Dipping"? It's on the back shelf. You can slide it under your jacket. Okay, now into the light... What Do You Do? (beyond the obvious of course)
Knowing what we know about the con (and make no mistake, although plagiarism is theft, its purpose is to con people into thinking they wrote that story) what do you do? You can't reform the plagiarist or con-artist. They are not concerned with the feelings of others. Instead, you have to lay down the law.
1 - get "their" story taken down. Take away the object that they want. Take away the house. Take away the stuff -- that's what they want.
2 - rob them of the pleasure of fooling people. Cut off that feeling of superiority. Let them know they were caught, and how easily. How transparent they were. Public humiliation works best.
How will the con-artist respond?
Have your evidence ready. For plagiarism this is pretty easy. But be aware:
The con-artist invariably plays their role to the hilt.
Once they are caught, well, they've had no compunction about lying until now. Of course they stick to their guns. More than that, suddenly they become the falsely accused martyr. Their only recourse is to distract, muddy the waters, switch the blame, and put the victim on trial.
The new game is to convince as many people as possible that they have been wronged by the person they stole from. The more empathy they can garner, the more they can continue to get that happy feeling of fooling other people. Plus they get to hold on to the "thing" (whatever it was they wanted) just a little bit longer while it's in doubt. I've seen a con even use the supposed "attack" as a fundraiser. They created a "legal fund," garnered donations, and then just walked off with the money.
This is the part that makes me particularly sick. Because they play on the good-heartedness of people and their faith in humanity. The actions of a con-artist can be difficult to believe. So the con's new victims are their friends and supporters. While they're being offered kindness, they're enjoying tricking the very people who care.
The care is not reciprocated. There will be a lot of signs. If the friends shift the topic to themselves away from what the con wants -- they'll be cut short. Or the con will listen, and then complain about having to listen, or extract a price for it, "I've listened to you and now you won't listen to me." Nothing is for free with these people. Or else their interest will be quite superficial and, well, it'll be apparent they're just saying what their friends want to hear. In person, you'll see an out-of-place expression flicker across their face. They'll turn hard-eyed for a moment while they're playing the concerned listener.
The more they want from you the harder they will work to play their part. That's why con-artists are often caught by kids. The kids don't have the cash so the con doesn't play the role that well. Ask the kids what they think. Also, ask the receptionist. The janitor. The waitress. The people who go unnoticed.
If you manage to convince the supporters that they've been had, well, maybe they won't be fooled in the future but they also will become a little less trusting, perhaps even a little less kind. To my mind, that's where the real harm lies. Not in the original fraud but in the way they compound it later.
ETA: Here's where Skinny Dipping was first posted in LJ, 7/03.
Great news! It's been pulled. It's gone. The plagiarist is done for. FF.net yanked the story within twenty-four hours. Thank you all for sending the Abuse reports. *Icarus breathes a heavy sigh of relief*
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2006-07-23 03:51 am (UTC)FF.net is nick-named The Pit Of Voles and authors have had several problems there. In 2001 (or was it 2002?) Cassandra Claire was accused of cribbing lines from Buffy The Vampire Slayer for her Draco Trilogy and the popular series was deleted from ff.net. (She's since credited the lines she used.)
In 2002, responding to worries that Warner Brothers was going to clamp down on NC-17 fanfiction, ff.net got rid of all NC-17 fics. In January 2003, www.restrictedsection.org, which was created to house the best NC-17 stories from ff.net, was sent a C&D letter.
Then in 2004 a group of anti-slashers started attacking slash stories on ff.net. They'd figured out ff.net didn't check out complaints, they just responded by deleting stories, so the anti-slashers made false TOS claims and got a lot of stories deleted. (They did the same with a large number of Yahoo Groups, one reason fandom almost entirely moved to LJ.)
Additionally, a lot of writers feel the quality of reviews on ff.net tend to the "u r so kul!" variety, which I think is a little snobbish, but combined with the other problems I can see why people would be willing to ax ff.net.
It's a different audience. The readers tend to slant younger, tend to be newer to fandom, so ff.net is a little unpredictable.
Responding to comments -- that's a new feature on the site, and it's been a while since I've posted there. It's considered self-promotion to respond? That's a new one.
In my experience, if there's going to be a problem, it will happen on ff.net first, simply because it's the biggest, most visible target.
Icarus
no subject
Date: 2006-07-23 04:09 am (UTC)(I have some slash up that possibly borders on NC17, though it goes "fade-to-black" so to speak. Perhaps I should take it down. Weirdly one of the more read fics I have up there and only 2 comments.)
quality of reviews on ff.net tend to the "u r so kul!" variety
Strangely enough, some of the more coherent and delightful reviews I've had have come from ff.net, though as long as someone isn't flaming I'll take any comments in the spirit they are intended.
