Write, right, rites, reads discussion
So, anyone read any good threads lately?
Paul wrote: "there was also this recent horrible examplehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaavya_V..."
Geez. That's outrageous.
Oh, and you're welcome, Jessica. Glad to share.
the other famous example of cryptomnesia comes from george harrison, whose song "my sweet lord" was melodically lifted from an earlier song, "he's so fine". he was sued, and lost and had to give up an unfair (IMO) amount of revenue from his first post beatles album. anyway the story is interesting and is a case of unintentionality, unlike ginnie jones.
yes, there's a difference, one that can be distinguished I think: between what's done with intent, and what is not.
Well, to be honest I'm totally comfortable with the thesis that Dylan was intentionally expropriating that material. The difference is that Dylan was taking small cultural signifiers and artifacts, known to a greater and lesser extent, and weaving them into a much larger creative tapestry. It was part of the way he connected with his audience. It would be difficult to frame GJ's plagiarism in those terms.
right.Dylan was creating new work that was original...GJ was not.
The opposite of My Sweet Lord is Yesterday. McCartney went round everyone he knew playing them the tune and asking them what it was. He didn't believe he'd written it because he woke up with it in his head. If I ever wrote songs or novels I'd be forever worrying that it was an unconscious ripoff of something or just a pale imitation of an existing song or book. I wonder if anyone saw Clint Eastwood's first directed movie Play Misty for Me? The plot is the same as Fatal Attraction, but no one got sued.
Jeff Tweedy (Wilco) and Thom Yorke (Radiohead) have both said that they often cobble together song lyrics from random bits and pieces of prose they like or conversations overheard, etc. The three word description "bloodier than blood" in Wilco's "Shot in the Arm" was from a book Tweedy likes, for instance. This seems fine to me in principle. There's sort of an undefined line much like the famous stance on obscenity in the U.S. government of "I know it when I see it" when it comes to these lesser instances of borrowing, allusion, etc, that I was sort of trying to get at on the first page of this thread. It's sort of interesting stuff to think about. Like if I use the words "to be or not to be" no one will accuse me of thievery, but if I were to type, "If I ever wrote songs or novels I'd be forever worrying that it was an unconscious ripoff of something or just a pale imitation of an existing song or book." then I'm clearly just stealing Paul's words from above. Anyway, the boundaries are clear in many instances, but certain theoretical scenarios become a little more perplexing to define.
And TS Eliot of course. Whose Waste Land is layer upon layer of 'borrowed' lines.Stravinsky: Mediocre composers borrow, great composers steal.
TS Eliot: One of the surest tests [of the superiority or inferiority of a poet:] is the way in which a poet borrows. Immature poets imitate; mature poets steal; bad poets deface what they take, and good poets make it into something better, or at least something different. The good poet welds his theft into a whole of feeling which is unique, utterly different than that from which it is torn; the bad poet throws it into something which has no cohesion. A good poet will usually borrow from authors remote in time, or alien in language, or diverse in interest.
There are lines of poems and lines of songs that are so important to me, have been a part of whatever it is to be me for so long that to say that they are not me seems insane. Some of them I could hardly tell you where they are from. Most of those no longer belong to whoever wrote them, they belong to the world. Lots of Dylan and Beatles lyrics fit into that category, I think. I'm not sure you could steal a Beatles lyric.
There is a difference, though, in art, especially poetry and music, and non-fiction/reportage/research, right? Our dearest David notwithstanding, book reviews aren't art, are they? Do you see what I mean? The sanctions against plaigarism in non-fiction are a lot stronger, aren't they? Why do you suppose that is? (If y'all already discussed this, please fill me in again.)
I don't think anyone's putting the obvious, blatant theft of The Plagiarist (Ginnie) even remotely on the same level as legitimate artistic allusion.
I'm reminded of this recent controversy:http://www.cbc.ca/arts/artdesign/stor...
On "The Colbert Report" Stephen did a segment about this where he had the curator for the Whitney (I think) and his (Colbert's) brother who is a copyright lawyer debate the merit of the lawsuit. The curator said that since the photographer did not call his photo "art", he can't claim ownership. Since it's just a "photograph" of a "public figure" it's fair game.
???
I shared this whole “Ginnie Jones” saga with my husband (heck I’ve shared it with anyone who’ll sit still or run along beside me long enough to listen). He reminded me of something I had completely forgotten. Over 20 years ago we had some friends who took us to the house of and introduced us to a good friend of theirs. Within an hour or so of getting to his house and meeting him, he showed us “his hobby”. He carefully pulled down stacks of scrapbooks full of wedding and engagement announcements, obituaries and other items from various social pages – all carefully clipped from newspapers from all over the country – but mainly from the New York Times – and all completely fabricated by him. His “hobby” was making up quirky, extremely detailed announcements and submitting them to newspapers and then clipping them out and pasting them into his scrapbook when they were printed. He had STACKS of these scrapbooks. He must have spent hours painstakingly creating these people he would marry off, party with and then bury. And why? To glue into scrapbooks and to show off when he met someone new. I’m not sure if it was the tricking the newspapers into printing these fake announcements or imagining the people who were reading and believing them trying to see if they knew any of the fake socially prominent people he created – but the only recognition he got was when he shared the scrapbooks with others. But I remember that my impression was that he really didn’t even NEED to share them with anyone. His reward was just his amusement of the whole process. And after being reminded of this and how it compares with “Ginnie” creating this personality (which is what I believe) and then collecting a group of literary “friends” and fooling them into becoming attached to her intellect and gentleness; storing on her virtual shelves of Goodreads.com an incredible volume of books that she has read, complete with vote-getting stolen reviews; and zooming to the top of the (was it top or best?) reviewers list – I couldn’t help feeling that there was the need for an obituary for Ginnie. Now I’ve never written an obituary – nor am I sure I remember the details Ginnie dribbled out about her life – so bare with me:
LAST NAME UNKNOWN, FIRST NAME UNKNOWN “GINNIE JONES”, age 77 of Pasadena, CA passed away on Thursday, February 12 after a short undisclosed illness.
