Smydra, R. (2007). Chick Lit’s Re‐Packaging of Plagiarism: The Debate Over Chick Lit’s Influence on Authorship and Publishing. Plagiary: Cross‐Disciplinary Studies in Plagiarism, Fabrication, and Falsification, 40‐51.
Chick Lit’s Re‐Packaging of Plagiarism: The Debate Over Chick Lit’s Influence on Authorship and Publishing
Rachel V. Smydra
E‐mail: [email protected]
Abstract A public charge of plagiarism involving Harvard Scrutiny surrounding the actions of publishers undergraduate Kaavya Viswanathan ignited a dis- has critics debating the legitimacy of chick lit cussion about the creative process of “chick lit” because they contend that the methods publish‐ books, and as a result, the validity of the “chick lit” genre itself. Viswanathan’s case involves much more ers are using are degrading the industry. Many than plagiarism by a first-time author; the case has reference the incident with Kaavya Viswanathan made many take a closer look at the publishing in- as justification for their charges. dustry--how it operates, the pressures that may lead to plagiarism for “chick lit” writers, and behaviors The story is much more complex than the pla‐ that ignore the use of authors’ intellectual property giaristic actions of a first‐time author. The unrav‐ in the pursuit of revenues and profits. Because of the eled details provide key insights into the publish‐ influential role of book packagers, the rehashing of ing industry, how it operates, the pressures that plots, and collaborative authorship, the value and place of the genre on bookshelves and in the class- may lead to plagiarism for chick lit writers, and room are in question. “Chick lit” supporters contend behaviors that ignore the use of the intellectual that the genre allows writers to construct texts with property of others in the pursuit of revenues and contemporary plots that further engage readers to profits. According to many in academia, these rethink and contribute to feminist discourse. Critics factors undermine the legitimacy of chick lit as a contend, however, that book packagers are manipu- bona‐fide genre. lating authors, editors, publishers, and even the sto- ries themselves. Consequently, the genre is altering not only readers’ expectations, but also the cultural The $33,000 College Consultant and a framework of what constitutes acceptable behavior Harvard Wanna-Be by those involved in publishing.
In 2006, Kaavya Viswanathan, a third year stu‐ dent at Harvard University, finished her first In 2006, the story of a Harvard University novel, How Opal Mehta Got Kissed, Got Wild, and sophomore initiated a discussion that has grown Got a Life. Many in the publishing field greatly into something much larger than many antici‐ anticipated the publication of the book because pated: a debate that has publishers and scholars of the $ 500,000 contract Little, Brown and Com‐ contesting the ethical ramifications of the phe‐ pany awarded Viswanathan prior to her writing nomenon that has become known as “Chick Lit.” one word of her book. Emerging in the 1990’s, chick lit has academics and readers of the books divided over not only The highly anticipated chick lit book arrived in the literary value of the genre but how the crea‐ bookstores to an enthusiastic market but shortly tive production of chick lit is tarnishing the credi‐ thereafter, the book became one of interest as bility of publishers as well. plagiarism charges surfaced and involved not
40 Chick Lit’s Re-Packaging of Plagiarism—Smydra only a first‐time author but experienced profes‐ side influences in publishing that may have af‐ sionals in the publishing industry as well. Ini‐ fected the writing of her book. Reviewing the tially, The Harvard Crimson, Harvard’s daily stu‐ series of events that led to Viswanathan’s story dent newspaper, broke the story. Capturing the involves what appears to be a number of self‐ attention of the national media, the details sur‐ aggrandizers pursuing their own interests. rounding the writing of the book unfolded on the front pages of many national newspapers. The roles these outside influences played in the situation shifted the attention from Viswanathan At first, Viswanathan and her publisher denied to Katherine Cohen, a college consultant; Susan responsibility for her use of unattributed phrases Gluck and Jennifer Rudolph Walsh, literary rep‐ not only from Megan McCafferty’s Sloppy Firsts resentatives at the William Morris Agency; Clau‐ and Second Helpings, but several other writers as dia Gabel, an Alloy Entertainment editor; and well. At the outset, Viswanathan did not ac‐ Asya Muchnick, an editor at Little, Brown and knowledge responsibility for the allegations. Company. Did they place too much pressure on However, the