Goodreads Goes for Censorship

[Blossom]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

Aren't quotes the only valid proof for plagiarism?

Yes but without being able to see the book she is quoting who can say if anything has been modified?

[Blossom]

Originally Posted by Terisa de morgan

I think they don't care about previous o new guidelines unless it has public exposure (like this blog about STGB people talk about). It's not really a problem for me, because I don't review, I have a hard skin and a very high threshold for annoyance with this kind of things. I only, really, care about lies, and I'm seeing some of them in goodreads.

You know I went to STGB after you post this and guess what I saw. I list of shelves they wanted deleted and the ones you mention were on that list. They asked their followers to email GR with that list.

So there is more behind this it seems. I originally thought this was change for the better but it looks to me like STGB is got someone over there under their control. It's hard to say but I no longer think GR is being equal between the author and the reviewer. If you check out that blog you will see what I mean.

Yes there was some of those shelves that needed to go but I originally trusted GR's method of deleting now I am not so sure. Specially when I have in the past day come across shelves that are much worse then what is on that list!

I now believe those shelves were no random deletion.

[Terisa de morgan]

Blossom, a person in goodreads told the same you're saying, and I saw it too. All this "problem" doesn't give good vibes. And that is my main complain. No deleting reviews (I can understand because some were nasty, although I dislike the hype reviews too) but shelves with "anonymous" name.

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by Blossom

Yes but without being able to see the book she is quoting who can say if anything has been modified?

What do you mean by modified?

[Blossom]

Originally Posted by Terisa de morgan

Blossom, a person in goodreads told the same you're saying, and I saw it too. All this "problem" doesn't give good vibes. And that is my main complain. No deleting reviews (I can understand because some were nasty, although I dislike the hype reviews too) but shelves with "anonymous" name.

Yeah something quite fishy. I am disappointed that this blog might hold some weight with GR's support over other users who are have not been apart of the secret war that has been going on between this blog and a list of reviewers.

I don't believe GR is looking for shelves to delete like we were told it's being handed to them by certain bloggers. In that case the it's not fair totally is acceptable and proper to use. Sided with one side is not the way to handle things and fix up the site's rept.

[Blossom]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

What do you mean by modified?

They were not screenshots from the actually two stories. They were just typed out quotes meaning they could be modified or made to look is a better word to support the accuser's case.

This is why I need valid proof from a reputable source but it's not that important. Although I down own her NASCAR series. I don't have the book in question.

I'm more concern with GR's big announcement which is coming to light a certain blog might be the ones who are feeding GR what to delete because the stuff that really does need to be deleted is still there and other stuff that is apart of that secret war is deleted.

[speakingtohe]

I don't participate on GoodReads, I just use it to get info. but I find this discussion strangely interesting. Also a tad odd, but then so am I

Forgive me if I am totally ignorant, but I have a couple of questions and comments.

I have tried reading fanfic but didn't care for it. Probably I have read bad fanfic and there is some great stuff out there, but I just didn't get it.
My understanding is that it is often published without the authors permission making it a bit iffy IMO. Still if not done for profit, is it illegal, I don't know. My understanding is that unless it is legal and copyrighted it is kind of fair game as long as it is attributed.

As to GoodReads doing what a certain group tells them to, I doubt hey are doing it because of an inate bias or being under control of a certain group. Probably if enough people object to a shef, they will look at that shelf and make a decision whether it is good or bad. The fact that other shelves are worse should have no bearing.

If a certain group has taken it upon themselves to make the effort to get the shelves they want removed for whatever reasons, and the shelves they object to are actually objectionable it would be the logical thing for Goodreads to simply remove them.

From the sounds of it, it would take a lot of research, time and money to find the worst shelf, delete that first etc.

Screaming foul or unfair will not get anyone any brownie points. Picking a shelf or two and saying why they are objectionable to you, in a personally unbiased way, might even things up a bit.

Me, I wouldn't participate in a site where I was afraid to be honest and you can't be honest if you avoid posting your opinion. I know that reviewers get hate mail, even those writing for the New York times, but I guess it is accelerated by the fact that people can see the comments and it fans the fire.

Checking all new reviews and comments seems an obvious step, but I gather it would be a monumental task to check all of the existing ones.

I enjoy a good controversy as much as anyone, but if it is as bad as Blossom indicates, then I can't see any way of recovery without deleting all threatening and personal rudeness. And an authors politics or religion should not be attacked in a book review. The law generally grants them the right to hold these views or I doubt anyone would know about them. You can't discriminate legally on grounds of a persons beliefs, race or sex etc. Discouraging others from buying a book on these and other grounds is discrimination IMO. We aren't talking something as serious as a pogrom, but sounds like it might be awfully close in severity as gay bashing for instance.

Hope I am not being totally off topic here.