After retiring as a librarian from the University of California, Ginnie devoted her life to her new friends at Goodreads.com. Always a voracious reader, (she would read the back of a cereal box in a pinch) Ginnie quickly became one of the top reviewers of this site founded by Otis Chandler, grandson of the late Otis Chandler, who was the fourth generation of the Chandler family to be publisher of The Los Angeles Times. Ginnie’s life before retirement was filled with adventures such as marching behind generals in Peleliu and Okinawa and hobnobbing with many of the dignitaries referred to in the books she reviewed. After retirement, apart from her Goodreads involvement, she doted on her 3 sons, their wives (who she sometimes slipped up and referred to as her daughters), and her grandchildren. She also spent time lovingly tending her ailing husband (to whom she had been married to for over 50 years).
She will be greatly missed by her family and friends.
In lieu of flowers please make a donation to turnitin.com, a resource developed to stop the spread of internet plagiarism and promote new technologies in education.
that's brilliant, Melody, & needed.thanks.
Yes indeed, but was she really an old lady from Pasadena or was it a persona based on the Jan & Dean song?
That Pasadena thing always bugged me.
HA HA! Nice, Melody!RIP, Ginnie!
>>whoever you are. indeed!
good one Eddie!
What perfect closure to the GJ saga. When are the t-shirts coming out?
I wonder how many think i am a fraud, for the number and array of books i have read? She may be the real McCoy and simply thought she did not have to note every source, for this was not school. I take her at her word of who she is. *I liked her. I understood her review process early on, and caught on on long ago that many were reposts of cobbled reviews of other sources. This thread does not seem too kind or just--more of a hunting we will go. i just noticed she was missing from my friend list ans sent a link to this thread. Fake ID, and all that. Occum's Razor--that just does not fit. I could share my profile, but not going to-she was my friend-I was not a number to her.plagarism is never a good thing, but when is it and where is it enforced, and by whom. Gangs, stalkers, who? the internet brings interesting questions up every moment. who is next now?!?
Noran, you are a totally sweet person, as is Ginnie, most likely. Ginnie was a librarian, though, so there's no way she didn't know that she had to note every source. She also changed some of the words in the reviews to make them seem like hers (such as places she lived) and she also accepted compliments for the reviews that were plagiarized and discussed the ideas in them as if they were her own. There was a fair amount of deception going on, and for those on the site that felt they were her friend, the deception stung.
I wish that Ginnie would have just apologized, went back and sited the sources and then was more careful about that from then on, but that's not what happened. I wish her well.
I wish that Ginnie would have just apologized, went back and sited the sources and then was more careful about that from then on, but that's not what happened. I wish her well.
I agree with you, just after reading 5 pages of the thread--the negativity was so strong. I noted it, as i said months ago, way before the man that started this thread noted it. I noticed it getting worse, and that she would post reviews for books she marked to read. i also noted that it was gradually getting more not using citings. i just ignored it-figuring early mental issues or something else. I just have this streak from childhood with my father- defending my friends, when they are down-so my post.Whenever I borrow I cite the source when I add books-the best I can. I wish her, and evweryone on this thread well.
You must be a great friend, Noran. Wish we could've met you in Chicago! Another time, then.
For sure! :) My best friend been around since the fourth grade! Father never believed in friendship and always tried to put her down-she was good people--she was pallbarrer for both of my parents with me. She loved them as them were her own.
Hi everybody. I've been in bounce mode a lot lately and haven't been receiving updates. I didn't read most of Ginnie's reviews. There were way too many of them and I preferred when she wrote from a more personal standpoint. I couldn't believe anyone could write that much anyway, but I did get some recommendations from her that I appreciated, and she was impressed when I posted Asylum Dance, a book recommended from a man in Scotland. She replied to posts, so she was reliable in that sense. I asked her where Publisher's Weekly was and got no answer. I certainly could have found that myself. Many times she did note where reviews came from. I'm sort of relieved I won't be inundated with so many reviews that I'm left overwhelmed .
Wow. See what I miss out on by not hanging out on Goodreads more? Dramarama. I only found this because Noran added me and I went to say "Hi Noran" and walked into this House of Mirrors. I think you're right to feel betrayed and a little pissed, and that she defriended you says her actions are much more about vanity than they are about any pathology about which she feels "just terrible." What a loser, whether she's seventeen or seventy. She defriended me early on in the game, but I didn't really care. Her reviews were boring. Now that you reveal her sources for plagiarizing, I realize why I was so bored. Performance art is sending a monkey to your job interview. Cribbing reviews is just what mentally bankrupt people do. I wonder if she wrote her own obituary beforehand as some people do. I'm guessing she cribbed from the obituaries of more talented writers. Like say, people who actually write their own words. Sigh.
I bet she has her obit written-I truly mean that one!!!
well yes, it was a dramarama W.B.! frustrating (GR took so long to take any action), mystifying, exciting, engaging... I think we liked the fellowship & comraderie we found here as well. And as one of her "friends," yes, there was certainly a feeling of betrayal.
Well, I think she's a rarity. The rest of you are all too much yourselves to be anyone else. She always was bland. Her reviews were like boiled pasta with nothing added. I forgave her, just as I did when she defriended me, because I figured she was of a different generation and probably moribund anyway. Moribund people deserve slack lol. Maybe she started out writing her own reviews, and as she got drawn into the competitiveness of those reviewer lists began to compromise her values or something. Who knows. She's probably getting fiercely competitive on Pogo right now at Word Whomp or something and looking for ways to cheat the groundhogs.
It is a nice word, isn't it?
Freinds: I had copied, pasted and sent myself an e-mail of Ginnie's review, along with the first 114 comments in its thread. I'll be pasting the review, and then the thread below:The Irony of American History
by Reinhold Niebuhr
Ginnie's review
rating:
bookshelves: government, history, philosophy-ethics, politics
Barack Obama has identified Reinhold Niebuhr as "one of my favorite philosophers" and is familiar with the great Protestant theologian’s various writings. Yet as Obama assumes the mantle of Most Powerful Man in the World, Niebuhr’s Irony of American History is one volume that deserves a careful second reading by all citizens.
