How Kaavya Viswanathan got rich, got caught, and got ruined

Posted on by

Many of you have already picked up on the story broken by the Harvard Crimson on Sunday. It appears VERY likely that young author Kaavya Viswanathan is a cheat. Her newly released novel, part of a lucrative two-book deal, has several passages that are almost identical to a 2001 novel that examined similar adolescent themes:

A recently-published novel by Harvard undergraduate Kaavya Viswanathan ’08, “How Opal Mehta Got Kissed, Got Wild, and Got a Life,” contains several passages that are strikingly similar to two books by Megan F. McCafferty–the 2001 novel “Sloppy Firsts” and the 2003 novel “Second Helpings.”

At one point, “Opal Mehta” contains a 14-word passage that appears verbatim in McCafferty’s book “Sloppy Firsts.”

Reached on her cell phone Saturday night, Viswanathan said, “No comment. I have no idea what you are talking about.”

McCafferty, the author of three novels and a former editor at the magazine Cosmopolitan, wrote in an e-mail to The Crimson Saturday night: “I’m already aware of this situation, and so is my publisher…” [Link]

Normally I would be skeptical until I heard more about this, but the Crimson has just broken it down to the point where you know how this is all going to end. Her literary career is over. If I were her I would think about falling back on medical school or something real quick. I was thrilled to see a teenage girl that could still write and didn’t use “u” instead of “you,” or “r” instead of “are.” My hopes for the next generation are now completely dashed. Here are just two of the numerous examples of apparent plagiarism cited by the Crimson:

From page 217 of McCafferty’s first novel: “But then he tapped me on the shoulder, and said something so random that I was afraid he was back on the junk.”

From page 142 of Viswanathan’s novel: “…he tapped me on the shoulder and said something so random I worried that he needed more expert counseling than I could provide…”

From page 237 of McCafferty’s first novel: “Finally, four major department stores and 170 specialty shops later, we were done.”

From page 51 of Viswanathan’s novel: “Five department stores, and 170 specialty shops later, I was sick of listening to her hum along to Alicia Keys……” [Link]

<

p>

Reading the Crimson article inspired me to do some investigative blogging of my own and has led me to a fantastic discovery which I would like to reveal first to SM readers (an then later to the world press). Aided by SM staff I have found striking similarities between the novel “How Opal Mehta Got Kissed, Got Wild, and Got a Life,” and the 1982 book Holy Blood, Holy Grail by authors Michael Baigent and Richard Leigh. For example, if you take the name of the main character, “Opal Mehta,” and you rearrange the letters, it gives you the following phrase:

A PALE MOTH

<

p>I think somewhere in Holy Blood, Holy Grail they mention that “a pale moth” is one of the symbols associated with the female divinity, a symbol that was suppressed in the 6th century by the papacy. On a previous post we all wondered why the title character would be named “Opal Mehta” of all things. It makes sense to me now.

Furthermore, I have reason to believe that Kaavya Viswanathan may not even be her real name. Rearranging the letters in her name gives you:

SATAN AWAY ANKH VIVA

Roughly translated this seems to mean that Satan stays away from wherever the Ankh is displayed (the ankh being an ancient symbol that some believe is the precursor to the Christian cross). This again is a theme that Baigent and Leigh discuss in their non-fiction book. Before the Harvard Crimson article I would have just thought that “maybe this is all a coincidence,” and this really is just a book about a teenage girl that she created from her imagination. I am sure that you all agree in light of the evidence that I have just laid out that this is highly unlikely. This girl simply has no conscience.

See related posts: How Opal Mehta Got Kissed, Got Wild, and…, The narcissist principle

414 thoughts on “How Kaavya Viswanathan got rich, got caught, and got ruined”

  1. I’m kind of surprised that her publishers didn’t check for this sort of thing. Especially with a first time author.

    Seriously. And yes, it’s Nan Talese and Oprah time. Publisher’s weekly seems to be providing hourly updates.