Helen

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by Blossom

They were not screenshots from the actually two stories. They were just typed out quotes meaning they could be modified or made to look is a better word to support the accuser's case.

This is why I need valid proof from a reputable source but it's not that important. Although I down own her NASCAR series. I don't have the book in question.

Have you tried Google?
http://snarkycake.blogspot.nl/2013/0...r-by-shey.html
It has screenshots.

Really, the only way to be 100% sure is to compare the book to the fanfics yourself, but conveniently the author removed the books, and you don't trust those who said that they have read the book and it is true.

[Blossom]

Originally Posted by speakingtohe

*Snip alot of good stuff*

I enjoy a good controversy as much as anyone, but if it is as bad as Blossom indicates, then I can't see any way of recovery without deleting all threatening and personal rudeness. And an authors politics or religion should not be attacked in a book review. The law generally grants them the right to hold these views or I doubt anyone would know about them. You can't discriminate legally on grounds of a persons beliefs, race or sex etc. Discouraging others from buying a book on these and other grounds is discrimination IMO. We aren't talking something as serious as a pogrom, but sounds like it might be awfully close in severity as gay bashing for instance.

Hope I am not being totally off topic here.

Helen

You made some excellent points. Where to start. This group I mention have mentioned that GR is reading their blog. So if true and it sure looks that way I know there is some influence going on there. How much is pure speculation. Goodreads is now own by Amazon. Amazon needs to hire people to clean up the site because right now it is run mostly by volunteers.

Goodreads is such a big site you could participate regularly doing all the things there is to do and never come across any of the drama. However if you follow certain blogs from a certain genre *cough Romance *cough* you can help but step it in when happens for that genre. If you follow the STGB blog you see way too much of it.

There are reviewers who take it too far. Who love witch hunts and love to ruin an author over stupid stuff. They have a large following who will jump when they say go get 'em.
Then you have this blog of authors who are super sensitive and report every single reviewer they feel isn't nice and the list is HUGE. Some are called for some are not. You have Goodreads in the middle of all this pretending none of this is going on.

All of sudden you got Goodreads going after these reviewers some good and some really bad because this blog and followers are taking advantage of the new guidelines and someone over at GR has their ear or is reading the blog and taking their word for it.

When GR first announce the changes I was like YES finally the really bad ones will go and most have so that goal is accomplished but alot of good people are being caught in the crossfire of this secret war.

Now this blog is over at Booklikes and starting their reporting about it. This isn't about who is right or wrong this blog has a personal vendetta going against a list of reviewers.

[library addict]

Originally Posted by speakingtohe

I don't participate on GoodReads, I just use it to get info. but I find this discussion strangely interesting. Also a tad odd, but then so am I

Forgive me if I am totally ignorant, but I have a couple of questions and comments.

I have tried reading fanfic but didn't care for it. Probably I have read bad fanfic and there is some great stuff out there, but I just didn't get it.
My understanding is that it is often published without the authors permission making it a bit iffy IMO. Still if not done for profit, is it illegal, I don't know. My understanding is that unless it is legal and copyrighted it is kind of fair game as long as it is attributed.

The subject of fanfic being legal is a separate issue. Even if that were the case (not saying it is) and the fanfic isn't officially copyrighted, it does not mean that the published author did not commit plagiarism.

Dear Author had a good post describing the differences between copyright infringement, plagiarism, etc.

As another example, most of the passages Cassie Edwards used were from books in the public domain. So while she wasn't guilty of copyright infringement for most, she was guilty of plagiarism. Just because something isn't under copyright doesn't mean another author can take it and pass it off as their own words.

[BearMountainBooks]

OT:

Fan fiction is a problem for authors because while the settings/characters and whatnot are basically under copyright by the author, a fan can create a unique story using that world and characters. It's muddy as to what the author can and should do about it. Most of the time the fan isn't generating money so there is no law/harm to the author THEORETICALLY.

There is a case oft-sited of Marion Zimmer Bradley who was writing a novel in her series, and found by reading fan fiction that a fan had taken a story in a similar direction. She then refused to publish the novel because she was afraid that there would be accusations on all sides. http://fanlore.org/wiki/Marion_Zimme...on_Controversy

The problem with fan fiction is the fans usually read all the novels. Writers have a style and that style can become somewhat predictable especially if you've written multiple series. For example, I happen to prefer happy endings so that is what I write. I tend to write series where the main romantic relationship(s) doesn't happen all in one book, but rather develops over the entire series. So let's say I start a third series. It would not be unusual for me to do the same thing. A fan of mine, who likes that type of style, might write a short story or other story that "Got to the finish line" before I did. And they might use some of the same ideas I would use. This is essentially what supposedly happened to Zimmer-Bradley -- and she happened to read the story and thought, "Uh-oh. I"m in trouble because I don't want to deal with this person thinking I used her/his idea." It was too close to what she had planned.