scandal escalated as Viswanathan the inexperienced Viswanathan who succumbed announced in an interview with Katie Couric on to their demands that resulted in a plagiarized NBC’s Today show that she unintentionally pla‐ product? Did Viswanathan lack a strong moral giarized. She offered an apology with an assort‐ code, and did she exercise enough discretion to ment of phrases attached, such as “may have in‐ guide her through the situations she encoun‐ ternalized,” “phrasing similarities,” “completely– tered? Was she oblivious to her unethical behav‐ unconscious,” and “unintentional er‐ ior and sit implications? rors” (Mehegan, 2006). Many think she did not take full responsibility for her actions; instead, Both of Viswanathan’s parents‐‐Viswanathan they contend that she blamed her unintentional Rajamran, a neurosurgeon, and Mary Sundaram, weaving in of words and passages on her experi‐ a gynecologist‐‐ achieved great success. Born in ences of reading chick lit books during her years India, Viswanathan moved to Scotland with her as a teenager. Sympathizers, however, have parents and eventually to New Jersey. Attending claimed that Viswanathan is a victim of publish‐ Bergen County Academy at Havensack, she ex‐ ing and marketing moguls and blame her youth perienced some success with writing; a few of and inexperience for her “unintentional” copying her early poems and stories were published in of others’ works. Table 1 on the following page children’s magazines. Her ambition was not be a highlights five of twenty four passages that writer; it was to gain admission to Harvard Uni‐ Viswanathan may have borrowed (Poser, 2006). versity to pursue a degree in finance. In an effort In addition to borrowing text and ideas from to help Viswanathan achieve her dream, in her McCafferty, close readers of Viswanathan’s text junior year in high school, her parents sought the have also noted similarities between Viswana‐ services of Katherine Cohen, a college consultant than and other writers. Table 2 exhibits some “to give their daughter a leg up on the blister‐ additional passages and authors Viswanathan ingly competitive American college‐admissions may have plagiarized. process” (Lui, 2006).
The charges of plagiarism received a great deal Cohen graduated from Brown University in of attention: questions surrounding Viswana‐ 1989 and earned a Ph.D. in Latin American litera‐ than’s writing ability motivated the media to ture from Yale University in 1997. She founded search for resolutions of many unanswered ques‐ her business, IvyWise, that same year. Today, tions. As evidence emerged, the intrigue of the she advises about 20 clients at a time, at a rate of story quickly shifted to focus on the roles of out‐ $33,000 each (Gardner, 2001).
41 Plagiary 2007 Table 1. Samples of Passages Viswanathan Allegedly Plagiarized from Sloppy Firsts
Sloppy Firsts How Opal Mehta Got Kissed, Got Wild, and Got a Life
From page 6 of McCafferty’s first novel: “Sabrina From page 39 of Viswanathan’s novel: “Moneypenny was the brainy Angel. Yet another example of how was the brainy female character. Yet another example every girl had to be one or the other: Pretty or of how every girl had to be one or the other: smart or smart. Guess which one I got. You’ll see where it’s pretty. I had long resigned myself to category one, gotten me.” and as long as it got me to Harvard, I was happy. Except, it hadn’t gotten me to Harvard. Clearly, it was time to switch to category two.”
From page 7 of McCafferty’s first novel: “Bridget is From page 14 of Viswanathan’s novel: “Priscilla was my age and lives across the street. For the first my age and lived two blocks away. For the first fifteen twelve years of my life, these qualifications were all years of my life, those were the only qualifications I I needed in a best friend. But that was before needed in a best friend. We had first bonded over our Bridget’s braces came off and her boyfriend Burke mutual fascination with the abacus in a playgroup for got on, before Hope and I met in our seventh- gifted kids. But that was before freshman year, when grade honors classes. Priscilla’s glasses came off, and the first in a long string of boyfriends got on.”
From page 23 of McCafferty’s first novel: “He’s got From page 48 of Viswanathan’s novel: “He had too- dusty reddish dreads that a girl could never run her long shaggy brown hair that fell into his eyes, which hands through. His eyes are always half-shut. His were always half shut. His mouth was always curled lips are usually curled in a semi-smile, like he’s in into a half smile, like he knew about some big joke on a big joke that’s being played on you but you that was about to be played on you.” don’t know it yet.”