  2. I’ve read some of your comments here, and I’ve this to say:

    Anyone who doesn’t see this as a clear-cut case of plagiarism is crazy. Kaavya’s actions are indefensible; she obviously lifted whole sentences and phrases from the other works. One similar phrase, and you could dismiss it. Two similar phrases, and you could dismiss it. But taken collectively, the THIRTEEN examples (so far) given by the Harvard Crimson paint an incriminating picture.

    I can easily imagine Kaavya typing her “Mehta” novel with the other two books open beside her, craftily changing a word or two by using a synonym – changing “Cinnabon” to “Mrs. Fields” and “five stores” into “four” – but keeping the basic narrative of the sentence the same. (And how about her use of “170 specialty stores”? Just a coincidence that both authors chose the same specific number of stores?)

    Furthermore, there’s just too much there – too many instances of plagiarized sentences with the same narrative message – to dismiss this as a mere “homage” to the first author. Yes, one can be influenced by (and even subconsciously emulate) novels that one has read before. But this is so obviously more than that! We’re talking about thirteen example of EXACT WORDING!

    Or are you just defending Kaavya because you too are desi? Take it from a caucasian guy: she’s guilty.

  3. MarkD, Read all the comments. You’re not saying anything that hasn’t been expressed already.

  4. Sorry, I don’t have the time or inclination to read ALL 150 comments posted thus far.

    But the overall theme I was seeing was an almost blind defense for Kaavya, despite the overwhelming evidence of her plagiarism.

  5. Well, read all the goddamn comments before commenting blindly on a ‘overall theme’ then!

  6. markd, we bow to you, white master of all divine knowledge and intellect. thank you for breaking it down for us brownies. we obviously can’t comprehend that kaavya has committed a no-no. thank you. and we most appreciate that you have properly spelled out for us your caucasian-ness, so we can identify the proper shrine to bow to. you are our new demi-god.

    spits a sarcastic loogie and moves on akh thooo!

  7. Or are you just defending Kaavya because you too are desi? Take it from a caucasian guy: she’s guilty.

    Stupid jerk.

  8. markd, we bow to you, white master of all divine knowledge and intellect. thank you for breaking it down for us brownies.

    hilarious!

    Mark, if you don’t have the time to read all the comments (which would be fine if you hadn’t pre-judged how we supposedly feel), don’t make judgements about what we think. Just put in your 2 cents on your stance and move on. Plus, I can’t agree with your assessment of the overall theme or feeling here.

  11. But the overall theme I was seeing was an almost blind defense for Kaavya, despite the overwhelming evidence of her plagiarism.

    wrong thread, jackass. the almost blind defense of her is the post I WROTE. don’t get it twizzy.

  13. Well, I guess it hasn’t been the best day for South Asians because on the heels of Kaavya Viswanathan, the second biggest story in the States today is that Sri Lankan native and former CEO of Computer Associates International (and co-owner of the NY Islanders), Sanjay Kumar, is going to jail for… fraud.

    It’s a nice blockbuster for critics, undoubtedly some will compare the two situations and note that both Kumar and Viswanathan were caught committing a very obvious form of fraud, but one “came clean” and the other “pulled a Clinton.” For some, this will translate into “not only are South Asians dishonest, but also opportunistic because if they can get away with something they will” and for others, the pair will simply fall into some grander category of American sickness that also includes James Frey, Ken Lay, et al. Of course, we all hope that they get lumped into the latter because at least that means they’re “part of” instead of “apart from” America…

    People are going to go wild for awhile and there’s not much we can do except perhaps acknowledge that analyzing & defending Viswanathan gives more representative-importance to the situation than it deserves. True, we are witnessing the birth of a stereotype (“South Asians are the best at everything except lying which means they’re inherently honest, smart people”), but since there are millions of us doing whatever we do the right way, I think we can survive the storm.

