J.K. Rowling and plagiarism?

Stuff like this drives me crazy… J.K. Rowling Adamantly Denies Plagiarism Charges

There aren’t that many ideas out there, people. Anyone ever read The Seven Basic Plots by Christopher Booker? (Absolutely one of my favorite books, by the way…) And the fact that someone feels like they can sue a famous and wealthy writer is just SO absurd. Especially since part of the reason they’re doing it is because she’s famous and wealthy. You don’t see anyone accusing me of plagiarism, do you? Well. Not yet, anyway, right? RIGHT?!

I do, however, remember the first time I read The Ladies of Missalonghi by Colleen McCullough. (Yes, that’s right, the author of The Thorn Birds.) The Ladies of Missalonghi is a completely different style of book for her–lighthearted, funny, and exactly the same plot as The Blue Castle by L.M. Montgomery. I had been a fan of L.M. Montgomery ever since I was in middle school and my best friend and I wished we were just like Anne and Emily. (Did not want to be like Rilla, however. Didn’t like her too much for some reason, and hated that she lisped at the end of Rilla of Ingleside. I understand why, I just didn’t like it very much.)

Anyway, The Blue Castle was one of my favorites. I think I still have it floating around on one of my bookshelves. When I got out of college and was working at a coffee shop, one of the neighborhood ladies (who has the most impressive collection of books in her library), recommended The Ladies of Missalonghi to me. Read it all in one sitting (it’s quite short) and I commented to her how similar the two books were. She thought the whole thing was ridiculous, but after doing some research and finding a book by Mary Jean Demarr called Colleen McCullough:  A Critical Companion, I discovered that there was drama and a whole lawsuit about it back when it was written. Colleen McCullough admitted that she must have read the book when she was little and forgotten it until she came up with her version of the story. Money paid, case closed. Well. I don’t remember if there was actual money paid, but I do think that McCullough claimed responsibility for “unintentional” plagiarism.

Much of the discussion online about this topic is fairly interesting.  Just as many people defend McCullough as writing your basic romance novel (using one of those seven plots, of course) and claiming that she could hardly be accused of plagiarizing something already plagiarized by the entire group of Harlequin authors. So she did nothing wrong, basically. Which…meh. I don’t know if I agree with that.

The other argument is that there are way too many detailed similarities. Both Valancey and Missy have to endure oatmeal every morning, and both Olive and Alicia are described as “keeping all their goods in the shop window.” (Of course, there is the interesting character of Una… Don’t quite know what to make of that.) But these details are what I think makes McCullough’s excuse hold up. Why would she use such details if she knew they were so similar? Why wouldn’t she deliberately change all of that if she knew she were stealing? And why the quirky Una? No, really. Someone please explain to me about Una. She makes the whole relationship deceptive and sneaky. At least Valancy honestly thought she was going to die. That’s even why she goes back home, so that Barney doesn’t think that she’s deliberately deceived him. Sigh… Did I mention how much I love that book?

Anyway. Plagiarism irritating and insulting, but usually unfounded, I think. If you’re clever enough to write a book, I would hope that you would be clever enough to avoid anything that would suggest that you stole the idea. Hell. I read a history book and get an idea for a scene/character/plot development. Is that plagiarism?

And to go back to those who are accusing J.K. Rowling? I checked out the website for the other author and his book. The publisher thought it was a fabulous idea, but told him he needed to rewrite and develop some of his themes and concepts a bit more. That’s right. The poor guy was supposed to work on his novel. Gasp! And he didn’t want to. He thought it was good enough. It is not. He’s provided excerpts (or his estate/heirs have) and… Well, yes. The writing is crap. And I mean nearly unreadable, a six-year-old-could-have-done-better crap.

I’m not even that fanatical about Rowling. I like her books and am really happy for her, but I guess I’m defending more the code of the writer…if there is such a thing. It’s not just the idea that makes you a writer. I mean, everyone wants to write the Great American Novel, right? And nearly everyone I talk to has a book idea. But not everyone works at writing it down. So those of you who have ideas and don’t want to work at it? Stop suing those who do.

Still distracted by research.

But it’s so amazingly fascinating.  I don’t even think that’s proper English…  I’ve been reading up on criminals to make my bad characters more believable.  After being completely disturbed and revolted by Profilers:  Leading Investigators Take You Inside the Criminal Mind as edited by John H. Campbell and Don deNevi, I moved on.  Sheesh.  That book was worse than an episode of Criminal Minds.  And didn’t even have the funny bits with Garcia.  It also didn’t really give me a good idea of how people think/work as criminals–it just made me scared to ever go out of my house again. Apparently, people who stalk, rape, torture, and then chop people up into little bits cannot be stopped and are everywhere.  Great.  So not even The Mentalist can save me?

On the other hand, Inside the Criminal Mind by Stanton E. Samenow was amazing.  I read the updated 2004 edition.  Not sure I believe everything he says, but still…  I like the idea that it’s the way people think that controls their behavior, and that everything we do is a choice.  His argument says that criminal behavior has little to do with how you’re raised or your background, and has everything to do with how you think about the world and your place in it.  He seems to make allowances for the fact that clearly people who are raised around gangs and in threatening neighborhoods are more at risk for certain types of behaviors, and that the pattern of abused/abuser holds fairly true, but he also points out that there are plenty of people who were raised in at risk homes and emerged as successful members of society.  I love the emphasis on choice.  I’m all for a quirky turn of fate now and then and I could really go in for karma if that were true (because doing something bad is a choice, just like doing something good is, right?  So why not be punished/rewarded for those choices by Fate?  Makes total sense to me…)  But destiny and fate shouldn’t be able to just run amok all over me…  I’d like to have some say in how my life turns out.

The thing that really confused me, however, was that he claims that it’s not genetic–or, rather, that people aren’t born criminals either.  I’m a little confused on how he explains where this criminal method of thinking and behavior comes from, but that might be in another book.  My point is that he’s given me some excellent ideas for character traits.  Even so far as to point out what their world view is and how their issues can manifest themselves physically.  It’s brilliant.

Of course, on a side note, Samenow’s whole theory put me in mind of another book about thinking and behavior…  So a la 1984, wouldn’t his argument mean that if the criminals’ thinking was determining their behavior, then wouldn’t their language then control their thought…?  Because I’m a firm believer in that idea.  I realize that so much more goes into the brain rather than just words, but our thinking is based in language.  Does this mean that criminals have some sort of change to the language center of their brain?  It’s not just intelligence or education–Samenow’s data suggests that it doesn’t matter how smart or not the criminals are for them to think this way–so is there perhaps something inherently “wrong” with that part of the brain that controls language?  Would that support the genetic argument?  Hm.  Then exactly how does he, as a psychiatrist, go about changing that thinking?  He gives one example in the book of a success story by his mentor, Samuel Yochelson, but that’s only one.  And I would completely agree that wanting to change is another choice–the first choice, as Samenow points out–and is by far the most important.  He basically says that for some criminals, there is no hope, and we would do well to make them comfortable in jail, away from society, rather than spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on rehabilitation and job training…  I’m telling you, it’s fascinating.  Where have I been all this time?  Why aren’t more people aware of this theory?  Does it just not work?  Has it been proven wrong too many times?  Sigh.  I’m telling you–research is just too distracting.