From page 217 of McCafferty’s first novel: “But From page 142 of Viswanathan’s novel: “...he tapped then he tapped me on the shoulder, and said me on the shoulder and said something so random I something so random that I was afraid he was worried that he needed more expert counseling than I back on the junk.” could provide.”
From page 213 of McCafferty’s first novel: From page 175 of Viswanathan’s novel: “Sean stood “Marcus then leaned across me to open the pas- up and stepped toward me, ostensibly to show me the senger-side door. He was invading my personal book. He was definitely invading my personal space, space, as I had learned in Psych class, and I in- as I had learned in a Human Evolution class last sum- stinctively sank back into the seat. That just made mer, and I instinctively backed up till my legs hit the him move in closer. I was practically one with the chair I had been sitting in. That just made him move in leather at this point, and unless I hopped into the closer, until the grommets in the leather embossed the backseat, there was nowhere else for me to go.” backs of my knees, and he finally tilted the book to- ward me.”
Source: Zhou, D. (2006).
42 Chick Lit’s Re-Packaging of Plagiarism—Smydra Table 2. Additional Samples of Allegedly Plagiarized Authors and Texts
Salman Rushdie’s 1990 novel Haroun and The Sea of Stories Sophie Kinsella’s 2004 novel Can You Keep a Secret?
On page 35 of Rushdie's novel, From Can You Keep a Secret?: one of the warnings reads: “And we’ll tell everyone you got your Donna Karan coat from a dis- "If from speed you get your thrill / count warehouse shop.” take precaution—make your will." Jemima gasps. “I didn’t!” she says, color suffusing her cheeks. “You did! I saw the carrier bag,” I chime in. “And we’ll make it public that your pearls are cultured, not real…” On page 118 of Viswanathan's Jemima claps a hand over her mouth… novel, one of the posters reads: “OK!” says Jemima, practically in tears. “OK! I promise I’ll forget all about it. I promise! Just please don’t mention the discount warehouse "If from drink you get your thrill, shop. Please.” take precaution—write your will." From Viswanathan's novel:
“And I’ll tell everyone that in eighth grade you used to wear a ‘My Little Pony’ sweatshirt to school every day,” I continued. Priscilla gasped. “I didn’t!” she said, her face purpling again. “You did! I even have pictures,” I said. “And I’ll make it public that you Meg Cabot’s 2000 novel, The named your dog Pythagoras…” Princess Diaries Priscilla opened her mouth and gave a few soundless gulps… “Okay, fine!” she said in complete consternation. “Fine! I promise I’ll do whatever you want. I’ll talk to the club manager. Just please don’t Page 126 of The Princess Diaries mention the sweatshirt. Please.” reads:
"And it is sort of hard when all these Tanuja Desai Hidier’s 2004 novel Born Confused beautiful, fashionable people are telling you how good you'd look in From page 13 of Born Confused: this and how much that would bring out your cheekbones. . . . And I "India. I had few memories of the place, but the ones I held were kept telling myself, She's only doing dream clear: Bathing in a bucket as a little girl. The unnerving richness this because she loves you. . . .". of buffalo milk drunk from a pewter cup. My Dadaji pouring tea into a saucer so it would cool faster, sipping from the edge of the thin dish, never spilling a drop. Page 58 of Viswanathan's novel reads: From pages 230-1 of Viswanathan’s novel: In my defense, it was hard to be uptight and prickly while sur- "I had only a few memories of India; the last time my family visited was rounded by beautiful, fashionable six years ago, when I was in the sixth grade….Some impressions stood people all telling me how good I'd out sharply in my mind, still as clear as freshly developed Polaroids. I look in that shade and what this remembered the cold, creamy taste of fresh buffalo milk, Babaji pour- color would do to enhance my ing Ovaltine from one tin cup to another until froth bubbled thickly on cheekbones." the surface and it was cool enough to drink.
Source: “Kaavya Viswanathan”, Wikipedia (2006).
