162 replies to this topic

[Dustin]

How many genre tomes are published every month? 20? 60? 120? Probably. Makes between 720 and 1400 thriller genre books each year, all kinds, police procedural, whodunnit, spy and so on. Most of it may be stuff that's immediately forgotten after the last page. But I highly doubt anybody on the publisher's side of things can be expected to 'know' the market and its product any more, it's much too vast by now.

Edited by Dustin, 10 November 2011 - 05:10 PM.

[Jim]

And the publishing house he went through was an imprint of a much larger house. Who knows how many people the manuscript went through from the time the agent got the manuscript to the time the decision to publish it was finalised?

Quite. And regardless of motive on the individual's behalf, that's the really grim part of this sorry affair.

How many genre tomes are published every month? 20? 60? 120? Probably. Makes between 720 and 1400 thriller genre books each year, all kinds, police procedual, whodunnit, spy and so on. Most of it may be stuff that's immediately forgotten after the last page. But I highly doubt anybody on the publisher's side of things can be expected to 'know' the market and its product any more, it's much too vast by now.

Exactly - I'm not proposing a solution, nor realistically expecting change in the face of such odds - simply that with such odds, if one were so minded, one could walk right in with this. And, did. And nearly did it.

[marktmurphy]

Of course, Little, Brown & Co. had to issue a press release, which was picked up by every literary supplement out there (US, Great Britain, Canada, evenn the Hindustani Times), but this must be the biggest publishing scandal since...when?

I don't know if it's that massive. Not exactly Spycatcher.

He doesn't deserve one. This whole damn thread is enough to have the Admiral issue a termination warrant.

Actually, if it comes to that and across my desk, well, it isn't worth the travel, wear and tear on my silencer or the bullet.

Wouldn't mind the travel or frequent flyer miles and a few days in a nice hotel though. Odds are I could just hand him the gun and (at this point) he'd do it himself.

Besides, the holidays are approaching, and with them, Jim's usual lavish attempt on my life by some exotic means. I wouldn't pass it up for anything. Including snuffing this loser. Yeah, it'd be fun, but I'm traditional when it comes to this time of year and being a cold blooded assassin.

What gibberish is this?

[Leviathan]

...I highly doubt anybody on the publisher's side of things can be expected to 'know' the market and its product any more, it's much too vast by now.

I've got to disagree here. These weren't obscure works being plagiarized, but high-profile novels, and "Mulholland," the Little, Brown imprint that published it, is a division of Little, Brown dedicated to suspense novels. That there wasn't a single editor at a thriller-specialty imprint who could recognize passages lifted from "License Renewed" (never mind the dozens of other sources, "License Renewed" was a huge event in the world of thriller publishing, and was a major news story for weeks when it was published; in short, it's a milestone) is pretty disgraceful.

[terminus]

Bear in mind, Leviathan, that License Renewed was published almost thirty years ago. So, yes - major event at the time - but that major event was thirty years ago. And think how many books those people will have read in the intervening thirty year, even assuming the same person read both books - all in all, not particularly surprising that it slipped past.

After all, it took someone who knows the Bond novels inside out to notice the Bond plagarism - and only then were the other plagarised elements discovered.

[Captain Tightpants]

I don't really know what Little, Brown's policy on accepted submitted manuscripts is, but I'd say that Rowan would have had to have gone through an agent first. An agent can't rightly be expected to recognise chapter and verse from those novels, particularly if they represent a lot of authors, and/or if they weren't dedicated to publishing only thrillers (some agents exclusively handle science fiction and fantasy). If the novel itself went to Little, Brown, then it could have easily crossed a dozen desks on its way to Mulholland. Especially if someone at Little, Brown who was not familiar with thrillers was impressed by the manuscript, and decided that it would be published before palming it off to an editor at Mulholland. As important as Licence Renewed was, it was released in 1981 - thirty years ago. If someone between the ages of twenty-five and thirty-five was working at Mulholland, it's possible that they would not recall Licence Renewed because they were too young to remember it.

Finally, Rowan appears to have used his previous writings - which have since been demonstrated to be plagiarised themselves - to get his foot in the door. While it could be reasonably expected that someone from Mulholland would recognise Licence Renewed, it's a much bigger stretch to imagine that they could identify poetry published a decade ago in The Paris Review as being plagiarised, especially when it was a novel (Our Man In Havana) that was put into poetic verse. Especially since the likes of The Paris Review and BOMB were unaware of the plagiarism until now. They'd probably see it and think "great, he's had work published before" and use it in his favour.

But mostly, I think Rowan's deception worked simply because he didn't think of it as deception. Based on what Jeremy Duns and Duane Swierczynski have said about him, I'm convinced that he did it because he wanted to be somebody. Looking at his bio on Amazon, he held a steady stream of dead-end jobs, including a laundry-truck driver, a door-to-door knife salesman, and a telemarketer. Rowan probably thought he deserved more than what he had in life, and felt that he belong in the literature world for no greater reason than because he wanted to. I think wanted to be remembered the same way as his heroes; he probably had some fantasy where "Quentin Rowan" would be the latest in a long line of names including Fleming, le Carre, Ludlum and so on.

