Originally Posted by TGS
Yes, I've seen them, but what everyone seems to be saying is something like "It's wrong because I don't think she should have done it. And I don't think she should have done it because it's wrong", which is glaringly circular. Everyone seems to be treating the novel as a sequence of words not as a literary work of art - which is like treating Duchamp's Fountain like a urinal. What no-one seems to be addressing is that it is possible, theoretically at least, to create something of artistic, in this case, literary value by creating a new context for already written words, thereby giving those words new meaning.
All literary works are created in a particular socio-cultural-aesthetic context and, as such, rely on other works for their meaning. In this sense all literary work is a rearranging of familiar elements. A totally new work would be incomprehensible to most of us, cf. Joyce's Ulysses.
Again, I haven't read this book and so don't know what the author is trying to do in it. She may indeed be a rip-off artist, but we cannot decide that before actually reading it.
There are laws - copyright laws (and others) that limit the use of other creators work. She overstepped the bounds, she broke the law and the trust by not saying it up front. That's why it's wrong. Not circular at all.