 |
| "Q.R. Markham." (Photo courtesy The Mysterious Bookshop.) |
Last Wednesday night I was sitting in an Irish pub not far from the World Trade Center site, unwinding after a joint appearance at The Mysterious Bookshop. To my left was novelist Lawrence Block, one of my writing heroes. At one point our ultra-nerdy conversation turned to legendary thriller writer Robert Ludlum. Little did I know that within a week the person sitting to my right, Quentin Rowan, would be accused of plagiarizing material from Ludlum. As well as many other writers, including Ian Fleming, James Bamford, John Gardner, Geoffrey O'Brien and Charles McCarry.
News broke yesterday that Rowan, writing under the psuedonym "Q.R. Markham," lifted huge chunks of other books to cobble together his debut, Assassin of Secrets. Edward Champion, over at his blog Reluctant Habits, found more than two dozen instances of obscene plagiarism in the first 35 pages alone.
The whole affair leaves me feeling embarrassed, puzzled, and more than a little angry. Why?
Because I blurbed the fucking thing.
I blurbed it because I was given an early peek at the manuscript, and I liked it very much. I thought it fused modern Bourne-esque spy action with a classic, old-school feel. Only, I had no idea how "old school" the novel truly was.
As I read it, nothing jumped out at me and screamed "plagiarism." Of the works Markham/Rowan apparently stole from, I've only read James Bamford's Body of Secrets: Anatomy of the Ultra-Secret National Security Agency, and I'm not one to memorize passages from a nonfiction book I read nearly 10 years ago. This is not an excuse; this is just letting you know why no alarm bells went off. When reading a novel for blurb purposes, I'm almost never thinking, Gee wonder if this guy ripped off anyone I've ever read...
But still, I'm mortified to be associated with this Frankenstein-ish heist job of a novel. If you purchased this book because of my blurb, I offer my sincere apologizes. Please return it immediately (you're still within most bookstores' two-week return window) and use your store credit to buy a Ludlum, Gardner, Fleming, or McCarry novel. Or Bamford's truly excellent Secrets. Or Geoffrey O'Brien's brilliant Fall of the House of Walworth, which I read (and loved) just last week.
I'm puzzled because I have no idea why Markham/Rowan thought he could get away with it. The guy's not just stealing a cool image here and there; as Champion has detailed, Markham/Rowan lifted huge, huge slabs of text. You could make the postmodern/pastiche argument, I suppose, but wouldn't a literary genius have the sense to let his editor and publisher in on the gag?
Nah, I'm pretty sure he was just stealing.
Which brings me to the anger part. I met Markham/Rowan briefly at the Mulholland Books party at Book Expo America this past spring, but didn't see him again until last Wednesday, when I chatted with him and his mother right before the event. At least, Markham/Rowan claimed that sweet woman was his mother. Who's to say?
Anyway... I'm angry because I can't help but think about what was going through his mind. Was he secretly laughing because he'd managed to dupe everybody in the room, from readers to editors to fellow writers to booksellers? Was he ticking down the moments until he was exposed... thinking that it might even be that very night? What was he thinking as he signed his name to those first copies, knowing that so many of the words beneath the title page belonged to other people?
Then again, Rowan wasn't even signing his own name.
37 comments:
What an unfortunate fucking mess.
Thanks for giving us your unique perspective on this, Duane.
It's unfortunate, and also interesting, since it now appears this person was pulling the same kind of jive almost ten years ago.
Honestly, I don't think anyone would hold a blurb against you, Duane, or anyone else. It's not like under your name it reads "Spy Fiction Expert" or something.
I do think the people who caught the plagiarism should all be given editing gigs, if they want them.
You know what? I feel terrible for the guy, because I sincerely doubt he did it on purpose. It is SO incredibly easy - especially when you have read something over and over again - to do something like this. He's obviously a book lover because he works in a bookstore, and a debut novel... It's supposed to be about the most exciting thing in your life.
I'd be interested to see a side-by-side comparison.
Kaavya Viswanathan, for instance-- there was a LOT of plagiarism there.
If this time it was just a few passages, then I truly do feel this pang of sadness for the guy, because I do bet it's an accident. That's so devastating.
This guys really pisses me off. Not just because of the plagiarism bullshit, but because he's fucking with the goodwill of other people. People I happen to respect and like. Jesus, what an asshole.
What's truly amazing is just how much he was copying and how little of it was changed. Huge blocks of text almost word for word.
Great last line, by the way.
Just saw Kent's comment. Hmm. What happened ten years ago?
That could change my opinion.
Good piece, the first personal piece I've read about the plagiarism that has become routine these last few years. Commentary in such matters tends to consist of excuse-making and lofty theorizing.
It will be interesting to see what Rowan says in his inevitable interviews and television appearances (if a thriller, even one built on lies and theft, generates that much interest).
======================
Detectives Beyond Borders
"Because Murder Is More Fun Away From Home"
http://www.detectivesbeyondborders.blogspot.com/
If you follow the link in Duane's blog, you'll see some of the examples from the novel, as well as other instances. He plagiarized poetry, essays, a real journeyman plagiarist.