43 Plagiary 2007
According to John Gardner (2001), “In order to Alloy Entertainment Repackages Viswanathan enhance their chances of achieving glory, fami‐ and Her Story lies are chasing their dream by employing that most American of strategies for success — mar‐ Alloy’s 17th Street Productions repackaged keting.” With Cohen’s assistance, Viswanathan Viswanathan’s ideas and sent them back to began her college career at Harvard in September Walsh, who was immediately impressed with 2004, but their relationship did not end there. not only the story idea but with Viswanathan’s marketability as well. Walsh notes, “They sent it While organizing her application materials, to me and I flipped over it. We all recognized Viswanathan showed Cohen a collection of her that Kaavya had the craftsmanship, she’s beauti‐ short stories and poems. Cohen, an author herself, ful and charming, she just needed to find the noticed Viswanathan’s promise as a writer and right novel that would speak to her generation passed along some of the materials to Suzanne and to people beyond her years as Gluck, Cohen’s literary agent at the William Mor‐ well” (Mehegan, 2006). ris Agency. Viswanathan “soon found herself on the fast track to a book deal most professional nov‐ Founded in 1997, Alloy Entertainment is a sub‐ elists could only dream of” (Gardner, 2001). sidiary of Alloy Media + Marketing, one of the countryʹs largest providers of targeted media and promotional programs. According to Alloy Media A Vision of Opportunity: Young Author + Marketing’s website, Alloy Entertainment spe‐ In the Making cializes in assisting companies with the packaging and selling of books to teenage ande pr ‐teen girls, After reading through the material that Cohen by consulting with companies to get their products had forwarded to her, Gluck indicated that she and services mentioned in fictional works. was not all that impressed with Viswanathan’s initial work, which was a dark story paralleling Publishing more than 40 books a year, in 25 Alice Sebold’s Lovely Bones (Hulbert, 2006). languages, 90% of Alloy Entertainment’s prod‐ Even though Gluck thought that Viswanathan ucts focus on the teenage girl market should attempt something lighter, she forwarded (avastconspiracy.com). Marketing to young Viswanathan’s work to Jennifer Walsh, another teenage girls has always been lucrative, but with literary agent at William Morris. According to the broadened opportunities, Alloy sees a bright the Boston Globe, Walsh said she knew “right future with older readers because of chick lit’s away that Viswanathan had the talent. What she skyrocketing market share. lacked was a ‘commercially viable’ work” (Mehegan, 2006). Alloy’s basic strategy is to hire or approach would‐be writers with a book or series idea that Given an absence of commercial experience, will appeal to young female readers. To have the Walsh referred Viswanathan to Alloy’s 17th Street products gain mass appeal, staff members are Productions to help her develop her story ideas. involved in everything from creating the ideas to Viswanathan notes, “After lots of discussions finding writers, to designing eye catching book about finding my voice, I sat down and wrote covers (Long, 2005). According to Colleen Long, them a fun, chatty email about myself, which is “Alloy Entertainment operates more like the ro‐ where the voice and idea for Opal came mance novel industry than a traditional trade from” (Mehegan, 2006). Alloy shopped the book publisher. It has a staff in New York of about 10 package and the author to Little, Brown and editors who diligently research whatʹs hot in the Company, which is owned, ironically, by media teen world‐‐what girls are wearing, the music mogul conglomerate Time‐Warner Brothers. they like, and the TV shows they TiVo.”
44 Chick Lit’s Re-Packaging of Plagiarism—Smydra
According to Rachel Plummer, an author who If she did indeed collaborate, Viswanathan has worked with Alloy, “Writers for hire are most likely continued to work exclusively with commissioned to write a specific piece of work editors Asya Muchnick from Little, Brown and and are paid for that work without receiving any Company and Claudia Gabel, an Alloy em‐ rights to [it]. As a writer for hire, I’m pretty much ployee. Both acknowledged and then retracted told what the book packager wants me to do. In that they worked with Viswanathan to flesh out other words, I’m given a plot outline, and the the story. Claiming that she had committed con‐ characters and setting are already devel‐ tractually to write two to three new chapters for oped” (Lui, 2006, “Inside 17th Street”). Viswana‐ her book every two weeks