[Single-O-Seven]

I'm surprised publishers don't do what Mr. Duns eventually tried, and that is running passages from books (particularly by new authors) through a program to see if any exact matches with published works are found. Universities and colleges do something similar with essays.

[marktmurphy]

...I highly doubt anybody on the publisher's side of things can be expected to 'know' the market and its product any more, it's much too vast by now.

I've got to disagree here. These weren't obscure works being plagiarized, but high-profile novels, and "Mulholland," the Little, Brown imprint that published it, is a division of Little, Brown dedicated to suspense novels. That there wasn't a single editor at a thriller-specialty imprint who could recognize passages lifted from "License Renewed" (never mind the dozens of other sources, "License Renewed" was a huge event in the world of thriller publishing, and was a major news story for weeks when it was published; in short, it's a milestone) is pretty disgraceful.

Hardly a must-read, though, and very much forgotten amongst anyone but Bond fans. I daresay most proper thriller readers would steer clear of any non-Fleming Bond novels.

[terminus]

Who's to say they don't? I know universities sometimes do it - it might be more widespread over in America/Canada than it is in the UK, but I can't imagine it being economically viable to do it with all imprints. After all, it would require the programme to hold every book ever written in a scannable fashion. Times that I am aware of when it has been done with essays, it is done to a random selection - and not to every single essay that has been handed into the tutor.

[Dustin]

...I highly doubt anybody on the publisher's side of things can be expected to 'know' the market and its product any more, it's much too vast by now.

I've got to disagree here. These weren't obscure works being plagiarized, but high-profile novels, and "Mulholland," the Little, Brown imprint that published it, is a division of Little, Brown dedicated to suspense novels. That there wasn't a single editor at a thriller-specialty imprint who could recognize passages lifted from "License Renewed" (never mind the dozens of other sources, "License Renewed" was a huge event in the world of thriller publishing, and was a major news story for weeks when it was published; in short, it's a milestone) is pretty disgraceful.

Yes, it was huge. But that was a whole generation away. I doubt many people from back then are still working the turf. And License Renewed shares the fate of many a major hallmark from ancient times, it's mostly an obscurity to average readers and not even all Bond fans are familiar with it. I have read it about five or six times myself, but I certainly didn't immediately recognise the examples AMC Hornet picked up. I daresay the same could have happened with Raffles or Quatermain. Publishers pay their staff to compete on the current market, not that of yesterday. There's nothing 'disgraceful' as such about it, these guys can't be expected to display a universal literacy.

Edited by Dustin, 10 November 2011 - 02:33 PM.

[Jim]

It's just not a particularly edifying incident all round, is it?

Oddly enough I was in a publisher meeting this morning and a similar issue arose, albeit in relation to Crown copyright - and that's really serious; not just a few lawyers going after one but the Queen also sends the Duke of Edinburgh round with a pickaxe.

Still holding by my theory that this incident was trying to prove some sort of a point, although I am quite prepared to be horribly wrong about that and accept that it's some loony who managed to slip through somehow.

[Dustin]

It surely does have an air of malice about it, true. But the point evidently would have been to call out that the emperor doesn't wear a thread. The emperor being the established circle of writers and publishers. Hardly a prank one could push this far and not expect serious repercussions. It's not as if the twerp can publish How I Deceived The Publishing World And A Good Many Well-Meaning People In The Process (Almost) now. And for some kind of wicked cruel experiment the a*se would have had to seek permission first.

[doublenoughtspy]

There's nothing 'disgraceful' as such about it, these guys can't be expected to display a universal literacy.

I agree. One would hope they would have a wide range of knowledge, but to know chapter and verse just isn't realistic.

I know a number of years ago, as an experiment, someone took an entire Hemingway novel, changed a few character names, and submitted it to over a hundred agents, editors, and publishers.

Only 1, yes 1, rejection letter mentioned the similarity to the original.

[Simg]

I meant to comment on all this earlier but as most of you will understand it has been a busy few days for me.
I have thanked AMC Hornet for originally alerting me to the plagiarism which has sparked an amazing amount of
debate. If you go to http://tinyurl.com/7gjbcgf our Facebook page you can see all the updates regarding this
story. I have received a lot of calls, posts and emails regarding this and I have tried to include as much
information as possible on The Complete Works of John Edmund Gardner Facebook page.

As I have said before you guys are brilliant, thanks for all your support .

SRJG

[Captain Tightpants]

http://readersentert...girism-charges/

Rowan talked about being “disillusioned” by the success of other “wunderkind authors” from Brooklyn like Jonathan Safran Foer, and how working in a local bookstore made him feel like part of the literary scene, but also somehow not—presumably because, at the end of the day, they were celebrated writers, and he was just the guy behind the counter, selling their books. (Which is pretty sad, if it’s true; I know other writers who work at bookstores in Brooklyn, and they’re not anywhere near so insecure about themselves.) “There was a bunch of books by people who were technically my peers that felt showy and one-note,” Rowan added, before noting that he had basically written a thriller for the money.