    Take it from a caucasian guy: she’s guilty.

    I get it, MarkD’s a lawyer.

  15. Let us be a wee bit considerate here – she is just 18, and what do you expect from her writing? a treatise about after-life? She hasn’t endevored to do that, but has stuck to what she knew, and from the reviews I read, looks like she has done an ok job at that. But that fact doesn’t reduce the pain and angst being generated that not only she has a permanent mark on her ‘writing career’ (if any), she has also brought the worlds doubtful eyes on all south-asian writers (and writers from India in particular) who are already struggling to make it to the worlds eyes. It doesn’t matter whether we are harsh in our statements about her, or whether we patronize her – all it matters is that she has made things messed up (as if it wasn’t already difficult for the south-asians) for budding writers. At the same time, we should not forget that a publisher has had total faith in her writing ability and credentials and has spent $500,000 of his hard-earned money on a teenage writer whose only aim seems to have been to complete this novel and start looking at the cataloges (for Maserati?). Let us not talk about her color (I am colored too). Let us not talk about the fact that she is a female – and let us not talk about the fact that she is in a highly-rated college – all I can say is that she goofed-up for one and all. And how a publisher trusted her so much is beyond my understanding. Let us pray that she gets an another chance to live well, with the right attitude and preseverance, but NEVER to write again and get published – atleast for a profit. Enthusiasm and prodigality are to be appreciated, irrespective of one’s color or gender, but PLAGIARISM, to me is one of the main aspects of an ‘author’ that should NEVER be endured.

  16. Uh, a bit overheated there, Dogday.

    I’m in the wrong thread… Confusing, I was responding to sentiments in the “other” Viswanathan post.

  17. she has also brought the worlds doubtful eyes on all south-asian writers (and writers from India in particular) who are already struggling to make it to the worlds eyes.

    cough bullshit.

  18. After reading this I wonder if I may have been wrong about KV

    Real journalism in these cases must provide this information, and let the reader decide. The list here proves to me that plagiarism occured. The only question now is whether you believe it was “unintentional,” as Viswanathan claims. I’ve been hearing that defense all my life and it has always annoyed me. I think if you believe her, you could also believe that monkeys sitting at typewriters wrote Shakespeare.

    Holy shit. Half the stuff on our website has been written by monkeys on typewriters. Could I have been wrong in my condemnation of her??

    My friend Dan Swanson takes her side, saying that if someone is going to consciously plagiarize, they would go for something obscure. McCafferty wasn’t obscure. Also, he says, the human capacity to memorize is tremendous. “Everyone in the Muslim world knows someone who has memorized the Quran. Children do it.” Points taken. I’m not buying though. I think that’s coddling a criminal; I have no compassion for plagiarists. I think they sweat and lay a book next to the typewriter, and copy. They don’t go into trances.

  19. White girls with asian guys, man. White girls with asian guys. am/wf carrotlover rowan

  20. Kaavya may have copied the entire subject of the McCafferty’s novels. It’s typical bollywood style. Take something that truly inspires you from outside and create your own story based partly or wholly or differently from the original one. Kaavya is an out and out copycat and doesn’t deserve the accolades.

    When she retorts in the interview given to the newspaper ‘The Star-Ledger’ that ‘nothing I read gave me the inspiration’ for the Opal Mehta book thne how can she now apologises that she might have unintentionally may have copied some portions of McCafferty’s novels.

    This is the classic example of an unscrupulous teen who wants attention, glare, success and money at any cost.

    Shame on her. Remove her books from the shelves. Let the readers who stand by originality and creativity boycott her novels.

    Vijay

  21. She did not it intentionally guys! You have to take into consideration the fact that Indians and Asians are extremely smart people. Smart in the sense that they have excellent memory/recall skills. I think that she unintentionly recalled McCafferty’s work.