It's considered self-promotion to respond?
So I'm told. I asked in my LJ when I started posting there (I can find the post if you're interested), because I was used to the LJ format where most people respond to comments and it's all very open for people to see.
I was rather shocked that most people told me they see people responding to comments as "fishing for more comments and compliments" and were annoyed by it. It may simply be because it's a new feature or because it goes to the commenter privately, rather than onto the site.
I still respond to most of the comments I get. I just see it as polite. *shrugs*
Also, I'm not in the HP fandom, but if you'd like another person to tick the complaint box over on ff.net, I'm happy to.
no subject
Date: 2006-07-23 04:20 am (UTC)Also, I'm not in the HP fandom, but if you'd like another person to tick the complaint box over on ff.net, I'm happy to.
I would really appreciate that. I just heard from
I confess, I'm worried.
Icarus
no subject
Date: 2006-07-23 04:58 am (UTC)Maybe, but these comments don't go up on the site, they go straight to the commenter. *shrugs*
I'll wander over and make a complaint for you now.
I hope it's resolved quickly!
no subject
Date: 2006-07-23 05:24 am (UTC)I'll wander over and make a complaint for you now. I hope it's resolved quickly!
Thank you, and yeah, me too.
Icarus
no subject
Date: 2006-07-23 06:02 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-07-23 07:04 am (UTC)Icarus
no subject
Date: 2006-07-23 07:33 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-07-24 06:13 am (UTC)I used to have all my fic on there years ago and never replied to comments then because there was no feature to do so. I did occasionally have authors email me a thank you note for leaving fb on their fics there, but that seemed a bit much. Now that there's a respond feature, I always respond with a thank you.
no subject
Date: 2006-07-26 05:44 am (UTC)Icarus
Cassandra Claire
Date: 2006-07-24 03:36 am (UTC)The material in DS9 has been removed, circa 2006. The attributions from August 2005 did not include the references in the authors note as to which paragraphs that CC had borrowed.
If you want a greater discussion of it, see http://www.cassandraclaire.com/
Re: Cassandra Claire
Date: 2006-07-24 04:00 am (UTC)This is what I'd heard of. The other stuff is new. I do know that in 2003 she'd referred to the DT as a "patische" and the person who gave me this LJ code (back when we needed them)
Since Cassandra Claire gets hammered on a regular basis by F_W and pretty anyone who has anything negative to say about HP, I think the subject's pretty well done. I'm not one of the Cassandra Claire haters, I merely observe the connection between her departure and the departure of many other stories from ff.net. A lot of people left ff.net when she did.
Icarus
Re: Cassandra Claire
Date: 2006-07-24 12:55 pm (UTC)Other people left FanFiction.Net because they were afraid they would similarly be kicked off for plagiarism. They were rather smart in doing that as some of the were doing the same thing as Cassandra Claire. One of those people was Ebony. It later turned out that they actually WERE doing the same thing as Cassandra Claire. Ebony got busted for her extensive use of quotes from Anne of Green Gables. I don't think others have looked too closely at those authors who left because they haven't hard the target potential that Cassandra Claire has. (And that's likely to get worse before it gets better considering the trilogy that's come out. People on Wikipedia, in the Cassandra Claire entry, were talking about reporting her to her publisher back in July of 2005. The closer it comes to the book, the more vile it will likely become.)
F_W wank is not so much about CC but about CC's fangirls and Heidi. That's one of the important distinctions there.
Re: Cassandra Claire
Date: 2006-07-26 06:00 am (UTC)They were rather smart in doing that as some of the were doing the same thing as Cassandra Claire. One of those people was Ebony. It later turned out that they actually WERE doing the same thing as Cassandra Claire. Ebony got busted for her extensive use of quotes from Anne of Green Gables.
It makes a little more sense if it's something that a lot of people were doing. Once one person gets away with it then a lot of people follow suit.
I don't think others have looked too closely at those authors who left because they haven't hard the target potential that Cassandra Claire has.
And there's why I feel uncomfortable with the whole bash-Cassandra Claire scene. It's been, what? Five years? Which is fandom years (similar to dog years) is equivalent to, I dunno, a minor eon. Yet still people jump whenever her name is mentioned. I hate watching the pile-on. Clearly she screwed up but when do we decide she's served her time?
