That Plagiarism Scandal

[mabfan]

I haven't been following the Kaavya Viswanathan plagiarism scandal too closely because I've had friends doing it for me. However, I do want to note one speculative point that I made yesterday that appears to be correct.

Yesterday, writer Stephen Leigh (sleigh) noted in this post that the book was put together by a book packager. I suggested in one of my replies that it was entirely possible that the packager was the one who really committed the plagiarism. (Still, Viswanathan would have to take full responsibility, since it is her name on the book.)

Well, there are two articles I found today that would appear to substantiate my theory.

First, today's New York Times article "A Second Ripple in Plagiarism Scandal" points out that some passages in the Viswanathan novel were lifted from yet another book, implying that the plagiarism was deliberate.

Secondly, the Harvard Independent article "Kaavya Case Not First Plagiarism Controversy for Opal Mehta Packager" points out that the packager had been found guilty of committing plagiarism before.

Methinks the packager is mostly at fault, but as I said before, Viswanathan has to take responsibility as well.

Comments

[scarlettina.livejournal.com]

...the packager had been found guilty of committing plagiarism before. Methinks the packager is mostly at fault, but as I said before, Viswanathan has to take responsibility as well.

Well, ya know, I wonder. If this was a work-for-hire, as it seems to have been, then the publisher would have taken the manuscript, made whatever changes they liked, and moved forward with publication. She can't be held responsible for changes the publisher made. A work-for-hire gig means they own the property and can do whatever they like with it. So what I wonder is whether or not, if it comes out that the author was a patsy in the whole business, she'll be cleared of wrong-doing. Seems like she's been painted into a corner, especially since she apparently requested to be interviewed on The Today Show to make apologies for inadvertent plagiarism. I suspect she's screwed whether or not she was an innocent in this affair. I think the truth probably lies somewhere in between.

Her agent, perhaps, should be held responsible for allowing her given, legal name to be used on the cover. This business has ruined her for any legitimate writing career she may want to have down the road.

[mabfan.livejournal.com]

I don't think it was work-for-hire. My impression was that she and Alloy held the copyright jointly.

If it was strictly work-for-hire, she could have gone on television, said that when she finally looked at the published books there were many changes from what she had seen in the galleys. But she didn't, which implies to me a level of complicity. I'm not letting her off the hook, understand; I just think there's much more to this than was first thought.