(FYI--in this post, as with all the posts on this blog, I'm speaking only on behalf of myself, not Carina Press. Nor am I speaking on behalf of the publisher in question, though I used to be an editor for this e-publisher. Just being upfront.)
It seems like every few months, we're hearing about another plagiarism scandal. The most recent one floating around the blogosphere involves a person who allegedly plagiarized an author who I understand is beloved and well-known in that particular genre. I'm not going to mention specifics at this point because as far as I know, there hasn't been an official declaration of plagiarism yet. But once there is (and I'm pretty sure I heard it's in the works), I'll come back and tweak this with details.
The publisher of the plagiarizing author in question has, as far as I've heard, withdrawn the book and is pursuing a suit against the author.
Lots of people are throwing out lots of opinions on how things should be handled--to be expected during something like this, for sure. But one thing I've noticed is that some people are blaming the publisher (if not in full, at least in part) for the plagiarism. Those people indicate the publisher should have caught it before it was released.
Frankly, I'm disappointed and frustrated that people are blaming the publisher. Really? So every single editor in the publishing universe is supposed to intimately and thoroughly know every single book that's ever been published or produced since the dawn of time, so we can recognize, or at least suspect, when we get a plagiarized work?
To be all-encompassing, that means we would have to know, thoroughly enough to identify when plagiarism occurs, the following kinds of works:
- traditionally published books
- self-published books
- vanity press books
- books that were hand-written before the printing press was invented
- ebooks
- books that had a minimal print run (e.g., 1-2 copies), like my Master's thesis, or my first e-pubbed novel, haha
- books that were published in every other country in the world
- translations of the books that were published in every other country in the world
- books that were published in the past but are currently "out of print" or unavailable
- books that are currently "in print"
- and more!
Okay, that seems a little goofy and excessive, yes? I barely have time to eat some days, much less read (to my everlasting woe). While I'd love to be that familiar, I can't possibly remember every. single. thing. I read. I just can't. The human brain isn't wired that way. Nor could I ever hope to make even a tiny dent in what has been published. Not that I won't die trying, haha.
So, let's look at the other approach being offered up by those who would hold the publisher accountable for plagiarized works: editors/publisher should to take every manuscript acquired (and I assume do the same for works already published?) and run it through a database or Google or whatever to catch plagiarism pre-emptively, before the work is released.
While this isn't a bad idea (and in fact, as a prof I can use this--the school offers databases that store some student papers), it's just not anywhere near possible right now. Did you read the types of books there are out there in my above bulleted list? haha. What kind of database could possibly be created that will hold the FULL, SEARCHABLE TEXT of every single one of these publishing formats in that list, PLUS appropriately translate foreign works into the appropriate language needed, INCLUDING works that haven't yet been digitized?
I'm amazed at the power some seem to think publishers have. Do people grasp the scope of how many books have been published in the past, present, and will be in the future? How MASSIVE this database would have to be, to scan a manuscript against every single word in every single book ever created? How LONG it would take to run a single manuscript through this database?
Editors try to be as well-read as possible (I shovel in as many books as I can when I'm not working on a manuscript--not because I have to, but because I love books like oxygen), but it's impossible for us to catch everything. It's never going to happen. Publishers aren't gods or machines--they're run by people trying to do the best they can.
Authors sign contracts when their work is acquired, PROMISING the work is their own original creation. Are we supposed to assume every author is lying, then? Why even make them sign a contract with that stipulation if we just assume they're all lying? In fact, why acquire authors at all--isn't that too dangerous, given that they could be lying about the origin of their works? Why not just find a stable of people we deem trustworthy, lock them in a room with no internet or other books or any other source material to prevent even accidental plagiarism, and make them write for us?
How far do publishers have to go?
The above proposal is ridiculous, of course--giving extreme examples is what I do best, haha. But my point is, editors and publishers generally do the best they can to provide high-quality work to readers. Stop holding them accountable for authors who are too lazy to do their own creative work.
See, that's why it's good that readers are paying attention--you guys catch things we can't possibly know, because you guys love books as much as (if not more than, sometimes!) we do. That's why I view this more as us working TOGETHER on things like this. Not publishers vs readers. When you suspect plagiarism, research it. Send that proof to the editor or publisher. That's the stuff that gets this plagiarized crap off the streets.
But stop vilifying the wrong people.