in addition to her five than’s status in this relationship was, however, courses a semester at Harvard as a freshman, not “work for hire.” Viswanathan noted the difficulty in finding time to write 50 pages every two weeks. She notes, Unknown prior to the scandal is that Alloy in “In the last two weeks of school, I was studying non “work for hire” situations, quite typically for finals while trying to get the last 50 pages negotiates with a publisher and author to share done” (Mehegan, 2006). If she was responsible the copyright and the rights of up to fifty percent for writing the majority of the text, the pressure of all movie and television deals and any other of trying to finish the book quickly in addition to rights (Long, 2005). As with other Alloy books, her course load most likely caused her to rely both Alloy and Viswanathan are listed on the heavily on outside influences to craft the story. copyright page of How Opal Mehta Got Kissed, Got Wild, and Got a Life. Consequently, the copyright Besides writing the book, Viswanathan en‐ information signifies that the work is jointly countered the additional pressure of weaving in owned by the two entities because of one of two product references, which are elements Alloy stipulations: (1) the two entities are joint authors required for marketability purposes. As a result because they each contributed copyrightable ex‐ of Alloy’s contractual terms, Viswanathan’s book pression to the final work and both had the right includes the mention of a few name brands: to control the work’s final form, or (2) the author Manolo Blahnik, Habitual Jeans, and La Perle bras. of the work might assign partial copyright own‐ Even though the details surrounding the contract ership to another entity in return for money or terms are not known, most likely Alloy negoti‐ something else of value. In Viswanathan’s case, ated the addition of these products into the either scenario is plausible (Litman, 2007). manuscript. Although Alloy’s strategies are le‐ gal, Viswanathan’s inexperience as a writer most As a result, both Alloy and Viswanathan may likely required a great deal of direction as far as have arrived at either one of the following meth‐ weaving in these required contributions. ods to write How Opal Mehta Got Kissed, Got Wild, and Got a Life: Alloy commissioned a ghost writer to create the book and assigned half the copy‐ The Fall Out right to Viswanathan in return for her promoting the book as her own, or Alloy and Viswanathan After the charges of plagiarism became wide‐ agreed that Viswanathan would create the book spread, Little, Brown and Company finally and assign half the copyright to Alloy in return pulled Viswanathan’s book from the book‐ for its editing, promotion, and packaging ser‐ shelves, but the media continued to unravel the vices. Either arrangement is indicative of a col‐ complexities surrounding this plagiarism charge. laborative effort. As a result, after Viswanathan acknowledged her unintentional plagiarism, many parties involved with arranging the book deal, writing the book,
45 Plagiary 2007 and marketing the book started to change their about the ramifications and her future, Viswana‐ stories. Consequently, deciphering how much than, most likely, was urged to accept the re‐ intervention Alloy Entertainment had in repack‐ sponsibility for the authorship. Her photo‐ aging her ideas is difficult, but many unan‐ graphic memory takes the blame for the plagia‐ swered questions lead back to Alloy employees. rism and everyone at Alloy and Little Brown is What kind of role did they play in shaping the satisfied (Gumbel, 2006). book and how did they share in the labor of actu‐ ally writing the book? What makes Viswanathan’s story differ from those of past plagiarism cases is the role of sev‐ Even though Little, Brown and Company eral players with self‐interests. Reconsidering pulled the book from the shelves in early May, each player’s role in the crafting of Viswana‐ sales of both Viswanathan’s and McCafferty’s than’s book undermines the idea that Viswana‐ book continued to climb following the contro‐ than was solely responsible for the plagiarized versy. According to Boston.com, Little, Brown passages. What is most surprising in this case, and Company’s senior vice president, Michael however, is the number of online blog postings Pietsch indicated in a released statement that that note that this should be a non‐issue and does they had canceled Viswanathan’s two‐book con‐ not deserve attention because of the type of genre tract, choosing not to rework the book to elimi‐ in which the incident occurred – chick lit. nate the plagiarized passages.