    Everyone knows that Indians have above average memory skills- this is why they always do well in school, spelling bees, etc. Is it plagarism? Yes, Was it intentional? I truelly don’t think so!

  22. Vijay is on the right track. Shame, shame, shame on her. I’m not suggesting she be strung up like Mussolini but this is a disgrace.

    Abhi, bang on: she didn’t just internalize — she had McCafferty’s books folded open when she was writing her own. She should be expelled — immediately — if Harvard has any pride and honor. It matters little that it was not a paper for a class. This is about integrity.

    “The psychology of plagiarism is fascinatingly perverse,” wrote Martin Amis, a British novelist, in The Observer, the British Sunday newspaper, in 1980. He was discussing a number of passages in “Wild Oats,” the first novel of American writer Jacob Epstein, which looked to him amazingly like a number of passages in his own “The Rachel Papers” of 1973. “I’m not the victim — Jacob Epstein is the victim. He has victimized himself …”

  23. She should be expelled — immediately — if Harvard has any pride and honor. It matters little that it was not a paper for a class. This is about integrity

    Oh brother. This really is turning into a lynch mob. Get some perpective for goodness sake.

  24. This is disgraceful on every level. That her parents spent vast sums ($30,000 – 40,000) on an outfit that basically did her college application is disgusting to middle-class families with modest incomes but equally smart kids. People who can “buy” application preparation will always have the advantage.

    As for someone who plagiarizes a work of creativity, it stands to reason she has plagiarized other things, like school work. Harvard should be scrutinizing everything they have in their hands from her. In addition, they should set precedent and expel her. She has no integrity. I don’t care what her age is. There are honest 17-year-olds out there who know right from wrong, and they aren’t swayed by a half million dollar advance.

    If I were a pundit or a columnist I would immortalize Kaayva as THE TYPE OF PERSON KIDS SHOULD NOT BE…..

  25. She did not it intentionally guys! You have to take into consideration the fact that Indians and Asians are extremely smart people. Smart in the sense that they have excellent memory/recall skills. I think that she unintentionly recalled McCafferty’s work.

    Looks like it skipped a generation in your case, Kiwi. Take your racial supremacy elsewhere, this is a forum for human beings.

  26. That her parents spent vast sums ($30,000 – 40,000) on an outfit that basically did her college application is disgusting

    Maybe it is and maybe it isn’t. What we do know is that the figure in question was under $20,000 which, for a brain surgeon, is affordable and worth investing in a child’s ambitions (or, more to the point, in the parents’ ambitions for their child). If your father had the money, and you were in the same situation, I don’t think they would hesitate.

  27. She should be expelled — immediately — if Harvard has any pride and honor. It matters little that it was not a paper for a class. This is about integrity

    I disagree. If this hungama were for an academic matter, it would be appropriate, but I don’t think we should be so quick to surrender our private lives and what we do with them. By way of example, I used to work for a place, let’s call it Mouse-witz, and they had the nerve to say that if you got so much as a speeding ticket, off the clock, on your own sweet time, you would be disciplined at work (points and paddlings and reprimands and such) because you reflected the values and the brand of “mouse-witz” all 24 hours of your bleeding day. Funny, they didn’t extend the same loyalty when they demanded that all single or un-parenting employees must not take any time off between thanksgiving and new year’s or else they’d be fired…

    Point is, we ALL fuck up, and we just hope to do it in as much privacy as possible. There’s no need to completely ruin her educational opportunities. (but perhaps a cautious mindfulness by Hah-vahd to her submitted essays and such would be preventative…)

  28. she should be expelled because plagiarism is AGAINST THE LAW. she is a hack and a liar and harvard should dispose of her and her book should be pulled without question…not kept in bookstores!!!!!!