Icarus
Re: Cassandra Claire
Date: 2006-07-26 12:41 pm (UTC)As for the time issue, five years is not a minor eon. There are still situations that date back much longer that get brought up. It is a myth that these don't matter and don't get brought up. I've gotten threats for mentioning stuff that's 20 years old. I've had consequences for fannish actions dating back 10 years. And neither of those incidents were as famous as the one Cassandra Claire was involved in.
As for the pile on, I think that a lot of that is helped along by the amount of defenders and excusers and the weirdness of Cassandra Claire's fans. If Cassandra Claire had properly credited her stuff initially, apologized and admitted it was wrong and if her friends and fangirls were not constantly trolling people who spoke against her, her reputation would not be as bad. Hell, folks like Msscribe realized that piling on Cassandra Claire was the sure way to get attention. And this attention WORKS for Cassandra Claire. It really works for her. If she didn't have it, she'd be much less popular. When she goes quiet and hasn't written for a bit, wank surrounding her happens. She comes in and comments at opportune moments and stokes those flames, fanning the situation into more attention for herself. That bridges the gap between when she next releases her stuff. It's a cycle that couldn't be more helpful in generating more attention for her. She hardly can be accused of serving time with that unless it involves being a prisonor with a PR firm who helps her profit from her time in prison and her crimes.
Re: Cassandra Claire
Date: 2006-07-27 01:50 am (UTC)On "serving her time": It depends upon what you want for reparations. If the author gave her permission to use the work, even after the fact, then that's up to the author. Ultimately the author is the one damaged and it's their right to decide whether to persue it or not.
I'm surprised at the permission, frankly. If it were me I'd demand that it be changed. I haven't met an author yet who allows their work to be used under someone else's name wholesale. But perhaps the author feels that the sections are different enough or out of context enough... I dunno. Go figure. I haven't compared the two sections to have a handle how an author would feel about it. It's the author's call.
Now, beyond having the work removed from the internet (the author's prerogative), one might want the story to at least not be read and lose all popularity.
My father has decades in advertising, and you're right. He's always said the same thing, that good and bad advertising are one and the same: it's all about name recognition. Our conversation here and the link to
Now, if the goal is to kill Cassandra Claire's popularity, for her to be abandoned by
First off,
Then also, Draco Trilogy is a good story, pretty gripping. It's not deep, but it has a sense of comic book fun (bear in mind that I gave up on reading half-way through Draco Dormiens). Writers are popular because of their stories; it's not personal. Unless Cassandra Claire is lying about what is quoted where, then she's obviously a good writer. Personally, I like "After The Flood" quite a bit better than the Draco Trilogy, and there's no plagiarism issue that I know of with that story. So here you have an author who's better without the quotes and plagiarised material.
Usually plagiarists suck. They either have nothing without ripping off other people or else once you take out the plagiarised work the rest is crap. People like Cassandra Claire not because they're mindlessly ignoring the plagiarism but because she is a pretty good writer regardless. I don't know why she cribbed this stuff; she doesn't need to.
You see where I'm headed.
If the goal is to end her popularity, you've got to stop directing people to her stories. Because as long people keep reading, they will continue to enjoy them. At least on Fiction Alley the quotes are credited now, the author apparently has declined their option to have it removed... there's a point where you've done all you can.
Now, if the goal is revenge, to make the person feel like shit if they happen to come across this, then the pile-on is the proper method to use. In that case it will be effective, especially since
I'm going to sound very Buddhist and all, and mention that the Dalai Lama once said of a corrupt teacher that in the long term their impact on the Dharma is minimal, because as human beings we don't live very long.
Icarus
Re: Cassandra Claire
Date: 2006-07-27 02:14 am (UTC)2 - rob them of the pleasure of fooling people. Cut off that feeling of superiority. Let them know they were caught, and how easily. How transparent they were. Public humiliation works best.
So, yes. Caught. But you can't paint plagiarist over everything she's ever written because it's not all plagiarized. Tricky situation.
Icarus
Re: Cassandra Claire
Date: 2006-08-09 01:03 am (UTC)Re: Cassandra Claire
Date: 2006-08-09 01:30 am (UTC)Answer me this: why do the Cassandra Claire haters abuse pretty much anyone who disagrees with them, or who's doubtful and isn't on board with their opinion?
All Cassandra Claire has to do is remain silent and the people who hate her will drive those who are sitting on the fence into her camp.
Actually, I'd started to revise my opinion after I talked to
It's one reason I was looking forward to the Cassandra Claire expose when I heard of it. Unfortunately, as usual,
I looked forward to a balanced account that's not dripping with bias, a la the MsScribe report. *sigh*
The side-by-side sections were good, the research was good. But
Icarus
Sock puppet.
Date: 2006-08-09 01:32 am (UTC)Icarus