Debut author gets caught plagiarising an entire novel

[prisonermonkeys]

I've been following this story for a while (I'm actually a member of the forum that first picked up on it, though I played no part in exposing it), and I've noticed it went viral overnight:

Mulholland Books pulls 'Assassin of Secrets' over copied passages
Mulholland Books, an imprint of Little, Brown, has pulled its novel "Assassin of Secrets" after passages were found to be copied from other spy novels. The book was a first novel from Q.R. Markham. The paperback original was published Nov. 3.

In a statement, Michael Pietsch, executive vice president and publisher of Little, Brown and Co., said: "Upon investigation, it was clear the passages in question were lifted, and Little, Brown determined that the only course of action was to immediately recall books from retailers across the country."

The passages in question, which were not shared with the press, were lifted from James Bond books by Ian Fleming and thrillers by Robert Ludlum and Christopher McCrary, the Associated Press reports.

In October, Markham wrote an essay for the Huffington Post titled, "9 Ways That Spy Novels Made Me a Better Bookseller." Markham wrote that he writes under a pen name and that he is co-owner of Spoonbill & Sugartown Booksellers in Brooklyn. In his essay, he wrote, "Once I'd gotten into the mindset of a Cold War-era superspy, it was hard to leave. I began to notice certain similarities between my day job and my night-time work. I found myself not only making decisions the way Chase would, but recognizing where the methodology came from, whether it be Ian Fleming's M., Le Carre's George Smiley, or Nicholas Hel's Go teacher." Markham's tumblr has also been taken down.

In the statement from Little, Brown, Pietch said, "We take great pride in the writers and books we publish and tremendous care in every aspect of our publishing process, so it is with deep regret that we have published a book that we can no longer stand behind. Our goal is to never have this happen, but when it does, it is important to us to communicate with and compensate readers and retailers as quickly as possible."

The company will give full credit to wholesalers who return the book, and it has asked consumers to seek refunds for the book from the retailer where they bought it.

I've also found this, which shows just how extensive the plagiarism was, as well as the thoughts of two authors who were duped by Rowan, Jeremy Duns and Duane Swierczynski.

I can't believe that this guy was stupid enough to fabricate an entire novel by copying and pasting large tracts of over a dozen novels with only minor alterations, much less splice it all into a coherent whole that was good enough to attract the attention of publishing houses.

 

[Joey D]

He probably should have just copied James Patterson or anything new by Steven King, there isn't an original thought between the two and I doubt anyone would have ever noticed.

I would like to read the book in question mainly because I am curious how a story slapped together from other books is. I honestly can't imagine it's all that great as he manage to make already unoriginal spy novels into an entirely unoriginal book based on other text. I would be a pretty interesting literary study.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

He probably should have just copied James Patterson or anything new by Steven King, there isn't an original thought between the two and I doubt anyone would have ever noticed.

I rank Patterson up there with Dan Brown and Stephenie Meyer - so bad, that you wonder how they ever managed to get published (much less popular) in the first place.

I'm bemused as to how Rowan thought he would get away with it, but as I read more, I don't think he ever intended to "get away with it" at all:

I think he 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 managed to track down some comments from him that appear to be the only original thing he has said or written. He was working in a book store, and started to come into contact with writers. I think he felt like he belonged in that world, that he should have been the one writing books instead of selling them, and that he did not see that much difference between himself and the writers. 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, seeing as they had all influenced him in some way and in plagiarising from them, 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 (even the title sounds like something a thirteen yar-old would think is cool) 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.

I would like to read the book in question mainly because I am curious how a story slapped together from other books is. I honestly can't imagine it's all that great as he manage to make already unoriginal spy novels into an entirely unoriginal book based on other text.

According to Jeremy Duns, the story wasn't that good. He said it was something of a "greatest hits" edition, where Rowan had taken several popular or frequently-used plot threads and put them together. And it shows; this is the blurb, taken from Amazon:

An elite spy risks his biggest asset to defeat an insidious international organization hell-bent on selling the most sensitive state secrets to the highest bidder.

Jonathan Chase, the CIA's top field agent, is sworn to protect and serve the United States at all costs. But after a brutal period of captivity during the Korean War, Chase developed an agenda of his own: to use his mastery of war to create peace.

His new target: the Zero Directorate, a cabal of rogue assassins who have embarked on a campaign to systematically interrogate and kill seasoned secret agents from across the globe.

But the Directorate has set an elaborate trap, and for Chase the whole mission involves an inescapable paradox. As the world's preeminent operative, the closer he gets to the cabal, the closer the cabal gets to their primary target.

There's at least four different plot threads, and two of them contradict one another.

 

[Omnis]

Look out for his next book, The Hunt for Her Majesty's Secret Identity.

 

[CMvan46]

God the fact that he could take that many pieces and put it together into something that made sense and passed through publishing is utter genius. The fact he thought he'd get away with it is pure stupidity.

Pretty embarrassing for that publishing company.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

The fact he thought he'd get away with it is pure stupidity.

Like I said, I don't think he saw it as "getting away with it", because that would imply he was doing something wrong. According to a writer who was at a panel with Rowan, he came across as pretentious and arrogant, as if he expected the audience to respect and admire him because he was "an author" despite the fact that no-one had actually read his book at the time.

Pretty embarrassing for that publishing company.

It's not the first time this has happened, either - their parent company published a book called How Opal Matha Got Kissed, Got Wild and Got a Life back in 2005-06 that was shown to be plagiarised.

 

[DK]

He should have chosen to plagiarise something less mainstream. *puts on hipster glasses*

 

[Pupik]

I rank Patterson up there with Dan Brown and Stephenie Meyer - so bad, that you wonder how they ever managed to get published (much less popular) in the first place.