  29. Hey, everyone makes mistakes. It’s mind-boggling how judgemental and devoid of compassion people can be. What does this say about society as a whole when we prop up a 17 year old girl, she makes a harmless mistake (she has tried to get in touch with the author, wasn’t defining anyone’s reality and only hurt herself) and we rip her apart like a pack of wolves, a la Oprah. She will be chased by the Hounds of Hell, namely bloggers, but she will get thru this and hopefully learn an important lesson: you have to get up, not give up. Oops, I think I plaigarized that phrase from Clinton’s book, “My Life”. Nothing is original, and for those of you who have shown zero compassion, you will have some very hard tests in front of you to learn that character trait. She just happened to learn it at an early age. You should all be ashamed of yourselves.

  32. she should be expelled because plagiarism is AGAINST THE LAW. she is a hack and a liar and harvard should dispose of her and her book should be pulled without question…not kept in bookstores!!!!!!

    Really? because drinking while intoxicated is also against the law, so is consuming illegal substances, so is shoplifting, so is writing bad checks… were this really the case– that any illegal action on ones personal time would warrant suspension from any educational institution– well, I think we’d see a massive decline in overall educational attendance from 7th grade onward. Realistically, several of our dear recent and past presidents should have never made it to university, by that standard. It is not our place to mete out punishment, especially when none of us are saints. We just never got caught, innit?

  33. There is more:

    At one point in “Sloppy Firsts,” Ms. McCafferty’s heroine unexpectedly encounters her love interest. Ms. McCafferty writes:

    “Though I used to see him sometimes at Hope’s house, Marcus and I had never, ever acknowledged each other’s existence before. So I froze, not knowing whether I should (a) laugh, (b) say something, or (c) ignore him and keep on walking. I chose a brilliant combo of (a) and (b).

    ” ‘Uh, yeah. Ha. Ha. Ha.’

    “I turned around and saw that Marcus was smiling at me.”

    Similarly, Ms. Viswanathan’s heroine, Opal, bumps into her love interest, and the two of them spy on one of the school’s popular girls.

    Ms. Viswanathan writes: “Though I had been to school with him for the last three years, Sean Whalen and I had never acknowledged each other’s existence before. I froze, unsure of (a) what he was talking about, or (b) what I was supposed to do about it. I stared at him.

    ” ‘Flatirons,’ he said. ‘At least seven flatirons for that hair.’

    ” ‘Ha, yeah. Uh, ha. Ha.’ I looked at the floor and managed a pathetic combination of laughter and monosyllables, then remembered that the object of our mockery was his former best friend.

    “I looked up and saw that Sean was grinning.”

  34. priya – thanks for posting that again. It’s hilarious. Are there really Indian people like that? (she asks in complete astonishment, realizing she knows nothing of the desi community in some places, and thank heavens for that).

    PS: I officially don’t care about this topic anymore, but I do have on last little task to complete. Sending my parents a giant bouquet of flowers for not caring whether I went to state school or not.

    PPS: Oh, stop. I’m not hating on anyone! It happened, the spin has spun, some Indians rock, some not so much, in this browns are like everyone else, and uh, yeah. I still don’t care anymore. But that Gawker link was hilarious. Good on Neel.

  36. MD,

    PS: I officially don’t care about this topic anymore, but I do have on last little task to complete. Sending my parents a giant bouquet of flowers for not caring whether I went to state school or not.

    amen, sister.

    PPS: Oh, stop. I’m not hating on anyone! It happened, the spin has spun, some Indians rock, some not so much, in this browns are like everyone else, and uh, yeah.

    double amen.

  37. She did this INTENTIONALLY, in my opinion. Look at all the examples of plagiarism that Crimson has dug up so far, and then tell me that she unintentionally repeated something she’d once read. This isn’t a case of recall, or an homage to McCafferty, or subconsciously copying the style of someone who’s book you’ve read. This was intentional plagiarism.

    Kaavya probably had “Sloppy Firsts” and “Second Helpings” open beside her while she wrote.