Fan-fict is still a story. There are a lot of writers who see similarities to other works and assume their idea has been "Stolen." Someone sued Rowlings because the author had ALSO written a fantasy about an orphan boy and it happened to have an owl as a messenger bird (I think Potter used a hawk? I can't remember). The point is, the lady saw these similarities and was positive the Rowlings had stolen her ideas and implemented them. The judge found differently.

Fan fiction can put the author in a very difficult position. That does not mean it should be plagiarized, but when you have a bunch of fans basically writing out different character scenarios, it should not come as a surprise to anyone if more than one idea follows the same arc.

As an author I wouldn't want to read fan fiction for my characters. It's bad enough when a fan writes to me and says, "Hey, for the next book, wouldn't it be great if..." and then proceeds to lay out their ideas. Sure, an idea is about 1 percent of the work. Implementing it is 95 percent and then there's some technical formatting, etc. But fans may see that 1 percent and decide that means..."My idea, I should be paid for it."

The more popular the author, the more fan fiction and fan mail and the more ideas...

[Blossom]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

Have you tried Google?
http://snarkycake.blogspot.nl/2013/0...r-by-shey.html
It has screenshots.

Really, the only way to be 100% sure is to compare the book to the fanfics yourself, but conveniently the author removed the books, and you don't trust those who said that they have read the book and it is true.

Those screenshots are too tiny!

I have now seen valid proof through someone I trust and yes she did copy scenes from the Dusty FanFic. It's not very obvious as first but she slipped up a few times and left too many words similar that when you run them through a compare software it catches them.

No one has posted the parts I saw but they are too identical not to be copied unlike the quotes posted which show some similarities these are nearly word for word which are no doubt in my mind copied.

[caleb72]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

And your reaction to what was going on in that review thread has somehow managed to make you distort the sequence of events as you said: "She queried, there was a retaliation, she tried to back down, someone threw in the "special snowflake" comment and the author got offended and it seemed to devolve from there." It just didn't happen that way, as there was no retaliation and author backing down between the author questioning the rating and snowflake comment.

And...?

I've already responded to that and the detail really wasn't significant to my impressions, nor to my opinions about the behaviours of either group in the discussion - especially because my impressions were received when I actually read the thread and at that time the sequence of events would have been more obvious to me.

Are we actually disagreeing about anything? Because it seems like you're trying really hard to disprove something; as if a misremembered detail in the sequence of events somehow invalidates the case in a court of law. Are you particularly sensitive about this event?

[caleb72]

Originally Posted by Blossom

There are reviewers who take it too far. Who love witch hunts and love to ruin an author over stupid stuff. They have a large following who will jump when they say go get 'em.
Then you have this blog of authors who are super sensitive and report every single reviewer they feel isn't nice and the list is HUGE. Some are called for some are not. You have Goodreads in the middle of all this pretending none of this is going on.

All of sudden you got Goodreads going after these reviewers some good and some really bad because this blog and followers are taking advantage of the new guidelines and someone over at GR has their ear or is reading the blog and taking their word for it.

When GR first announce the changes I was like YES finally the really bad ones will go and most have so that goal is accomplished but alot of good people are being caught in the crossfire of this secret war.

Now this blog is over at Booklikes and starting their reporting about it. This isn't about who is right or wrong this blog has a personal vendetta going against a list of reviewers.

So basically you have this group who felt sufficiently victimised and powerless that they create their own group elsewhere to continue the "good fight" and now that they've won a victory they're using that to exact revenge?

It's like the Hatfields and the McCoys isn't it?

[speakingtohe]

My understanding is that plagiarism starts when you pretend the words and ideas are your own. (no attribution) Other things fall under copyright laws I think, such as writing a book set in the xxxx universe without the authors permission.

I have heard of fanfic being encouraged by the author, or ignored. J. K. Rowling and James Potter. Probably they are good, but I am not a Harry Potter fan, so unlikely to read.

If as someone said, Rowling was accused of plagiarism, by merely having a boy wizard and a bird, than by these standards, how can any non-authorized fanfic not be considered plagiarism? Because they say the are using the xxx universe probably but I think that only applies to excerpts. Again just my opinion.

If as Blossom says, volunteers at Goodreads are voraciously reading blogs, and taking their cue from them, well that is also wrong. Of course it is very wrong of Goodreads to allow them this kind of discretion and power.

The most peculiar thing in my mind, is why now? Did Amazon buy GoodReads and just say to the volunteers "Have at 'er" ? I am kind of mind boggled at that idea. They weren't doing this before I assume, so why now?

Perhaps the volunteers are doing this because they don't like the takeover, or just some weird coincidence.

The most likely outcome I see is all public shelves will be wiped eventually good bad or indifferent.

Anyway thanks for the responses, and I am sure most will find a new home

Helen