On the other hand, if Ms. McCafferty had actually become ‘hard nosed’ about it, I am willing to wager that she would have gotten worse publicity than the plagiarist! She would have been called ‘unforgiving’ and ‘intolerant’ and even ‘greedy’ for defending her property (remember, ‘owning’ anything is a sin, unless, of course, it is in the ‘politically correct’ sense such as ‘owning one’s body’). No, Ms. McCafferty was one smart cookie when she decided to play it down. She at least remains the victim in the matter. Had she determined to make an example of the ‘author’ in question, the victim status would have reverted to the sinner rather than the person sinned against.

As far as persons who – for whatever reason – use and misuse the work of others, again I am of the opinion that these people know that the ONLY ‘wrong’ nowadays is getting caught. In fact, a smart plagiarist or any other type of crook (and that’s what these people are – crooks!) receives a sort of ‘wink, wink, nod’ from a public that should be aghast at the acts involved and condemnatory towards those who commit them. But being dishonest is now something that falls into a sort of ‘boys will be boys’ category (whatever the sex of the offender) which denotes actions that while they are in fact ‘naughty’, are not all THAT bad and are to be expected in this life anyway. Those who speak out against them strongly are often told by the institutions of the culture to ‘get over it’ and ‘move on’. I am reminded of Herman Melville’s point as spoken by Captain Ahab when he asks Starbuck about where one goes for justice ‘…when the Judge Himself is called before the bar…”

It’s sad, really.

V. P.