  38. Sometimes satire is ineffective when it only serves to reinforce negative stereotypes. This happens when the stereotype in question is of a visible minority the masses know very little to begin with…. i.e. south asians. That satire was in bad taste. The onion writers may not know it, but the writer probably wasn’t south asian.

    I’m glad my experience as a visible minority gives me added, valuable perspective.

  39. I have a feeling Kaavya’s next book will be “unintentionally” borrowing heavily from Jayson Blair’s Buring Down My Master’s House.

  40. 171 · Kiwi on April 26, 2006 09:05 AM · Direct link She did not it intentionally guys! You have to take into consideration the fact that Indians and Asians are extremely smart people. Smart in the sense that they have excellent memory/recall skills. I think that she unintentionly recalled McCafferty’s work.

    Everyone knows that Indians have above average memory skills- this is why they always do well in school, spelling bees, etc. Is it plagarism? Yes, Was it intentional? I truelly don’t think so!

    Hey, Kiwi,

    The FACT that Indians and Asians are extremely smart people? I can name quite a few exceptions, thank you.

    Anyway, if she’s so flippin’ smart and has such a great memory, why didn’t she REMEMBER where the passages in question came from?

    Apologists and reverse racists make me want to puke.

  42. Jeez, I had no idea my earlier post would engender such passionate, smart-alecky, and (sometimes) rude responses.

    For the record: I never labeled anyone a “brownie” – that was your word, not mine. I believe in the inherent worth of all people – of all races, sexes, religions, and sexual preferences; I would never crassly label someone a “brownie.” That just seems rude.

    Also rude were the labels of “stupid jerk” and “jackass” that were thrown my way.

    Lastly, I certainly never asked for anyone to “bow down” to me, a “white master of all divine knowledge and intellect.” That’s just a sarcastic response from crazy-comment-reader. I don’t profess to be any smarter than the rest of the posters here. Reading the first fifty posts, however, I was seeing a lot of defense for Kaavya, which I felt was unjustified. To me, she appears to be guilty as hell. (And I’d say that no matter WHAT her ancestry was.)

  43. MarkD, Why would you assert that the reason that people would defend her is because they are desi? (not true – this is a post for analysis). Would you defend someone just because they were white? Don’t project what you would do on to everyone else.

  44. MarkD:

    Not only are there many posts here denouncing Kaavya, there are quite a few denouncing her viciously. So much so that one of the bloggers started another thread entitled ‘Innocent until Proven Guilty’. Even that one got snowed with people lambasting her. You are letting your own prejudices colour your perception of these discussions. Read them carefully and then come back.

    Btw, never start a sentence with ‘Take it from a Caucasian guy’ if you want to be seen as non-biased. Don’t bring up your race at all. Why should you?

  45. I have been writing short stories and plays ever since my school days and now at 71, I recollect that I was recognized as a somewhat playwright when I was 52. Since then – in the past 20 years – have seen just two more of my plays being staged. As for money, I have not seen anything! Now I realize that if only I possessed a PC and had mastered the “cut and paste” techniques, I could have earned half a million or more 50 years ago!

    Incidentally, I come from the very same South of India from where Ms Kaavya Viswanathan hails and am ashamed – of myself, for not having got my plays to Spielberg levels!

    And please treat all of the above as due to pure jealousy!

  46. i think some of the reaction to MarkD’s comments have been a little harsh and defensive. granted, perhaps he shouldn’t have said “take it from a caucasian guy,” but race and ethnicity cannot be separated from the discussion of this controversy. that’s the reason why there are hundreds of comments on it on SM (a desi-biased blog) as opposed to a few on others (except for the sewers of yahoo). we’re all reacting and over-analyzing this story because most of us are desi. perhaps he should have read all the comments, but given the over-analysis of this controversy, here and elsewhere, and discussion (and a good one at that) of all aspects – did she, didn’t she, perhaps she did it unconsciously, perhaps her packaging company is to blame — it did seem as if the initial reaction here was more biased towards her or more willing to give her some benefit of doubt. now the tide appears to have shifted in the other direction. it’s only natural, when you’re in a minority in another culture, i think, to instinctly be a little defensive and want to know more facts and details and proof that one of your own did something wrong. it happens in india too.