The discussion surrounding the topic did not Chick Lit: A Bona Fide Genre? die down after the announcement. Many in the media continued to seek information regarding Ironically, the most comprehensive definition the creative process involved with the writing of of chick lit is noted on the controversial website the book. Apparently, however, the discrepancy of Wikipedia. According to the site, “Chick lit is as to how Viswanathan’s writing samples made a term used to denote a genre of popular fiction their way to Little Brown indicates that the path written for and marketed to young women, espe‐ Viswanathan’s book followed from infancy to cially single, working women in their twen‐ publication is unclear. Those at Alloy insisted ties” (“Chick‐Lit”, 2006). In the past few years, Viswanathan wrote every word, although Alloy chick lit has morphed into several different sub‐ President Leslie Morgenstein notes in an e‐mail genres; for example, lady lit, teen lit, ethnic lit, that his firm ʹʹhelped Kaavya conceptualize and black lit, chica lit, which targets English‐ plot the book.ʺ One wonders how much of the dominant, middle‐class American Latinas, and a book she did write and whether she is solely re‐ male equivalent known as lad lit, guy lit, or nick sponsible for the plagiarism. lit, which includes such authors asn Be Elton, Mike Gayle, and Nick Hornby. International Why Viswanathan did not save herself and publishers are also trying to generate interest point the finger at Gabel and others in the corpo‐ abroad. In India, throngs of readers are pressing rate publishing field is difficult to answer. Most publishers to seek more writers who can craft likely, the situation presented itself as a catch‐22, additional chick lit books to capture a captive with no way to exit the situation without conse‐ audience. quences. If she turns the table on Gabel and indi‐ cates that Gabel contributed heavily to the book, Catching the attention of millions of readers she then has to deal with the repercussions of the worldwide, chick lit sstorie are quick, enjoyable public announcement that she indeed did not reads. Helen Fielding’s 1996 publication Bridget write the book. After talking with legal counsel Jones’s Diary is one of the books that spawned the
46 Chick Lit’s Re-Packaging of Plagiarism—Smydra genre aimed primarily at young women. Even cance of the material (Olen, 2006). Well‐known though Fielding’s book received little media at‐ author and academic, Doris Lessing dismisses tention until it was developed into a movie, her the genre as degrading to readers who demand book and those by Meg Cabot and Marian Keyes more from books other than the rehashing of a are the foundation of the genre and continue to character’s shopping and sexual exploits. Less‐ serve as paradigms for writers who mimic the ing argues, “It would be better, perhaps, if chick lit rubric. [female novelists] wrote books about their lives as they really saw them and not as these helpless Most of the stories revolve around a similar drunken girls, worrying about their theme: A girl, usually of high school or college weight” (Ferriss, 2006). Lessing’s comments in‐ age, lives in a big city, searches for Mr. Right dicate that she believes that chick lit has little to while shopping, hanging out with friends, and do with contemporary women. Some scholars attending parties, gets dumped, and finally finds argue, however, that the argument surrounding or almost finds the man of her dreams (Donadio, the intrinsic value of the material revolves 2006). Most chick lit plots do not depend on around different generational takes on what con‐ originality in story development, so the plot is stitutes real issues for today’s woman. one that is repeated again and again. Recogniz‐ ing a niche, however, publishers are modifying Supporters argue that chick lit does explore the plots to some degree so that they appeal to real issues for contemporary women and because audiences of different ages and cultures, in addi‐ women of older generations do not understand tion to writing sequels for the books that sell these issues, they do not understand the merits of well. chick lit. They argue that chick lit is “a type of post‐feminist fiction that covers the breadth of Chick lit is also making its presence felt in the the female experience and deals unconvention‐ academic world, but scholars are divided on its ally with traditional romantic themes of love, literary merits. The discussion is prolific on col‐ courtship, and gender” (“Chick‐Lit”, 2006) and lege campuses as younger faculty members thus are akin to the work of Jane Austen and Vir‐ weave the material into their course discussions ginia Woolf, both of whose work critics initially and assignments. The fallout from this action shunned (Martin, 2006). Since the plots revolve means that faculty and students – undergraduate around essential issues relevant to women, such and graduate – are lending their voices to the as personal issues, work‐related problems, dan conversation and in a sense, contributing to the societal pressures, chick lit allows readers to live legitimacy of the genre. vicariously through these young fictional charac‐ ters and explore their roles as females in the 21st Those opposed to the legitimacy of chick lit century. As a