Published in 1952, when the Cold War was at its frostiest and Americans were still coming to terms with what it meant to exercise global leadership, Irony called attention to a series of illusions to which Niebuhr believed his countrymen and their political leaders were peculiarly susceptible. To persist in those illusions, he warned, was to court political and moral catastrophe. History, he wrote, "is enacted in a frame of meaning too large for human comprehension or management." To imagine that history can be coerced toward some predetermined destination represents the height of folly.
With the end of the Cold War in...more Barack Obama has identified Reinhold Niebuhr as "one of my favorite philosophers" and is familiar with the great Protestant theologian’s various writings. Yet as Obama assumes the mantle of Most Powerful Man in the World, Niebuhr’s Irony of American History is one volume that deserves a careful second reading by all citizens.
Published in 1952, when the Cold War was at its frostiest and Americans were still coming to terms with what it meant to exercise global leadership, Irony called attention to a series of illusions to which Niebuhr believed his countrymen and their political leaders were peculiarly susceptible. To persist in those illusions, he warned, was to court political and moral catastrophe. History, he wrote, "is enacted in a frame of meaning too large for human comprehension or management." To imagine that history can be coerced toward some predetermined destination represents the height of folly.
With the end of the Cold War in 1989, those very same illusions—now expressed through self-congratulatory claims that the end of history had elevated the United States to the status of indispensable nation called upon to exercise benign global hegemony—gained a rebirth. In the wake of 9/11, George W. Bush embraced those illusions and made them the foundation of his global war on terror. The catastrophes that ensued testify eloquently to the enduring relevance of the warnings that Niebuhr had issued a half century earlier.
To correct the errors of the Bush era will require that Obama repudiate the illusions that gave rise to those errors in the first place. In that regard, Irony should serve as an essential text. A first rule of statecraft, Niebuhr writes, is to nurture a "modest awareness of the limits of our own knowledge and power." Modesty doesn’t imply passivity. It does mean curbing the inclination to portray our adversaries as evil incarnate while insisting that we ourselves are innocent and our purposes altruistic.
Niebuhr observed that "the pretensions of virtue are as offensive to God as the pretensions of power." After eight years that gave us Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, and waterboarding, our pretensions of virtue look a bit worse for wear. The imperative of the moment is to manifest "a sense of contrition about the human frailties and foibles which lie at the foundation of both the enemy’s demonry and our own vanities....
message 1: by Jon
01/29/2009 04:39PM
Good review Ginnie. It is one of the strange ironies of the past 8 years that the religious right was able to hijack Niebuhr (it will take someone much smarter than I to unpack how they did it) to advance some of their own ideas, and now Obama will try and right the ship with some of the same thinking.
reply | flag *
message 2: by matthew
8 hours, 19 min ago
if it's enacted in a frame of meaning too large for human comprehension or management, how does he imagine he can say anything definite about it? i haven't read the book, but it seems he conflates history with god (an interesting idea, if not particularly useful). i don't decry where he appears to be going, but how he's getting there.
reply | flag *
message 3: by David
6 hours, 46 min ago
Um, wasn't this just a cut-and-paste of Andrew J. Bacevich's article in the Washington Monthly?
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/feature...
Shouldn't this be attributed?
reply | flag *
message 4: by Michelle (last edited 01/30/2009 11:25AM)
6 hours, 41 min ago
Hear hear, David!
reply | flag *
message 5: by Jessica
6 hours, 31 min ago
Ginnie, I've found this with some of your reviews as well, that they're not always attributed--the one on Kleinzahler's poetry book, for example. It's confusing and misleading.
reply | flag *
message 6: by Chris
5 hours, 36 min ago
Damn, I've been duped. The review did feel a bit too polished but I never suspected it was a cut and paste. Nice catch, David.
Any way I can take back my vote for this review?
reply | flag *
message 7: by matthew
5 hours, 33 min ago
yikes! it's not an academic paper, people. she's not getting paid for it. i don't think she intends to cover herself with the glory of professional reviewers.
reply | flag *
message 8: by Kevin
5 hours, 31 min ago
That would be quite the commute from Pasadena to Boston!
reply | flag *
message 9: by Chris
5 hours, 31 min ago
I am so enraged by this that I won't be able to sleep tonight. In fact, I may never be able to sleep again.
reply | flag *
message 10: by Books Ring My Bell
5 hours, 30 min ago
sorry Matthew. You have to give credit where credit's due... esp. when it's word for word.
reply | flag *
message 11: by Books Ring My Bell (last edited 01/30/2009 12:36PM)
5 hours, 29 min ago
*passes Chris some Ambien*
Nothing is as it seems, eh?
Yes, you can take your vote back, by clicking on yes again.
reply | flag *
message 12: by Jessica
5 hours, 28 min ago
There's an assumption here that the reviews we write are our own, unless attributed, whether they're silly or stupendous... not stating otherwise is wrong, no matter how you look at it.
reply | flag *
message 13: by matthew
5 hours, 22 min ago
"wrong" seems a strong word. inattentive, perhaps. sloppy? maybe. simply furthering the spread of ideas? quite possibly. i don't thank god every time i say "vengeance is mine!".
reply | flag *
message 14: by David (last edited 01/30/2009 12:47PM)
5 hours, 22 min ago
Wow, Matthew. Do you really believe it's okay to post someone else's writing without giving credit, regardless of the context? I hope not. She could've just linked the article if she wanted to "spread ideas."
