Write, right, rites, reads discussion
So, anyone read any good threads lately?
thank you Eric.much appreciated.
Ben wrote: "What if Ginnie Jones is really Otis?"Then "Otis" has far too much time on their hands.
I was joking... Maybe you're Ginnie, MyFlesh... how do we really know???
I was just kiddin around as well.I just stumbled upon another Ginnie-plagiarism:
"Her" review of Virginia Woolf's Nose: Essays on Biography was primarily lifted from Jean Strouse, Director, Center for Scholars and Writers at the New York Public Library:
http://press.princeton.edu/quotes/q79...
Every time I see her reviews at the top of the queue now I'm going to feel compelled to check up on them. So far, I've located several plagiarisms and only one short uninteresting review which seemed to be purely original and this has happened solely through happenstance over the last few days ("she" "wrote" a lot of reviews it seems).
Heh, she is insufferable. But I still think you're her. Just ask Mike/David/Donald (they are all the same person, according to an earlier post from Mike).
And as Eddie pointed out earlier, several of "her" reviews are a mishmash of various plagiarized reviews. I find this most bizarre because it's indicative of taking a fair amount of time and effort to piece together multiple plagiarisms...though this is also quite possibly a way to ward off those who may be suspicious. If you Google the entire review then only "her" review will show up. This happened with the Virginia Woolf review, but I had enough suspicion to make multiple attempts and found the original source by searching for one sentence of the review which sounded particularly "professional", so to speak. And bingo, there it was: Jean Strouse, not "Ginnie".
Ben wrote: "Heh, she is insufferable. But I still think you're her. Just ask Mike/Donald."Ya got me! You can search all my reviews, man! I swear they're all legit!
You'll never take me alive, plagiarism police!
It looks like her review of "The Great Divorce" is legit, which is a shame because she really should have given it 5 stars.That makes think: I wonder if she even read all the books she plaigarized reviews for...
Ben wrote: "That makes think: I wonder if she even read all the books she plaigarized reviews for..."I immediately assumed "No" when becoming aware of the extent of the plagiarism. But who knows. My gut says the posturing extends beyond the plagiarized reviews themselves and right onto "her" shelf.
YAY DONALD!!!I wonder if she even read all the books she plaigarized reviews for...
Of course not!
I feel like Bookface having its first big plagiarism scandal makes it more legitimate somehow. This is like Milli Vanilli/Quiz Show/James Frey all rolled into one.... with a Clash soundtrack to top it off!
Not sure what makes Ginnie's book tastes seem particularly masculine -- it's not like she's into those old-timey series books about sailing ships. Ginnie's got great taste, remember. Also, what's especially weird about all this, for those who don't know, is that a lot of us have corresponded with her individually, and she comes across as a very likable, thoughtful, intelligent writer with fine command of grammar and a consistent persona.
You know how it goes:
My Bookster was a plagiarist
But she never hurt nobody
She just loved to live that way
She loved to steal your book reviews....
MyFleshSingsOut wrote: "Ben wrote: "That makes think: I wonder if she even read all the books she plaigarized reviews for..."I immediately assumed "No" when becoming aware of the extent of the plagiarism. But who knows..."
If that's the case then the whole thing is even worse, because she's attributing stars (or lack thereof) that don't belong there; you can't have an opinion of something you haven't read. Even the reviewer that she stole from could have given the book a different number of stars than her. It sounds silly to care about, but it's another example of her gaming our beloved goodreads system.
I honestly thought that maybe she was reading the books, and then finding reviews that agreed with her opinion, and that was how she justified it in her mind. If she didn't even read the books, she's even more of a criminal.
I discovered her plagiaristic activities completely accidentally. I had no previous suspicion, probably because she fairly awed me with her continual deluge of intelligent-seeming reviews. And plus who's going to suspect an old lady librarian? I still think that's a protective persona.Anyway, she used a very strange word or phrase in a review that really intrigued me, but before publicly asking her what it meant I decided to google it first so as not to appear stupid or something. The word or phrase was in fact so strange that only one result came up, and it was the last paragraph of her gr review as written by someone else. So then I coyly commented on the word, and she made some crap up about it. After that I fairly systematically checked many of her reviews. I'll have to find that first review with the weird word.
In case anyone's interested, here's my original exchange with Ginnie:http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/...
Now it all seems strange to me and I don't know what to make of it. Her review is word for word the final paragraph of the very review she mentions in the comments, but instead of admitting that her review is cribbed she just says that she liked that one phrase and "copied it into her notes". Now I'm seeing an old lady with "notes" scattered all around, in no order, with no identifiers, and then I see her pulling "notes" from here from there and cobbling together reviews. Maybe she is just an old disorganized lady with crazy hair and big white earrings biting down on a red pen.