result, younger readers are intro‐ focus on the content and its lack of rich, thought‐ duced to relevant issues regarding feminism provoking topics. Because of this lack of sub‐ while older readers revisit their own youthful stance and the very narrow takes on real life is‐ experiences through a new set of perspectives sues, many feel that the books are offshoots of that the books offer. romance novels and even though they are sell‐ ing, the books are not literary in content and thus Scholars Suzanne Ferriss and Mallory Young should not be placed alongside literary works. (2006) acknowledge the skepticism regarding chick lit’s content: “The question is particularly Primarily, scholars argue that a lack of conse‐ relevant given chick lit’s focus on a number of quences for characters and the fantasy‐like solu‐ the issues dear to the hearts of cultural critics: the tions to real life problems undermine the signifi‐ relationship between identity and sexuality; the
47 Plagiary 2007 contemporary fixation on consumer capitalism, 2006). Many chick lit writers contend that their and the concerns of race, ethnicity, and class.” work explores many topics prevalent in literary However, Mallory and Ferris contend that the fiction. Olen argues, however, that even though books are not merely “froth.” Instead they main‐ this may be relevant, many of the chick lit books tain that the books contain substance that allows are formulaic and always end on a happy note women of any age to explore contemporary top‐ with utter resolution. ics that deal with issues important to today’s woman who is trying to do it all. Fielding’s char‐ The discussion surrounding the validity of acter Bridget Jones says it best: “These are not the chick lit presents itself not only in academia, but flawless women of romance fiction, waiting to be it has taken up residency in the publishing world recognized by the ‘perfect’ man, but women who as well. Publishers recognize that readers like make mistakes at work, sometimes drink too the reliable entertainment value that chick lit of‐ much, fail miserably in the kitchen, or fall for any fers its readers. Many, however, take issue with of the following: alcoholics, workaholics, com‐ the collaborative efforts between writers and mitment phobias, people with girlfriends or marketers to develop plots in addition to the wives, misogynists, megalomaniacs, chauvinists, mass marketing blitz that come attached with and freeloaders” (Fielding, 1996). chick lit books. Similar to other contemporary genres, chick lit is propelled onto bookshelves by In the spring of 2006, the level of discussion book packagers such as Alloy that work to help escalated with the publication of two antholo‐ shape the plot and secure contracts with compa‐ gies; editor Elizabeth Merrick’s This is Not Chick‐ nies to promote products in the books. Lit and editor Lauren Baratz‐Logsted’s This is Chick‐Lit. Merrick’s collection of non‐chick lit In defense of their actions, publishers maintain stories from various writers, such as Jennifer that the number of book buyers is shrinking. In Egan and Aimee Bender, stems from her frustra‐ fact, because of the availability of wireless adap‐ tion with chick lit and its limited viewpoints be‐ tations, Americans are using more and more me‐ cause the genre ’numbs our senses’ and “shuts dia to access information and entertainment. down our consciousness, whereas literature The data from the Census Bureau’s annual Statis‐ grants us new access to countless new cultures, tical Abstract of the U.S. indicate that American places, and inner lives.” She also notes that a consumers are spending up to 9.5 hours a day vast amount of women literary writers are “being with some sort of electronic medium. The time obscured by a huge pile of books with purses dedicated to reading a newspaper, magazine, or and shoes on the cover” (Clark‐Flory, 2006). a book has decreased considerably (“EPM’s Pro‐ Consequently, Merrick and her contemporaries files…”, 2006). think serious literary writers are not getting the recognition or the shelf space they deserve. In response to shifts in market share, publish‐ ing houses, which are owned mostly by big con‐ Lauren Baratz‐Logsted’s This is Chick Lit is a glomerates, have also shifted decision making direct response to Merrick’s publication that authority to accountants who ask first about po‐ markets itself as “original stories by America’s tential sales rather than literary content. Pub‐ best women writers.” Baratz‐Logsted’s collection lishers are also customizing books and running of seventeen female chick lit writers celebrates the very smallest quantity that they can. Charles the genre that does engage women with contem‐ Melcher, founder and president of Melcher Me‐ porary issues. Well known chick lit writer Jenni‐ dia, a book packager, states, “It reflects a grow‐ fer Weiner notes, “ the best chick lit books deal ing trend in the publishing industry as a whole with race and class, gender wars, and workplace towards creating cheaper widgets. Keeping a dynamics, not just shoes and shopping (Olen, small, focused list is a real asset in this market‐