I can't take credit for the sleuthing, by the way. It was the handiwork of Goodreads' own Brian G.
reply | flag *
message 15: by Kevin 5 hours, 20 min ago
It looks like the little old lady from Pasadena has been caught with her hands in the cookie jar..
reply | flag *
message 16: by David
5 hours, 19 min ago
Bells, did you just vote for this?
reply | flag *
message 17: by Books Ring My Bell
5 hours, 19 min ago
Matthew, it is WRONG... WRONG! esp. on a site where people vote on stuff. You give credit... that's the right thing to do.
reply | flag *
message 18: by Michelle (last edited 01/30/2009 12:58PM)
5 hours, 18 min ago
Wrong is the perfect word, Matthew. Is there any other way to look at it? It's plagerism. Unless Bacevich is credited, it is plain and straight plagiarism. Her name is at the top followed by another's words. Explain how that is right in any form?
reply | flag *
message 19: by Jon
5 hours, 17 min ago
Well. I was interested in talking about Niebuhr/Obama with the person that wrote this review, because it is a subject that interests me. As it turns out, the person I wanted to talk to is Bacevich, which is not a surprise since he is a man I greatly admire. It is not that reviews need to be meticulously cited like an academic paper, but in an environment like GR, where words are not only all we have, but are the focus of what we are doing here, a misrepresentation of this sort is, in fact, just plain wrong.
reply | flag *
message 20: by Books Ring My Bell
5 hours, 16 min ago
i tested the vote/unvote feature.
Can I send my vote to Andrew J. Bacevich?
I'm looking for other falsified reviews I voted for, so I can unvote!
reply | flag *
message 21: by Books Ring My Bell
5 hours, 11 min ago
now I'm mad. It won't take my vote away!
GRRRRR!
reply | flag *
message 22: by Jessica
5 hours, 6 min ago
hmmm....I think it does & will, eventually. I've done it accidentally on other reviews, when I forgot I'd already voted...hmm. maybe something one used to be able to do but no longer??
reply | flag *
message 23: by Shelly
5 hours, 3 min ago
I can't take credit for the sleuthing, by the way. It was the handiwork of Goodreads' own Brian G.
See how simple it is?
reply | flag *
message 24: by matthew
5 hours, 1 min ago
i submit that "in an environment like GR", as jon puts it (an attribution!), people should ease off on the caffeine. it's a casual "space". should ginnie give her sources? surely. do the votes mean anything? uh... no. was malice intended? i think not. that people could be enraged by such a sl(e)ight leads me to believe that they have more free time than even myself, which is saying a great deal. perhaps they should employ said time in seeking therapy.
reply | flag *
message 25: by Manny (last edited 01/30/2009 01:05PM)
5 hours, 0 min ago
Oh dear. As a keen online chess player, I hope history won't repeat itself. I used to play on the free chess sites, but they became infested with people who consulted chess engines in order to make themselves into virtual Grandmasters. I now have to pay $60 a year to use the facilities of the Internet Chess Club, where they have automatic testing which makes sure that people's moves don't match the chess engines too well. What's crazy is that no one was playing for money, just rating points.
Would really be a shame if this kind of thing happened to GoodReads...
reply | flag *
message 26: by Jessica (last edited 01/30/2009 01:09PM)
5 hours, 0 min ago
if only therapy worked...!
I didn't say malice was intended. but deception is never a good thing, whether done with malice or benevolence. that's how I see it at any rate.
reply | flag *
message 27: by David (last edited 01/30/2009 01:07PM)
4 hours, 58 min ago
that people could be enraged by such a sl(e)ight leads me to believe that they have more free time than even myself, which is saying a great deal. perhaps they should employ said time in seeking therapy.
This really is very childish, Matthew. Nothing like rebutting our arguments with implicit insults about mental stability. Cute, very cute.
And, yeah, maybe it would be considered "sloppiness" if she didn't do it ALL THE TIME.
reply | flag *
message 28: by Shelly
4 hours, 57 min ago
Well put, Chairy.
reply | flag *
message 29: by matthew
4 hours, 54 min ago
i think it childish to attack the woman!
reply | flag *
message 30: by matthew (last edited 01/30/2009 01:12PM)
4 hours, 53 min ago
goodreads is a conversation. it doesn't require footnotes.
reply | flag *
message 31: by Jessica
4 hours, 53 min ago
and if she were a he?
reply | flag *
message 32: by Michelle (last edited 01/30/2009 01:17PM)
4 hours, 52 min ago
Matthew! By saying that you are not only devaluing what we ALL write, but also what we all depend on as readers. This "space", this forum is more then a random blog with make-believe pretend reviews. We all come here to discuss books, read about books, and learn about books. Discussing with someone about a book we shared doesn't work when the other person is pretending to know what they are talking about.
"When I read that paragraph I wanted to punch myself in the dick. Hard. But I think I have issues. Maybe others do not." JKBruenning GR 10/2008
Credit your sources. It's easy.
reply | flag *
message 33: by David
4 hours, 52 min ago
No one attacked her. Man, you're defensive... Are you Ginnie Jones? All we did was point out that it was wrong -- which everyone seems to believe except you for some reason.
goodreds is a conversation. it doesn't require footnotes.
Maybe you should peruse your terms of use some time. It does require footnotes.
reply | flag *
message 34: by matthew
4 hours, 40 min ago
ha! i was going to write "if that IS her real name!", but i guess i got beaten to it. i am not ginnie; believe as you like. ginnie, whomsoever she may be, though, has pointed me to interesting books. she should've linked me to the original reviews, probably, but perhaps she did me a service through editing. "WRONG!", "I've been duped", and "I'm so enraged" are attacks. yes, i try to defend those i feel are wrongly attacked, and by a mob, at that. hm. as to the terms of use, you are correct: i have not read them. i didn't know people really did, unless money was on the line, or some such. still, it's an argumentum ad verecundiam, in essence, and i shan't have it.
reply | flag *
message 35: by Michelle
4 hours, 38 min ago
What kind of world would we live in if we only paid attention to rules when money was on the line?
reply | flag *
message 36: by Books Ring My Bell 4 hours, 38 min ago
I didn't see any personal attacks, Matthew.
Here's a definition (from Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary)
"plagiarize" means
-to steal and pass off (the ideas or words of another) as one's own
-to use (another's production) without crediting the source
-to commit literary theft
-to present as new and original an idea or product derived from an existing source.
In other words, plagiarism is an act of fraud. It involves both stealing someone else's work and lying about it afterward.