You have to be mightily "disorganized" to plagiarize a review on a book about plagiarism word for word, from beginning to end.
I know I know, that's really the clincher. It bespeaks a pathology.
Eddie, I keep thinking I'm over this, but then someone points out something TOTALLY CRAZY, like what you just did!That review IS the Times Book Review's, which makes the coy admission that she "can't claim originality" so chillingly, inexplicably disingenuous and WEIRD!
AAGHHHH!!!!! My brain is malfunctioning!!!! I can't really process this!
Eddie wrote: "I know I know, that's really the clincher. It bespeaks a pathology."Right. It just bewilders me because there's so many other more exciting ways to be pathological...right? I mean, I can think of dozens of "better" ways to fuck with people besides that.
The plagiarism review's definitely my favorite of these, especially since according to.... whoever actually wrote it, the book's a defense of plagiarism!That's the one that makes me think this is all a very deliberate joke. It's either a clue, or a giant "fuck you." There is no way ANYONE could do that without ruining a pair of pants laughing.
I understand the use of CAPS in #127 now. Good fucking grief this is MADDENING:"Eddie, I can't claim any originality here. The NYT review by Angelina Goreau in 2001 began, "At first glance, Edmund White's encounter with Paris looks rather like a journey without a map -- the nonfiction equivalent of the kind of novels Henry James rather slightingly referred to as ''loose baggy monsters.'' The charge of baggy monsterism has (in so many words) been laid at White's door before -- most particularly in connection with his expansive autobiographical trilogy of novels (''A Boy's Own Story,'' ''The Beautiful Room Is Empty'' and ''The Farewell Symphony''). But here, in ''The Flâneur,'' as in the novels, it can be argued that form and substance are happily married." I loved the phrase so much I copied it into my notes. The real thanks go to Henry James."
See, but this is why it keeps being interesting. Because she reads all these reviews, and can make all those references in the paragraph you just cited! It is plagiarism, but as many have pointed out, it's not a simple, lazy plagiarism. This is someone who at least reads reviews voraciously, if not books.Look, I knew this was going on for a long time, and I turned a blind eye and tried to justify it by thinking (not too carefully) that Ginnie was just trying to make herself a kind of reference of all the books that interested her, and helpful reviews. Obviously, there is something a bit more creepy and sinister going on here....
I still think it's all a big joke at everyone else's expense. She's probably laughing her ass off right now, watching us flap around.
Choupette wrote: "I still think it's all a big joke at everyone else's expense. She's probably laughing her ass off right now, watching us flap around."I keep leaning towards an explanation like that but...
I appreciate irreverent and weird humor, in fact, it's my favorite. But I just don't see what's so funny about it. Given the context of all this taking place on goodreads it's perfectly understandable and predictable how people reacted...which I just don't see the "gotcha" element in at all. To say it one more time along with other folks: the whole thing's kinda weird.
Jessica wrote: "See, but this is why it keeps being interesting. Because she reads all these reviews, and can make all those references in the paragraph you just cited!"But everything she wrote there was pulled from another review except for the basically superfluous first two and last two sentences. She didn't really reference anything except another review which referenced things about the book.
Sorry, I mean she referenced a different part of the same review that she plagiarized. Wow, that went right over my head earlier. This is just hilarious!
I think she was keeping this "husband in hospice care" as her final excuse, when finally more than just one person here and there called her on it, when finally a whole group jumped all over her publicly. I'm sorry but I just don't believe it, and why should I?
I also remember someone asking her how she could possibly read and review so many books at a time. her response was that she'd kept a journal of the books she'd reviewed pre-Internet days and she was finally getting them online...I didn't have cause not to believe her at the time, though I still felt somewhat suspicious of so many books & so many reviews on a weekly basis...
I think Eddie's exchange with Ginnie pretty much proves that she's... well... What's the word I'm looking for here...?
what's that saying? a picture's worth 1,000 ..?
Either that or, as Jessica is suggesting, it's someone having a big fat laugh at our (goodreaders) expense. Wait a minute--that person would be batshit, too. Eddie- (I think it was Eddie who emailed Otis) have you heard anything?
It was Eric. Otis will respond eventually I think. He usually does, anyway.
One more I stumbled across in which the review that has been stolen is ALSO REFERENCED as if the rest of the review is original (!!!):Review:
http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/...
Stolen from:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/21/boo...
This is exactly the sort of thing that used to confuse the hell out of me with her reviews....I'd respond to it as if it were hers, then realize it was only being referenced...Is this a case of ...weakening of the mind with age...?
no one knows but GJ, I realize.
Jessica wrote: "This is exactly the sort of thing that used to confuse the hell out of me with her reviews....I'd respond to it as if it were hers, then realize it was only being referenced...Is this a case of..."
I have been finding innumerable examples of unattributed material in her reviews after I started poking around. I find it very sad.