48 Chick Lit’s Re-Packaging of Plagiarism—Smydra place” (“Content for Hire”, 2000). Chick lit deadlines all in the name of huge financial gain. printing runs counter to this trend, however— Rather than having an editor assist and guide a many chick lit books initial print runs are at reader through the creative process, book pack‐ 100,000 (Smiley, 2006). agers act as a medium between the entities of author and publisher and are involved in many Chick lit sales have encouraged publishers to facets of the process, including helping to shape increase their efforts. Requesting sequels to best the content to fit the genre’s formulaic marketing sellers, publishers hope to attract even greater criteria. How much they shape or reshape the market shareg by usin bright colors, mostly pink content, however, is at the heart of the argument and chartreuse green, and images of scantily surrounding the validity of chick lit as a legiti‐ dressed women who are shopping or a picture of mate genre. a high‐heeled shoe on the cover. Many publish‐ ing houses have even created imprints solely de‐ The legitimacy of both the chick lit genre and voted to the publication of chick lit, including the chick lit writer are suspect because of the Harlequin’s Red Dress Ink, and Simon & Schus‐ growing influence that packagers have over pub‐ ter’s Downtown Press and Kensington’s Stra‐ lishers. Because they have the ability to take pless (Gyenes, 2006). large financial risks and to be more selective about what of projects they assume, book pack‐ Bookstores are rethinking the placement of agers have able to streamline the publishing books as well. Most bookstores sell several chick process by creating literary assembly lines. To lit and romance novels, but they are not shelved in this end, chick lit has become another media their respective categories. Instead some stores niche that book packagers are trying to fill. Yet have shifted the books to a weekend fiction sec‐ at the same time, book packaging strategies are tion. According to one bookseller, ʺWhen we had a leading the publishing industry down a deleteri‐ romance section, we dnever sol anything out of it. ous path in addition to altering the cultural But after adding some lighter weight fiction, ro‐ framework that exists for readers of texts. mance was mixed together with some fiction and moved across from mysteries and thrillers. People Readers have some expectations of originality are not embarrassed to buy bodice rippers when as they move from book to book and genre to theyʹre not in the romance section” (“Holiday genre. However, savvy readers also understand hum”, 2005). that in most cases, originality in certain formulaic
fiction genres is minimal. New Yorker writer Mal‐ The Changing Cultural Framework colm Gladwell notes that the lack of creativity and originality is inherent in the chick lit genre Viswanathan’s case offers an interesting oppor‐ itself. He goes on to note that Viswanathan’s tunity to reflect on many challenging issues in‐ behavior is “acceptable in light of the genre itself volved with the case surrounding the publication and how it produces on purpose, cookie cutter of her book How Opal Mehta Got Kissed, Got Wild, characters that appeal to mass readers of women and Got a Life. Even though book packagers have who are lost in the struggle of trying to figure out been in business for some time, the questionable what it is they exactly want” (Gladwell.com). strategies that Alloy and other marketing firms This misperception, however, that readers do not employ in creating chick lit fiction continue to take issue with creativity and originality is prob‐ alter traditional roles of publishers and authors. lematic. Are readers concerned only with final Why publishers outsource their material to pack‐ product? Have they become so disillusioned agers is easy to ascertain: Packagers do it all. with media hype that they care little for the crea‐ They search for writers, develop story lines, edit tive process itself? For most readers and writers, the manuscripts, design the covers, and meet the process still does matter Writers adhering to
49 Plagiary 2007 a genre’s formula is one thing, but influencing Content for hire. (2000). Publishing Trends. Re- the cultural framework where readers do not trieved May 23, 2007 from
Viswanathan’s case, a text patched together with Donadio, R. (2006, March 19). The chick-lit pan- passages of other writers’ work—is quite an‐ demic. The New York Times. Retrieved May 19, other. 2006 from
Viswanathan’s case of plagiarism is far more EPM’s profiles of the entertainment consumer. complicated and nuanced than first depicted by (2006). Publishing Trends. Retrieved May 23, the media as a simple case of an author borrow‐ 2007 from
Chick-Lit. (2006). Wikipedia. Retrieved July 6, Harvard plagiarism scandal exposes modern-day 2006 from
50 Chick Lit’s Re-Packaging of Plagiarism—Smydra
Hulbert, A. (2006, April 27). How Kaavya got Rich, M., and D. Smith. (2006, April 27). First plot packaged and got into trouble. Slate. Retrieved and character. Then, find an author. The New May 19, 2006 from
Kaavya Viswanathan. (2008). Wikipedia. Retrieved Rich, M., and D. Smith. (2006, April 27). Teen-lit January 20, 2008, from
Litman, J. (2007, August 29). Email to the Author. Shafer, J. (2006, April 26). Why plagiarists do it. Slate. Retrieved May 25, 2006 from
Poser, B. (2006, April 25). In defense of Kaavya Viswanathan. Language Log. Retrieved May 16, 2006 from
51