Ginnie has put up reviews where she adds a link... It needs to be here as well... CREDIT, yo!
reply | flag *
message 37: by Donald
4 hours, 38 min ago
I think Ginnie usually is pretty good about fairly attributing work. Maybe it just slipped her mind, some stress or other at home.
Thievery in Art is a fascinating concept. I think Bowie said everybody steals, you just have to be clever who you steal from.
reply | flag *
message 38: by Books Ring My Bell (last edited 01/30/2009 01:28PM)
4 hours, 37 min ago
IMHO, "Ginnie is a lying plagerizing jerk" would be an attack.
Not stating, "I've been duped!"
reply | flag *
message 39: by brian (last edited 01/30/2009 01:33PM)
4 hours, 34 min ago
not so, donald.
while ginnie has definitely turned all of us on to some really good books and it's appreciated, i'd say that most (definitely more than half) of her reviews were written by someone else with zero credit given.
reply | flag *
message 40: by David (last edited 01/30/2009 01:37PM)
4 hours, 33 min ago
Matthew, there's really no sense talking to you. You're impervious to logic. And yet...
Copying something without attribution is not only against GR rules; it's also against copyright laws. And even if she attributed a source, it'd still probably be against copyright laws because you're only allowed to cite portions of a work in a review without the permission of the author, not the entirety.
And anymore this isn't about "attacking" Ginnie, who I am sure is a nice enough woman; it's all about you and your belief that you are entitled to modify the definition of plagiarism as you see fit. There is absolutely no basis for your argument anywhere but in your head.
reply | flag *
message 41: by Donald
4 hours, 32 min ago
Well, if that's the case, Brian, that's the case. It is what it is.
reply | flag *
message 42: by Manny
4 hours, 28 min ago
Michelle wrote: "What kind of world would we live in if we only paid attention to rules when money was on the line?"
If that was a reply to my post #25: I can see sense in copying chess moves from one window to another in order to make money, very little in doing so in order to inflate a rating which no longer measures the quality of my own play. And yet it's somehow still tempting. Go figure.
reply | flag *
message 43: by brian (last edited 01/30/2009 01:43PM)
4 hours, 26 min ago
well, donnie, it seems that you and Randomanthony actually do agree on one thing.
he just voted for this review.
how about a steel cage match: gothboy and donkey don vs. randomanthony and zoe.
omfg, i'd pay to see that shit.
reply | flag *
message 44: by Manny
4 hours, 26 min ago
By the way, I love the fact that the book this thread is attached to has the word "Irony" in the title, also that the vote counter is going up as people talk. If I were directing a movie, I'd discretely highlight both those aspects.
reply | flag *
message 45: by Eddie
4 hours, 25 min ago
I called Ginnie on this (privately) months ago.
reply | flag *
message 46: by brian (last edited 01/30/2009 01:41PM)
4 hours, 24 min ago
manny you really do fit the description brad attributed to you on the devil's dictionary thread.
hysterical!
oh, and a brian depalma-style splitscreen would be the way to go on that scene...
reply | flag *
message 47: by Donald
4 hours, 23 min ago
No, the review should not be voted on if it's not her work.
reply | flag *
message 48: by brian
4 hours, 22 min ago
i know, i know... i'm just starting shit.
xoxo
reply | flag *
message 49: by David
4 hours, 21 min ago
Did somebody say Zoe?
reply | flag *
message 50: by brian
4 hours, 21 min ago
DONALD YOU ARE A SICK FUCK!
aw, hell... if you can't beat 'em...
reply | flag *
message 51: by David
4 hours, 17 min ago
Brian, you Rothmoron.
reply | flag *
message 52: by Eddie
4 hours, 17 min ago
For a good post-modern laugh check out Ginnie's review of A Little Book of Plagiarism...
reply | flag *
message 53: by brian
4 hours, 16 min ago
heh.
reply | flag *
message 54: by Manny
4 hours, 14 min ago
Thank you Brian! Absolutely agree on the split-screen. You do the cinematography, I'll direct.
reply | flag *
message 55: by David
4 hours, 14 min ago
I'm not afraid to take Brian, Donald, and all the rest on. Bring it, bitches! Plagiarize my foot in each of your asses!
reply | flag *
message 56: by Jessica (last edited 01/30/2009 01:50PM)
4 hours, 14 min ago
David: you look like a Zombie Looking for Zoe...
just sayin'.
damn, david, you did it again: you deleted your Zoe remark, so mine makes zero sense...OOps, my bad...everyone's posting so fast, they're tons of comments in between! woah..guys!
reply | flag *
message 57: by Gåry
4 hours, 14 min ago
reply | flag *
message 58: by Jessica 4 hours, 11 min ago
I don't feel that any of this is in any way a personal attack on Ginnie. I'm sure all of us who've interacted personally with her on this site completely adore Ginnie(even if that's not her real name). But uncited use of another author's word-for-word writing is the definition of plagiarism, whether or not it's intentional.... And plagiarism is like an insidious, destructive cancer (sorry, I'm reading Sontag) on any intellectual (or quasi-intellectual, or psuedo-intellectual, or whatever it is that we do here) discourse, however casual!
Personally, I'm uncomfortable even with cited reviews that are just thoroughly repasted from another source. I understand the urge to catalogue, but to me it runs counter to what this site is about, which to me is people posting their personal opinions about what they've read. I like seeing a link or an excerpt among other writing, but just recopying someone else's review feels very odd to me. Of course, that's just my own personal opinion; the plagiarism thing, though, that's another matter. That's BAD!
And Matthew, I find the idea that no one can take issue with this because Ginnie's female highly offensive. I feel certain that Ginnie (whoever she is) is a highly intelligent, ethical person, and I definitely don't believe that she's doing this as some part of sinister plot to rack up book report votes. I agree with Donald that she's just not being vigilant in her attributions. However, I have gotten upset on many occasions when I realize I'm reading an unattributed professional's review, and I think that's legitimate.
reply | flag *
message 59: by brian
4 hours, 11 min ago
this is slowly becoming one of the all time great bookface threads.
reply | flag *
message 60: by Jessica
4 hours, 10 min ago
http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/342...
reply | flag *
message 61: by Donald
4 hours, 9 min ago
I unvoted for it, Brian, not voted for it.