Yeah, Anonymous, if you follow the link posted above, you'll see that it's unlikely this was an accident, as Markham/Rowan appearwd to take huge swatches of text from other sources. Also, his works that have been published elsewhere, notably The Paris Review, also seem to have been plagiarized.
And for what it's worth, Duane, man, I feel for you, but don't let it drag you down too much. You took this fuck at his word, and why wouldn't you? And clearly, whatever his intenions, his methods surely backfired on him this time around. The scum also rises.
At least the thieving fuck was a man of letters.
Screw him! Sooner or later everyone gets exactly what they deserve. He lives in a tree and the baboon has been shaken to the ground. Envious that you and Lawrence Block shared space together. When I get through with his When The Sacred Gin Mill Closes, I'm gettin' on your new one, Hell and Gone.
Screw him! Sooner or later everyone gets exactly what they deserve. He lives in a tree and the baboon has been shaken to the ground. Envious that you and Lawrence Block shared space together. When I get through with his When The Sacred Gin Mill Closes, I'm gettin' on your new one, Hell and Gone.
Oops, sorry, Gowran, shoulda let you speak for yourself.
I feel no sympathy for him. It was far too many long passages to be unintentional. And apparently had a history of it. He knew what he was doing. If I wanted to be a fireman, I would train for the job rather than let houses burn down due to my incompetence.
If he had stolen anything else, he would be up on charges.
No worries, Mssr. Callaway.
Anonymous: I hear you, and believe me.... I'd like to think that I'm the last person to throw a fellow writer under the bus. But the examples are too numerous to be mere accident.
Sorry you were sucked into this scam. I read Jeremy Duns blog, too, and he, also, blurbed the book. I just don't get it. Just as hard to plagiarize.. Can you imagine looking for the 'right' passages to copy? Stringing it all together? Why?
Hate to blow your cover--you're a nice guy. You liked the book and blurbed it..
Thanks for your post today. No one holds it against you.
Keep writing your own fabulous books!
What a mess is right, but I think all of us agree that the writers endorsing this novel were doing so with the best intentions, especially regarding a genre that is going to ring "familiar" no matter how original the work. And like Kent said, Duane, nobody with half a brain would hold your blurbing this guy against you.
It seems to me the folks who championed this book, whether blurbers or reviewers, are guilty of nothing more than responding to good writing. The fact that it wasn't the author's own good writing certainly makes him an unethical jackass, but should not reflect poorly on those who sought to give a new writer a helping hand.
The greatest fallout in all this, it seems to me, is the disincentive it creates toward lending that helping hand. No one wants to open themselves up to this kind of scandal. Which means not only did he tarnish the reputation of a damn fine publishing house, and insult some mightily talented writers, editors, and reviewers (not to mention fans) he also managed to salt the earth behind him.
And all because he didn't have an original idea inside his head...
Chris: You know, for a microsecond I said to myself, "That's it. No more blurbing. At least for a while." But the truth is, I truly love singing the praises of writers I admire, from newbies to veterans. I'm not going to let this experience change that.
(Though I might do a Google search or two... ahem...)
Swierczy would never throw anyone under the bus. His book deaths prove he would be much more creative than that.
When I was at University, we did a lot of peer review for scripts we were writing. I saw a few bits of accidental plagiarism. It's obvious that the work the person liked seeped into it. I know I actually avoided watching some films/tv for the express purpose of avoiding that stuff getting into my work. And if there WAS similarity, I would be comfortable enough to say "you know, I've never seen it".
But then there was instances of outright theft. Blatant stuff, though often the writers thought themselves sneaky by stealing from semi-obscure material. And that's disgusting stuff. It always surprised me how people think they can get away with it.
Am I right in thinking the book was published? So it got past at least a handful of people before someone noticed the theft, so don't feel too bad about writing a blurb.
It's a shame, really. I've worked my backside off for years writing stuff, and it's not really gotten me anywhere. This dude copies/pastes chunks and changes a few words, and gets a book out.
Also, some of the comments on that link are hilarious.
"How can any spy novel, or any other type of genre novel, be totally original? Isn’t it possible to view blatant duplication of sentences as a form of irony, an intentional challenge to the obsolete and basically impossible tenets of “originality”?"
"Isn’t the mere re-use of English words previously used by others a form of plagiarism? The only way an author can evade such accusations is to invent a private and personal language of his or her own."
Amazing.
Just out of curiosity Duane, what did you actually think of Markham as a person when you met him at the book signing? I've been following this story with interest since the first mutterings of plagiarism emerged on a fan forum, and these are my thoguhts:
I think Quentin Rowan really wanted to be taken seriously as a spy fiction novellist. And it really feels like he is trying way too hard to get that credibility. After all, his penname is "Q. R. Markham" - and as has been well-documented, "Robert Markham" was the pseudonym Gildrose used for Kingsley Amis' "Colonel Sun", the first Bond novel published after Ian Fleming's death. Given that Rowan plagiarised from many of the Bond continuation novels, I do not think that this is coincidence.