I see on my update feeds that David is taking a close look at more of "Ginnie's" reviews. Was just wondering if anyone knows whether or not she is still around? Or if anyone knows if this whole fiasco made its way to Otis yet?
I noticed that The Plagiarist (as I'll refer to her from here on out, much like Saint Aquinas referred to Aristotle as "The Philosopher" and how I now refer to David Foster Wallace as "The Author") has begrudgingly attributed--after her exposure as The Plagiarist, of course--"her" review of I Don't Believe in Atheists (or at least part of it) to New York magazine. Too little, too late.
Yeah, yeah, I know I'm dork -- so save your applause -- but finding the sources for Ginnie's reviews (and discovering how she changed or collaged them) is enjoyable. Besides, I'm at work. What else interesting is there to do?
I've been doing the same everytime I stumble across one of "her" reviews. And this happens frequently as it's pretty easy to crank out reviews for books you've never read when you steal them. We should build a masterlist and display it on her page and demand answers. I'm at work, also. Ahh, the Internet Age and bland office work go rather well together.
At first I felt like a cutting edge detective, but then realized I was just a simple addict, and not even a cool addict, but a dorky addict, a bored office drudge looking for a cheap thrill. Feel free to use me as a cautionary tale - in the end I not only lost an imaginary friend in Ginnie (and might I add a critical mother figure in my long-standing library fantasy of nerdy eroticism), but I lost faith in the written word as well. Beware!
Oh shit, this is so disheartening. I defended her on one of the reviews mentioned earlier. I have found this whole thing very disturbing.On one of my reviews she wrote:
Trevor,
One of my grandsons just started university and we have been having terrific e-mail conversations about his readings for a class on political theory and popular culture. We're currently to-ing and fro-ing over Richard Rorty, utilitarianism, with a little bit of Blade Runner thrown into the mix. I copied and sent your review to him (with attribution, after all I'm a librarian by trade) and he loved it. We have been all over Sowell's assertions like a pair of hens on a June bug. So I owe you big time, not simply for a sensible review but also for widening my dialogue with a nice young man.
Like many others here I feel my trust has been violated. It is quite a horrible feeling.
I copied and sent your review to him (with attribution, after all I'm a librarian by trade) and he loved it.
Wow, Trevor, that is an excruciatingly ironic message.
Wow, Trevor, that is an excruciatingly ironic message.
copying and sending, copying and pasting: skills GJ has become all too good at, incredibly prolific, really.
Jason Pettus, a great reviewer on GR and for CCLAP, told me that he was always trying to best "this Ginnie Jones" in his reviewer status at GR, as she was always one spot ahead of him... is that what it was all about for her?small potatoes, eh.
Trevor just emailed me about this GR scandal! WOW!I'm coming out of my GR hiatus just to join this group 'cause this is freaking bizarre! And sad. And FASCINATING!
So, Chairy, I'm assuming you somehow did know her real name, and I'm off to google her. (I excel at internet
Mindy! you're back, I've missed you...GJ's name is easily deduced. Beyond that, I wasn't able to find out a whole lot, but I also didn't dig that deep--look forward to the results of your detective work Mins.
Well so far, I've found redacted... Is that inappropriate? I may have to come back and delete this comment out of guilt.... And fear of retribution by redacted...(And I'm only here for this and the TC music exchange thread. I od'd on GR. I have to abstain as much as possible now.)
well Mindy I completely understand about needing to abstain from GR, but we miss you...keep in touch, okay?
Write, right, rites, reads
Books mentioned in this topic
The Irony of American History (other topics)The Irony of American History (other topics)
The Irony of American History (other topics)
Wings Of Morning: The Story Of The Last American Bomber Shot Down Over Germany In World War II (other topics)
The Wild Blue: The Men and Boys Who Flew the B-24s Over Germany 1944-45 (other topics)
I'm afraid you have me at a disadvantage, I have no idea who Otis is or how to contact him.
Update: Never mind, I think I figured it out: Otis Chandler, right? Sent him a note.
Here's the note:
Dear Otis:
As you may or may not know, there has been considerable discussion recently regarding some reviews that appear to have been plagiarized from public sources. The long list of comments began with the review by Ginnie Jones of The Irony of American History. Several of us felt – for copyright if no other – reasons, that the review, which had been lifted in its entirety, (http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/feat... ) should have been attributed to the author, Andrew Bacevich.
The discussion of the issues moved to a group discussion list (http://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/1...) which you might wish to peruse. It appears that the comments to Ginnie’s review have been deleted but not the review. Some of us would be interested in hearing how and by whom they were deleted and why if the comments were deleted by Goodreads, the unattributed review was not.
We would appreciate your insights, perhaps even on the thread.
Thanks very much,
Eric Welch