Your girlfriend is smarter than you.
reply | flag *
message 62: by Manny
4 hours, 9 min ago
Brian, could we get a tight reaction shot of Ginnie's face, then pan over to the cat?
reply | flag *
message 63: by Books Ring My Bell (last edited 01/30/2009 02:06PM)
4 hours, 9 min ago
how about a steel cage match: gothboy and donkey don vs. randomanthony and zoe.
Move on over, Brian. I HAVE to see that...
If Eddie did mention this to her months ago... she had time to fix it and make it right.
reply | flag *
message 64: by brian
4 hours, 9 min ago
et tu brute?
reply | flag *
message 65: by David
4 hours, 8 min ago
I thought Brian's Stolen Identity review sounded as if it were written by someone much wittier, more intelligent, and far, far sexxxier. Have we been duped again?
reply | flag *
message 66: by David
4 hours, 6 min ago
I don't feel that any of this is in any way a personal attack on Ginnie. I'm sure all of us who've interacted personally with her on this site completely adore Ginnie(even if that's not her real name). But uncited use of another author's word-for-word writing is the definition of plagiarism, whether or not it's intentional.... And plagiarism is like an insidious, destructive cancer (sorry, I'm reading Sontag) on any intellectual (or quasi-intellectual, or psuedo-intellectual, or whatever it is that we do here) discourse, however casual!
Personally, I'm uncomfortable even with cited reviews that are just thoroughly repasted from another source. I understand the urge to catalogue, but to me it runs counter to what this site is about, which to me is people posting their personal opinions about what they've read. I like seeing a link or an excerpt among other writing, but just recopying someone else's review feels very odd to me. Of course, that's just my own personal opinion; the plagiarism thing, though, that's another matter. That's BAD!
And Matthew, I find the idea that no one can take issue with this because Ginnie's female highly offensive. I feel certain that Ginnie (whoever she is) is a highly intelligent, ethical person, and I definitely don't believe that she's doing this as some part of sinister plot to rack up book report votes. I agree with Donald that she's just not being vigilant in her attributions. However, I have gotten upset on many occasions when I realize I'm reading an unattributed professional's review, and I think that's legitimate.
reply | flag *
message 67: by brian (last edited 01/30/2009 02:00PM)
4 hours, 5 min ago
AHHH! i have to go!
this really is one of my favorite threads ever...
i'm dorothy at the end of the wizard of oz-
goodbye manny!
goodbye donald!
goodbye BRMB!
goodbye j. treat!
goodbye gothboy!
goodbye eddie!
goodbye gary!
and especially you Dead Flamingo Jessica! I'll miss you the most!
reply | flag *
message 68: by Jessica
4 hours, 4 min ago
WOAH! Good call! Talk about irony!!
http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/161...
http://www.amazon.com/Little-Book-Plagia...
reply | flag *
message 69: by Manny
4 hours, 4 min ago
Well put David! My opinion of you really goes up as a result of that excellent post.
reply | flag *
message 70: by brian
4 hours, 4 min ago
genius, david, genius.
reply | flag *
message 71: by Books Ring My Bell
4 hours, 3 min ago
NO FUCKING WAY! Somebody please copy this whole thread so we can keep it forever! I'm scared Ginnie will delete it!
reply | flag *
message 72: by Jessica (last edited 01/30/2009 02:01PM)
4 hours, 2 min ago
wait. we can only have one genius a day. crikey, now we've got 2.
(see #46)
reply | flag *
message 73: by Randomanthony
4 hours, 0 min ago
Please keep me out of it, man...I don't enjoy the drama...
reply | flag *
message 74: by brian
3 hours, 59 min ago
fag.
reply | flag *
message 75: by Randomanthony
3 hours, 58 min ago
Well, I am a Morrissey fan..:).
reply | flag *
message 76: by Jon (last edited 01/30/2009 03:21PM)
3 hours, 58 min ago
edit: you had to be there.
reply | flag *
message 77: by brian
3 hours, 56 min ago
omfg. #76.
wow.
wow.
wow.
i really gotta go. i love you all.
reply | flag *
message 78: by Books Ring My Bell
3 hours, 55 min ago
OH NO!!!! Ginnie, er, Matthew's mom!!!
(I just pissed myself laughing!!!!!)
CLASSIC! CLASSIC!
reply | flag *
message 79: by Manny
3 hours, 52 min ago
I'm bowing out as well. That was great fun guys!
reply | flag *
message 80: by Donald
3 hours, 44 min ago
This is very funny but also sad.
reply | flag *
message 81: by matthew 3 hours, 38 min ago
damn. erased my response.
it's true; i was a bottle baby.
jessica, i don't believe i ever suggested i was defending ginnie because she was female - i'd like to see YOUR source for that. i defended her because she was mobbed, and for no good reason.
to find me impervious to logic, david, you'd have to present me with some. throwing up your hands is very convenient, when you've lost. i never attempted a redefinition of plagiarism (you really do love the appeal to authority, by the by). plagiarism occurred. i didn't feel it was wrong, merely unfortunate, in this particular instance.
reply | flag *
message 82: by Jessica (last edited 01/30/2009 02:40PM)
3 hours, 33 min ago
Matthew, I guess I misinterpreted your comment. Sorry. I still think you're defending the indefensible! Did you look at the comments after the plagiarism review? Mark told her she'd written a good review, and she didn't correct him by saying she hadn't written it! I don't know if a sustained pattern of uncited pasting is merely unfortunate, but I'm confused because I don't really know what to make of it otherwise. It seems like a strange thing to do. I know Ginnie's mentioned being a retired librarian who loves to catalogue and so maybe she just likes the idea of having every book that interests her compiled with a review, but I do find it very puzzling how she keeps forgetting to mention that someone else wrote them. I mean, don't you think that's a bit odd?