  47. WhoseGod:

    I don’t think you can let MarkD off the hook that easily. His whole tone is very much that of a white knight riding in to shed light for the ignorant.

  48. Reading the first fifty posts, however, I was seeing a lot of defense for Kaavya, which I felt was unjustified. To me, she appears to be guilty as hell.

    Wow, MarkD, my perception is different. The first 20 or so are all “Guilty! Face the consequences!” and then in the next 30 you get maybe 7(?) posts saying “stop with the hate” and a few saying “packaging company may have plagiarized” (which I don’t take as a pro-Kaavya sentiment) and then some argument about categorizing highbrow v. lowbrow fiction, which has nothing to do with Kaavya either way.

    Unless you think the 7 or so posts in the first 50 amount to “a lot of defense for Kaavya?”

    I have to suspect that you came into SM with expectations of seeing us all saying “They’re trying to pull Brown Sista down!” and fit your perceptions to that expectation. Or, maybe you wanted to see us being very harsh and insulting – not just “She’s guilty” but “That entitled &^%! She should be thrown out of Harvard and deported!” You have to recognize that the “harsh” component is not driven by a desire for fairness, but by other factors which have to do with the person commenting, not with what he/she is commenting on.

    And, again referring to the first 50 comments which were made before we had heard anything from Kaavya, what is wrong with saying one wants to hear what she has to say/learn more about the process of writing her book with the packaging company before rushing to assess her crime? Why should anyone feel obligated to immediately set in stone a strong judgmental reaction?

    Ask yourself, what is it you wanted to see from us and why did you want to see it? The answer will tell you more about yourself than about any of us, or Kaavya, or anything.

  49. I have a feeling Kaavya’s next book will be “unintentionally” borrowing heavily from Jayson Blair’s Buring Down My Master’s House.

    oh my god that was funny!

    wipes spit off monitor

  50. For Abhi, Cica, and anyone else who is still interested: More about “Packaging.”

    ““A packager basically serves as both the writer and editor of a book,” Skurnick said in a phone interview. “The advantage for a publishing house is they donÂ’t have to do anything — they donÂ’t have to design the book, they donÂ’t have to think about a conceptÂ…. They can just say, ‘HereÂ’s $80,000 for twelve of these books.Â’ They donÂ’t have to do any of the work.””

    “Skurnick continued, “The impulse at a place like the 17th Street is to have a house voice. There are just reams and reams of stuff thatÂ’s writtenÂ… ItÂ’s unavoidable that certain phrases will be recycled or said in a certain wayÂ… Often what youÂ’ll find is that, itÂ’s not that anyone is copying, itÂ’s just that [these phrases] are the first things a mediocre writer would reach for.””

    “But was Viswanathan the mediocre writer doing the reaching, or were the stock phrases in question implanted, consciously or otherwise, by the professional packagers at 17th Street? Skurnick — who admits to knowing little about the specifics of the case — could not say. She did insist, however, that ViswanathanÂ’s borrowings, if they were hers, would have been almost impossible for editors to catch: “It sounds like the market is geared to a certain type of book, and [17th Street] just worked on that with her, and some stuff slipped though — God knows whyÂ… But I have to say, [as a] teen editor, you just see the same shit over and over again.””

    “In any case, the current scandal might prove just as damaging for 17th Street as for Viswanathan herself. But the payoff was also likely just as enticing. According to Skurnick, if ViswanathanÂ’s contract with the packager was anything like standard ones in the past, 17th Street would have received “a healthy chunk” of the authorÂ’s reported $500,000 advance. How much? Up to half, plus a cut of royalties. Packaging may not be well known, but itÂ’s a big business.”