<p>Boy, I have to say I’m sorry for this particular girl, but I kind of hope she becomes a cautionary tale for overambitious parents. As I understand this story, her parents paid the packaging company $10,000 to get “her story” into a 4-chapter proposal that the company then helped pitch to Little, Brown – all this as the uber-EC, designed to get their daughter into Harvard (and ostensibly engineered by their high-paid college consultant). So, so sad. That kid, smart though she may be, clearly wasn’t up to such an endeavor on her own. Those parents should be spanked.</p>
<p>Kluge, isn’t there a limit to playing devil’s advocate? Would you really accept KV as a client in a battle over literary originality? Actually, the true legal matter is not that important. Most “amateurs” can make up their mind about the extent of the plagiarism. As I said, I have no doubt that, when all is said and done, dozens of authors or readers will report additional copied and pasted excerpts. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The main point is that Ms. Viswanathan’s publishers caved because they knew they would be DEAD MEAT in a federal copyright infringement action. All the excuses and theorizing can’t cover up the fact that Little, Brown’s lawyers figured (correctly, I’m sure) that they didn’t have any legal defense and so they had to mitigate damages to Random House by withdrawing the book from sales channels.</p>
<p>Not to mention that, while KV might plead the youthful ignorance or inexperience card, the same would not apply to the professional editor who boasted about the extensive collaboration on the novel. There are few innocent bystanders in the entourage of KV, but many greedy profiteers who got caught red-handed.</p>
<p>I blame her… and her parents. Why did they allow her to sign this deal? It’s not like they couldn’t afford her tuition bills. Why did they let her write this book while completing a freshman year at Harvard?</p>
<p>It’s clear that Kaavya was motivated by money. Rather than going into Harvard with dreams of improving our society, her dream destination was clear from the get go: investment banking.</p>
<p>I’m sure that by now every five word string of text form the entire novel has been plugged into Google to see if there are any hits.</p>
<p>Xiggi - I don’t dispute that KV went over the line. My point is that I feel that all of the moralizing I’m reading is excessive. I went out and got a copy of “Sloppy Firsts” – Megan McCafferty’s book which is the source of the majority of the claimed “plagiarisms”. In the first three pages, I see a “Shalimar-soaked grandmother”, “would you french kiss your dog”, and “most likely to end up on Jerry Springer”. Every one a cliche, every one undoubtedly appearing in previous and subsequent books and articles. (Although I think McCafferty is showing her age with the Shalimar-soaked grandmother - I suspect that’s more of a 30-something image than a teenager’s observation.) Maybe KV was a little less sophisticated or subtle with her “borrowing” than most; but don’t expect me to cry over the “theft” of Megan McCafferty’s “intellectual property.”</p>
<p>Coureur - I guess that’s what I was trying to say, only more subtly put.</p>
<p>I am new here and I did not wish to start off posting something controversial but I think this needs to be said. Kaavya is wrong, very wrong to plagiarize. I do not understand the reaction of the media and the people. Just last week I read an article that said Christian yoga practitioners basically copied all the asanas of the original yoga but attributed the asanas to an inspiration from “God.” Now, the yoga asanas were WRITTEN (caps for emphasis) by a man named Patanjali in Sanskrit two thousand years ago. English translations of his work are available.The asanas are a small part of this work called Yoga Sutra. The asanas have become more important than the whole Yoga Sutra in the present day world. Unfortunately, I did not see any outrage about this blatant copying without acknowledgement from Indian works by the Christian practitioners of yoga. If plagizing is wrong, it is wrong for everyone and not just selective members of the globe.</p>
<p>Kluge, I know I have earned a few chosen epithets in this thread ranging from judgmental to sanctimonious. However, I did not mean to be “moralizing” as much as calling it as I saw. For instance, I would have been a lot more forgiving of KV had she provided a genuine and contrite explanation. In addition, I also believe that she has been exploited -albeit a very willing one- by the adults surrounding her. In particular, I find the role of K. Cohen to be remarkably cynical as she dropped her “support” of KV as soon as the pendulum swung the other way. I also have little doubt that the agents and publishers exploited the potential of the young girl and seized the opportunity to capitalize with a rare vengeance on the Harvard name and the gullibility of a legion of readers obsessed by the Ivy League. </p>