In a way, I was relieved back when I realized Ginnie wasn't writing most of her reviews, because it made me realize that it really is impossible to be SO well-read and clever, even if you're older. But mostly it just made me sad, and disappointed, and pretty confused.
reply | flag *
message 83: by Jessica (last edited 01/30/2009 02:41PM)
3 hours, 22 min ago
It just goes to show that you can never trust anyone over the Internet. I think this should serve as a good warning to anyone considering meeting one of their Booksters in person. There's no way of knowing who's hiding behind those avatars, or just what evils they might capable of!
Naive booknerds, BEWARE!
reply | flag *
message 84: by Books Ring My Bell
3 hours, 19 min ago
I think this should serves as a good warning to anyone considering meeting one of their Booksters in person.
LOL!!!
imagine the things that could happen!
:)
reply | flag *
message 85: by Donald
3 hours, 10 min ago
I feel very naive and stupid I never noticed this.
reply | flag *
message 86: by David
3 hours, 10 min ago
to find me impervious to logic, david, you'd have to present me with some. throwing up your hands is very convenient, when you've lost. i never attempted a redefinition of plagiarism (you really do love the appeal to authority, by the by). plagiarism occurred. i didn't feel it was wrong, merely unfortunate, in this particular instance.
Hysterical!
Zoe, have we got the man for you!
reply | flag *
message 87: by Choupette 2 hours, 32 min ago
The sweet, intelligent former librarian from Pasadena a plagiarist!? All my illusions are crumbling.
How hard can it be to include a link? Seriously.
reply | flag *
message 88: by David
2 hours, 24 min ago
Damn!
It appears that either (a) all my goodreads reviews have been cribbed from an individual called "David M. Giltinan" over on amazon.com, or (b) an individual called "David M. Giltinan" is sytematically cribbing all my goodreads reviews over on amazon.com.
A pox upon you, "David M. Giltinan"! You got yer nerve!!
reply | flag *
message 89: by Ginnie
1 hour, 51 min ago
You are all totally correct. My only mea culpa for my non-attribution is that my husband was transferred to home hospice and palliative care on Wednesday and I have been distracting myself for a hard reality by posting here. I will withdraw. Sorry you were disconcerted. Mea maxima culpa.
reply | flag *
message 90: by Ben
1 hour, 3 min ago
This whole thread post, just amazing: the emotions, the battles of the minds, the different representations of the human condition, rules, laws, gray, on-and-on...reading this thread post was like reading a great novel....
reply | edit | delete | flag *
message 91: by Jessica
54 minutes ago
oh that was a wonderful thing to say Ben.
reply | flag *
message 92: by Ben (new)
46 minutes ago
I think that was sarcasm, but I don't know for sure. Was it sarcasm, Jessica?
reply | edit | delete | flag *
message 93: by Jessica (new)
44 minutes ago
no it wasn't, actually.
sorry, not meant that way.
it's just that one feels one's squandered the whole afternoon away, one feels spent, etc.
so it was nice to read that!
reply | flag *
message 94: by Ben (new)
40 minutes ago
okay cool. I really did mean it. I sat down and I even let my dinner cook too long because I wouldn't leave from reading the thread. I felt anger about justice and trust, but I also felt some sorrow, even pity. I was lost in passoniate thought while reading it, and I felt an array of emotions: I'm telling you, it really was like reading a good novel. : )
reply | edit | delete | flag *
message 95: by Ruth (new)
12 minutes ago
Sheesh. You're all getting so carried away that you don't even notice what Ginnie has said in #89. That is hard, hard news fer chrissake.
Ginnie, I'm so sorry.
reply | flag *
message 96: by Jude (new)
9 minutes ago
Ruth, they can't hear you. all Ginnie's post did was indicate it was time for the group post-coital cigarette. As so many went out of their way to explain, none of this was personal - which is to say Ginnie is not a person - merely a catalyst.
reply | flag *
message 97: by Jessica (new) 3 minutes ago
Not fair.
but..whatever.
I feel badly about your husband Ginnie...
take care.
I'm to bed now.
reply | flag *
by Ben
0 minutes ago
I don't mean to sound cold hearted, Ruth, but didn't you read post #39? "while ginnie has definitely turned all of us on to some really good books and it's appreciated, i'd say that most (definitely more than half) of her reviews were written by someone else with zero credit given." Now, what do you think about her using that as excuse? And if she wasn't trying to use it as an excuse, why would she bring it up, if not to try to make us feel bad? We don't even know if she's telling the truth about it, for petes sake; at her age, wouldn't you think she'd have learned about the little boy who cryed wolf?
This having been said, Ginnie, you are a very smart women with a far superior reading list, writing ability, and probably even intellegence than myself. And, you do have a family here on goodreads that does love you and is here for you.
message 101: by Koeeoaddi (new)
23 minutes ago
Brian, with all due respect, if you really can't help but feel horrible for Ginnie, why do this? Really, why do it? (sorry but I really hate this thread)
Ginnie, my best wishes to you and your husband.
reply | flag *
message 102: by Books Ring My Bell (new)
23 minutes ago
Ginnie, I am sorry, so sorry for your grief and suffering now. My condolences are with you.
reply | flag *
message 103: by Abigail (last edited 01/30/2009 06:35PM) (new)
18 minutes ago
Jude: if I could vote for a comment, I'd stand behind #96. I don't really care about the merits of the individual case, or who was in the right. Group attack can be defined with one word: cowardice.
Ginnie: I'm so sorry to hear of this development with your husband. I can't pretend to know or understand what you are going through, what pressures both personal and physical must be pushing down on you. I can only say that if the worst thing I've done, when faced with tragedy, is neglect to attribute reviews, I'll consider that I've done fairly well.
reply | flag *
message 104: by Jude (last edited 01/30/2009 06:35PM) (new)
17 minutes ago
XPOST with 101-103
not sure "fairness" is the point, all things considered. this is the most i have heard of most of you - and one of you has already let me know that no one asked my opinion.
what appalled me about the thread was that Ginnie was left in the third person. Once she provided the topic by "betraying" you all, she was never addressed directly.