I think that this desire for acceptance might be what motivated Rowan to plagiarise; he wanted to be like his heroes, and he wanted to be like them straight away, rather than working to earn that reputation. No doubt he had some fantasy where the name "Q. R. Markham" would be used in the same sentence as Ian Fleming and John le Carre and Robert Ludlum as a master of the spy fiction genre, probably as their natrual successor; the Fleming/le Carre/Ludlum of the 2010s. Rowan wouldn't have seen what he did as plagiarism; in fact, he probably wouldn't have seen it as being wrong at all. Rather, I think he would have felt it was some kind of tribute to those writers, they had all influenced him in some way, and he was immortalising those influences at the same time as reserving a place for himself in the pantheon of literary greats. That's probably how he was able to carry out the deception for so long that "Assassin of Secrets" was released before the ruse was discovered - because he never actually thought of what he was doing as wrong. It wasn't deviousness that led him to plagiarise, and nor was it laziness. It was just the misguided impression that he could bend reality to fit his desires.
Duane,
No one can or should blame you or even Mulholland for being fooled. It was good writing, like Chris Holm said. It just wasn't Mr. Rowan's.
So, were you at Biddy Early's? Great pub. I go there before Mysterious events. Good burger, great pint, and both for $5 each... in Manhattan that's a steal, sort of like Rowan's book.
I think we had someone who wanted to be a star, and he almost was for a brief moment. And not to be flippant, but with a little more work he could have gotten away with. I remember the brouhaha over Terry Brooks's The Sword of Shannara, which was so derivative of Tolkien that it seemed like he just changed the names. But he didn't cut & paste, he rewrote a very similar tale with his own characters inspired by his favorite book. And we see that sort of "tribute" all the time. If Rowan wasn't a lazy thief, and went the extra mile, he'd have a career reinventing the wheel.
I found Rowan a bit snobbish. He seemed different than the many other writers I've met, from yourself and Megan to Lawrence Block, Daniel Woodrell and Harlan Coben. Y'all were courteous, thankful and humble. "QR Markham" seemed like he felt superior, and now we know it was because he'd pulled a fast one. And thanks to the readers, the final judges, justice was swift.
Duane, you did something very kind for what you thought was a burgeoning writer and he took advantage of you, his publisher and all of his readers. (At least you're in good company!) Thank you for sharing your story, but please don't be embarassed.
You shouldn't feel bad about blurbing this crook, Duane. You had no way of knowing he was a plagiarist. And for all who say he probably didn't mean any harm or it was some kind of tribute--no! If I steal your watch, I mean you harm, and I'm not paying you tribute by wearing it and claiming it as my own. He wanted to be a successful writer, but he didn't want to do the work it takes to be a successful writer, so he stole others' work and passed it off as his own. A thief, pure and simple.
Here's something I wrote about it:
Is Q.R. Markham a Pulp Kathy Acker?
http://dogobarrygraham.blogspot.com/2011/11/is-qr-markham-pulp-kathy-acker.html
Actually, that picture of him says rather a lot: here's a guy whose tongue comes out when he writes his name.
I'm not sure if it's just me or not, but doesn't Rowan look, um, "special"?
Fascinating, but depressing as hell. I have to think he knew he'd be caught eventually.
As it was discovered, I imagine you'd have to be a big fan of the genre, especially Bond to catch the plagiarism. He duped quite a few people, and I honestly believe it was purposeful deceit.
Jeremy Duns was in the same boat, and even felt somewhat of a mentorship. Rowan did send him a brief apology seen here in the comments of a lengthy discussion on the comment. No explanation in the apology, for legal reasons.
http://jeremyduns.blogspot.com/2011/11/highway-robbery-mask-of-knowing-in.html?showComment=1321052132140#c1907432875066305100
I can't imagine what was going through his mind as he sat next to true talent signing his farce of a novel.
Thanks for addressing the issue. If I'd blurbed/reviewed the book, I'd feel as though I'd been taken for a ride. But hey it could be worse--thinking of the Penn State debacle.
Looking forward to Point and Shoot.
As a writer of contemporary thrillers (under pen name Lior Samson), I am angry, too, Duane. Rowan now has fame and will, somehow, almost certainly wrench fortune from his deviousness.
You should not feel bad for being duped into blurbing the book. Rowan duped a lot of people who ought to have known better and had responsibility for more due diligence than you did.
I have proposed elsewhere (Q.R. Markham, Plagiarist) that the literary detectives who exposed Rowan get ironic revenge by publishing their own book, a lterary critique consisting of the Markham novel with citations, credits, and commentary supplied. It would be a best seller. You could write the blurb for it and redeem yourself. :-)
For that matter, if you want to blurb an un-plagiarized work, I have another thriller just finished... :-)
--Larry Constantine (Lior Samson)
Your anger is well placed. You have been cheated. When one's profession/art/trade is impugned like this, it is time to storm the castle and vilify the monster. There is nothing more dangerous than a writer and his pen!
Post a Comment