<p>However, my profound -and vocal- dismay and distaste for this entire story stems from the fact that it sends the wrong message about young college students. Not all of us are prepared to cut ethical corners and compromise our integrity in exchange for an ephemeral trip under the limelights. A very very small percentage of students may have the talent or precocious scientific abilities to earn the right to be published but they are still extremely rare. The attempt to entirely fabricate one “new voice” from bits and pieces of others is simply wrong, especially if the voice is supposed to echo a choir of young minds.</p>
<p>To be honest, Xiggi - there are multiple threads on this subject running at the same time and I’m not sure which posts I’m reacting to. I wasn’t referring to you in particular about the moralizing. I haven’t really been following the whole “packaging” aspect of it because, to be sadly honest about it, I don’t really care. The “win at all costs” parental mentality of vicarious competition for various accolades at an early age has repelled me for years, and nothing surprises me anymore. I do blame the parents, not the still-immature high school students for this. In fact, I think in many cases the primary victim of the process is the person who is “promoted” into the limelight. I have to admit I’m still somewhat haunted by the story of Adragon DeMello. Maybe that’s why I feel a desire to, at least in part, defend Kaavya. The misdeeds here will haunt her more than the older, guiltier parties, I fear.</p>
<p>Sorry if this was posted and I missed it-- <a href=“/404”>/404;
<p>“Readers who have a copy of Kaavya Viswanathan’s How Opal Mehta Got Kissed, Got Wild and Got a Life may want to hold on to it, as the book is now a collector’s item. In a statement issued from Little, Brown, the publisher finally said that it will not be releasing a revised edition of the book. And Viswanathan’s second book in that two-title deal she signed with LB is dead too. The brief announcement came this afternoon from LB’s senior v-p and publisher, Michael Pietsch.”</p>
<p>
Kluge, as a lawyer, you should know better! Haven’t you heard of the famous George Harrison case, where the Chiffons sued him for copyright infringement? There was a very similar four-note sequence in both songs. Although George Harrison did not willfully violate the Chiffon’s copyright in “He’s So Fine,” he was found liable for copyright infringement; exposure to the song alone is sufficient to determine that he had access for the purposes of infringement. It does not matter that the Chiffons wrote a pretty mediocre song about love and Harrison wrote about a Hindu god; he still had access to the song and (unconsciously) copied part of the melody into his own work.</p>
<p>While some (or a lot) of Miss McCaffterty’s work may be trite and cliche, there are some very unique parts of it, which KV swiped wholesale.</p>
<p>I was aware of it (Fountainsiren alluded to it earlier.) I didn’t cry for the Chiffons, either. You really don’t want to get me started on the whole “intellectual property” riff. I believe that a sound idea has been distorted and abused to the point where the applicable laws now work against the principles they were created to protect. There are bogus patent infringement cases clogging the courts, copyright has been extended beyond any semblance of its original function, and for the benefit of people who had nothing to do with the creative process in the first place. (I doubt that the Chiffon’s were actually personally involved in the “My sweet lord/He’s so fine” case.) At this point pretty much any time I see some suit on TV intoning the words “intellectual property” I have to supress my urge to go lacrosse on the SOB.</p>
<p>LOL!!</p>
<p>Not trying to trigger a rant, although you did forget to mention “business method” patents, which, IMO, are a complete absurdity. They, by definition, pay for themselves and have very, very little development costs (patents being designed to recoup the costs of development and prohibit free riders). </p>
<p>As for “bogus” patent infringement cases - are you referring to the patentee or the infringer? About half of patents that are taken to court are invalidated - seems as if the USPTO isn’t doing its job. </p>
<p>You also forgot to mention Blackberry - half a billon dollars for… we aren’t sure what the invention was and the patent office said the patent probably wouldn’t hold up on appeal, but, nevertheless, a half billon to some no-name company that buys patents to sue infringers.</p>
<p>:)</p>
<p>All of the above. Yeah - The professional patent buyer/infringement plaintiffs exemplify the problem with the whole concept.</p>
<p>soft core book or hotter? either book?</p>
<p>mini; #54. Your reference to DKG, meaning? She’s on my reading list at the lib.</p>
<p>“To go lacrosse”???</p>
<p>“mini; #54. Your reference to DKG, meaning? She’s on my reading list at the lib.”</p>
<p>Currently, world’s most famous plagiarist, with a seat on the Harvard Board of Overseers, continuing book deals, and a permanent place on MSNBC.</p>
<p>tsdad: I’m trying to take the heat off the poor postal workers.</p>