With the benefit of hindsight, it’s hard not to see in comments like these a thinly-veiled contempt for the book world. Here’s a guy with so much resentment over the success of other writers that he flat out tells a reporter he was willing to “dumb it down” if that’s what it took to get a book deal. Did Rowan take that attitude even further? That is, was he so convinced that the big, commercial publishers are stupid and venal that he could sell them a book filled with other people’s prose and they’d be too ignorant to notice?

[TheREAL008]

What I would like to know - Will there be any litigation forthcoming? Obviously QR won't have a writing career anymoreand hopefully he'll have to give some kind of formal apology to Mr. Gardner, Mr. benson, and the other writers that he copied from.

[Captain Tightpants]

There hasn't been any word on it yet. Not as far as I know; I haven't seen or heard anything about it.

[Jim]

http://readersentertainment.com/2011/q-r-markham-assassin-of-secrets-faces-massive-plagirism-charges/

That is, was he so convinced that the big, commercial publishers are stupid and venal that he could sell them a book filled with other people’s prose and they’d be too ignorant to notice?

And have it submitted to genre authors, similarly afflicted?

It is a most curious little episode.

[Captain Tightpants]

And have it submitted to genre authors, similarly afflicted?

Well, my recurring theory is that Rowan did it because he was insecure. He needed their approval. It's sort of an ironic Catch-22 - on the one hand, he is utterly disparaging of them because he feels they have earned success that they do not deserve ... but at the same time, they are the ones with the power to validate him.

[Simg]

What I would like to know - Will there be any litigation forthcoming? Obviously QR won't have a writing career anymoreand hopefully he'll have to give some kind of formal apology to Mr. Gardner, Mr. benson, and the other writers that he copied from.

The Gardner Family have received an apology from Hodder & Stoughton the UK publishers.
Jeremy Duns http://tinyurl.com/8x245mn has actually had an email apology from the perpetrator himself.

SRJG

[Mr. Blofeld]

I find it very telling that Duns is doing all this writing on Rowan after being so buddy-buddy with him, even letting him write a guest post that was completely plagiarized.

I think there's more to this where Duns is concerned than he's telling...

[terminus]

I'm not sure what you're trying to suggest there, MB. But I don't think you should start suggesting the sort of thing about Duns that you appear to be suggesting without any attempt to back up your claims.

Imho, Duns' behaviour since discovering he has been duped has been entirely understandable - even reserved and dignified on the whole.

[Mr. Blofeld]

Imho, Duns' behaviour since discovering he has been duped has been entirely understandable - even reserved and dignified on the whole.

He's not the hero of this tale; that'd have to be AMC Hornet and that Edward Champion fellow. Duns just jumped on the bandwagon when he realized he'd been had; the only reason he's gotten the most press is because he's a name author, and as such is a big name to attach to articles.

Considering how "dignified" he was the last time he posted on here, it's a wonder he's held his composure, at all -- actually, no wonder; no one's called him out on being so close with Rowan, or subsequently covering up that guest-post without a word. As soon as he is, he'll explode.

[Dustin]

Far as I read nobody here suggested Duns was the 'hero' of this most unpleasant affair. On his blog he admits he's been had, also that he pulled Rowan's piece because it was - like apparently a lot, perhaps most or even all Rowan's published work - plagiarised. If I recall correctly he even alarmed another publisher who had the same piece on their official site and it was likewise pulled there. Visit Duns's blog and see for yourself.

Edited by Dustin, 14 November 2011 - 06:26 AM.

[Captain Tightpants]

On his blog he admits he's been had, also that he pulled Rowan's piece because it was - like apparently a lot, perhaps most or even all Rowan's published work - plagiarised.

Indeed. It appears that the interview between Duns and Rowan was not conducted face-to-face; rather, Duns seems to have sent his questions to Rowan, who sent back "his" answers.

[Righty007]

I find it very telling that Duns is doing all this writing on Rowan after being so buddy-buddy with him, even letting him write a guest post that was completely plagiarized.

I think there's more to this where Duns is concerned than he's telling...

Piss off.

[Mr. Blofeld]

Indeed. It appears that the interview between Duns and Rowan was not conducted face-to-face; rather, Duns seems to have sent his questions to Rowan, who sent back "his" answers.

I'm not talking about the interview, but about the guest post from 2010; the one linked above. The interview's a whole different kettle of fish...

Piss off.

Righty007: Abusive and unpleasant since 2003.

[DamnCoffee]

Enough!


You're like. Boys with toys.

Edited by Mharkin, 14 November 2011 - 09:33 PM.

[DLibrasnow]

Piss off.

Calm down Righty.

[zencat]

Far as I read nobody here suggested Duns was the 'hero' of this most unpleasant affair.

Well, he appears to be now playing that role. According to this article, Duns was "the first to alert publisher Little, Brown to similarities between Rowan’s Assassin of Secrets and published works by Charles McCarry, Raymond Benson, and Robert Ludlum."

Really?

Seems like this will be news those who participated early in this thread, to the blog Reluctant Habits, and Simon Gardner who, it's my understand, first contacted the publisher because of what he read here.