And in this family a member who lies about a book review can logically be suspected of making up a dying husband -as an excuse... and then reminded that her family "does love you and is here for you."
reply | flag *
message 105: by Books Ring My Bell (last edited 01/30/2009 06:35PM) (new)
16 minutes ago
96- WHATEVER. Before you get all up on your high horse, get the facts. get some scruples!
This is not an "oops" I goofed incident.
She did "reviews" on Bonk, In Silence, and The Little Book of Plagiarism these were done over the course of the last 6 MONTHS!!! All are word for word reviews of Publishers Weekly!
Then there's her review on Medea. The second paragraph is straight from Washington Post.
Also, Lavinia back in May of 2008 - the review matches that of Alan Cheuse of NPR.
I have enjoyed many of Ginnie's reviews. I love that she often posts links to relevant sites or other reviews...
but this is wrong...
*unless Ginnie writes for Publishers Weekly, Washington Post and has the pen name "Alan Chase" - then, ROCK ON, woman, you write some AWESOME reviews!
reply | flag *
message 106: by Randomanthony (last edited 01/30/2009 06:38PM) (new)
9 minutes ago
So much for staying out of the fray...
there was a piling on and display of viciousness here that far outweighed whatever moral lapse was originally performed.
I agree with this completely. Even if Ginnie purposely engaged in plagarism, for a while this thread looked like a group of playground bullies surrounding the kid who told a lie, breaking her down under the rationale of "well, she told a lie, she's getting what she deserved."
For anyone to take pleasure from it or find it fun and/or hilarious...well...is that who we really want to be? Is that how we want to treat other human beings?
reply | flag *
message 107: by Ben (last edited 01/30/2009 06:42PM) (new)
6 minutes ago
Jude #104: Loving and being there for someone means being there no matter the circumstances. The comment doesn't attribute those things to a specific circumstance or situation. And listen, I just started using this site on a regular basis -- I am a part of no family.... Trying to help someone feel better after having made a valid and logical comment about a situation does not then deserve a comment like the one you made in #104, given that you're comment made a false assumption.
reply | edit | delete | flag *
message 108: by Ben (new)
6 minutes ago
make that two false assumptions....
reply | edit | delete | flag *
message 109: by brian (last edited 01/30/2009 06:45PM) (new) 5 minutes ago
RA: i'd caution against throwing stones, you glass house prick.
koe: what is ' why do this' exactly? i challenge you to find one place in which i behaved anything less than civil on this thread (excepting the above; the prick has it coming) - i have every right to feel betrayed in that a person who i have been sending private emails and publicly praising her astonishing reviews for well over a year... failed to tell me they weren't hers.
i know jessica treat as a generous compassionate person and was put off by jude's self-righteous and sanctimonious bullshit. i attempted to explain to jude and ginnie the confusion pity and sympathy we all feel.
that said: donald is 100% correct in what he says. but there's a difference in those who share a history with ginnie expressing our disappointment and those who leaped in to take a shot at the kid on the ground.
reply | flag *
message 110: by Abigail (new)
5 minutes ago
If #105 is aimed at me, I have to say that I don't think I'm the one in need of some ethical self-examination. I thank you for the concern, but my scruples are doing just fine.
I can appreciate your distaste for a behavior which strikes you as dishonest - I share it - but given Ginnie's record of attributing (something she frequently does do), my first instinct would be to give her the benefit of the doubt, and assume that those reviews posted without attribution were mistakes.
Even if I couldn't make that leap of faith, I would refrain from a group assault, about which the best thing that can be said, was that it was in poor taste. I commented above to show my solidarity with Jude and Ginnie. I really have nothing else to say about this topic, or any particular bones to pick. If you all want to fight, fight fair. If you can't, don't ask for respect.
reply | flag *
message 111: by Randomanthony (last edited 01/30/2009 06:43PM) (new)
4 minutes ago
Throw 'em. I'm ready for 'em, asshole. Bring 'em on, cocksucker. I've got all night.
Oh, wait, what did I just say about treating people better? Shit. Oh well. Better try to treat people well. Carry on, sir. I'm going to try to do the right thing, but it's not easy. I mean that. I'm going to try to be that person.
reply | flag *
message 112: by Jessica (new)
3 minutes ago
Ginnie, I'm also obviously extremely sorry to hear this news, and my thoughts are definitely with you. It must have been horrible to log on at a time like this looking for a refuge, and come across this thread. I will reiterate that none of this is meant as a personal attack, and does stem from genuine confusion and dismay at feeling misled by someone we admire, trust, and like.
Re Post 96: I feel this characterization of things not being personal to be totally out of line. My heart goes out to Ginnie, who I've come to picture as a person, which is in a way what all these upset feelings are about. Of course, plagiarism pales in importance next to matters of life and death, but everything is relative.
And Ko, I don't understand what you mean by "why do this?" No one knew about Ginnie's present situation earlier when these issues were raised, and our concerns were perfectly valid. I was never attacking Ginnie personally. This was not a "group attack." This was an airing of an ongoing and -- to me -- troubling issue on this site.
I agree that a few people here did show a lack of sensitivity and decorum. However, I stand by my own statements, and I'm more than a little appalled at being judged so harshly.
As I indicated earlier, all of us who "know" Ginnie through this site like and respect her a great deal, which is why this was such an issue. That said, of course our hearts are with you, Ginnie, and I am very sorry about the timing of this.
reply | flag *
message 113: by Books Ring My Bell (new)
2 minutes ago
Abigail, 105 was NOT directed at you, it was directed at Jude's comment in msg 96. Hence, the 96 before my rant.
reply | flag *
message 114: by Randomanthony (new)
0 minutes ago
I want to go on record, by the way, that I thought what Jessica (and David echoed) said in that longer post earlier in the thread was reasonable. I had no problem with that. I also don't think, to be fair, that people may have realized how they may have sounded to others at the time...God knows I've done that in real life over and over again.
The links are all dead so the thread doesn't make sense.
That made my day. Revival!RIP, Ginnie.
Well, it's better than Zombie Jesus, I guess.
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)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaavya_V...