I'm bemused as to how Rowan thought he would get away with it, but as I read more, I don't think he ever intended to "get away with it" at all:

I think he 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 managed to track down some comments from him that appear to be the only original thing he has said or written. He was working in a book store, and started to come into contact with writers. I think he felt like he belonged in that world, that he should have been the one writing books instead of selling them, and that he did not see that much difference between himself and the writers. 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, seeing as they had all influenced him in some way and in plagiarising from them, 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 (even the title sounds like something a thirteen yar-old would think is cool) 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.

According to Jeremy Duns, the story wasn't that good. He said it was something of a "greatest hits" edition, where Rowan had taken several popular or frequently-used plot threads and put them together. And it shows; this is the blurb, taken from Amazon:

There's at least four different plot threads, and two of them contradict one another.

God the fact that he could take that many pieces and put it together into something that made sense and passed through publishing is utter genius. The fact he thought he'd get away with it is pure stupidity.

Pretty embarrassing for that publishing company.

Look out for his next book, The Hunt for Her Majesty's Secret Identity.

Like I said, I don't think he saw it as "getting away with it", because that would imply he was doing something wrong. According to a writer who was at a panel with Rowan, he came across as pretentious and arrogant, as if he expected the audience to respect and admire him because he was "an author" despite the fact that no-one had actually read his book at the time.

It's not the first time this has happened, either - their parent company published a book called How Opal Matha Got Kissed, Got Wild and Got a Life back in 2005-06 that was shown to be plagiarised.

He should have chosen to plagiarise something less mainstream. *puts on hipster glasses*

He probably should have just copied James Patterson or anything new by Steven King, there isn't an original thought between the two and I doubt anyone would have ever noticed.

I would like to read the book in question mainly because I am curious how a story slapped together from other books is. I honestly can't imagine it's all that great as he manage to make already unoriginal spy novels into an entirely unoriginal book based on other text. I would be a pretty interesting literary study.

...flattery.

 

[Omnis]

Woah, your quote tags disappeared or something.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

God the fact that he could take that many pieces and put it together into something that made sense and passed through publishing is utter genius.

Not necessarily. According to Jeremy Duns, one of the authors who was mislead, Rowan plagiarised large sections of the books he stole from. First of all, about half a dozen James Bond continuation novels by Raymond Benson and John Gardner were used. It would appear that these formed the basis of the plot - Benson wrote a mini-series called "The Union Trilogy", that pitted Bond against an organisation known as The Union, while Gardner had Bond facing the remains of SPECTRE. Rowan's story had his protagonist, Jonathan Chase, squaring off with an organisation called "Zero Directorate". In fact, all four plot threads described in the Amazon blurb can be traced back to four of the Bond continuation novels. As for the other half-dozen authors whose work was plagiarised, they all appear to have served particular functions: one, Charles McCarry, was used for the protagonist's backstory. Another one or two were used for descriptions, mostly to establish the time period. The rest were used for dialogue. So while Rowan did splice a dozen novels together, he really just lined similar parts up with one another rather than weaving them into each other.

He should have chosen to plagiarise something less mainstream. *puts on hipster glasses*

This is Quentin Rowan:

Note the black-and-white filter, semi-tinted wayfarers, and exotically-shaped and out-of-focus building in the background.

Now, compare that to portraits of other authors in the same genre:

Matthew Reilly

Raymond Benson

Robert Ludlum

Jeffrey Deaver

Notice a recurring theme here? All of them are set in fairly neutral environments (lie Deaver), or envionrments that are natural for the author (like Reilly - almost all of his portraits are in his wrokspace). There are no filters or fancy camerawork.

 

[Rich S]

SO WHAT...this author simply made a mondernistic Collage. Its artistic.

 

[Northstar]

They should make a movie of it that is just a bunch of clips from different spy films.

 

[DK]

This is Quentin Rowan:

Note the black-and-white filter, semi-tinted wayfarers, and exotically-shaped and out-of-focus building in the background.

He looks sorta like David Mitchell (British comedian) IMO.

 

[Tornado]

Wait, wasn't there a movie or something where this happened?

 

[Pupik]

Wait, wasn't there a movie or something where this happened?

That movie was a remake of another movie.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

http://readersentertainment.com/201...n-of-secrets-faces-massive-plagirism-charges/

Rowan talked about being “disillusioned” by the success of other “wunderkind authors” from Brooklyn like Jonathan Safran Foer, and how working in a local bookstore made him feel like part of the literary scene, but also somehow not—presumably because, at the end of the day, they were celebrated writers, and he was just the guy behind the counter, selling their books. (Which is pretty sad, if it’s true; I know other writers who work at bookstores in Brooklyn, and they’re not anywhere near so insecure about themselves.) “There was a bunch of books by people who were technically my peers that felt showy and one-note,” Rowan added, before noting that he had basically written a thriller for the money.

With the benefit of hindsight, it’s hard not to see in comments like these a thinly-veiled contempt for the book world. Here’s a guy with so much resentment over the success of other writers that he flat out tells a reporter he was willing to “dumb it down” if that’s what it took to get a book deal. Did Rowan take that attitude even further? That is, was he so convinced that the big, commercial publishers are stupid and venal that he could sell them a book filled with other people’s prose and they’d be too ignorant to notice?

 

[AMCNUT]

If I'm that author, I'd have to think that someone was going to catch on at some point - he'd have to be either incredibly ignorant or stupid in that case! Just sad what lengths some people will go to in order to try and 'make it'.

 

[Villain]

...flattery.

Well played, sir.