tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7490741548532838419.post9049810168914256469..comments2023-12-19T11:35:51.506-05:00Comments on horzepa: plagiarize this!Stan Horzepahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13789680159370812959noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7490741548532838419.post-16776936462189041582006-04-27T22:54:13.000-04:002006-04-27T22:54:13.000-04:00Goodwin's case illustrates how difficult it is...Goodwin's case illustrates how difficult it is to accurately write about history, preserving the essence of the moments you're illuminating without simply regurgitating the account of those there or at least "closest" to the action. History is best told when it is more than dates and event, more than wooden pieces moved about on a board; history is best when it conveys the moods of the protagonists and the emotions of the effected.<br><br>Assuming sources are appropriately cited through footnotes or endnotes, as Goodwin seems to have done, we then come to the crux of this issue generating so much bile in your post: if the essence of the moment is lost through paraphrasing thought sufficient to deflect plagiarism accusations, has history, or the reader, been served?<br><br>My concern here is simple: if we put a ridiculously high bar on historical works for plagiarism one of two things will happen: (a) either the works will begin to look more like the results from a database search with element-after-element simply presented wholesale, carefully attributed to its source with an iron-clad mechanism worthy of an accounting firm, entirely absent of the story-telling flow and composition that makes history texts digestible, or (b) works will be "rewrites" of history, where authors not only take license with wording for convenience sake, but are nearly compelled to blur the crisp recounting of the past, substituting instead the meager approximation of the moment to ensure nothing written is so close to the truth as could be considered stolen.<br><br>Nobody here is defending any practical definition of plagiarism; Goodwin certainly isn't. Neither am I defending any particular passages in "The Fitzgeralds and the Kennedys" as "too close" or "not too close" to previous works. Too much has been written on this already, mostly hearsay, without any personal investment to discover the truth for themselves. Instead, I simply caution that it would be ironic if our intent was to make history text better and our actions, instead, made them worse.<br><br>The outrage expressed here seems excessive. Goodwin may not have been as repentant on this as some may have wished. Harvard student Kaavya Viswanathan, author of "How Opal Mehta Got Kissed, Got Wild, and Got a Life" had lifted prose accidentally from Megan McCafferty's "Sloppy Firsts", but was not met with the ferocity of criticism aimed at Goodwin, a fact I attribute at least partially to her immediate and unreserved admission to the error. In our culture, the perpetrator’s treatment relates as much to his handling of the accusation as to the initial crime.<br><br>Goodwin's case is different than many others, including Barnacle's. Had Barnacle carefully footnoted his liftings from George Carlin's book "BrainDroppings", perhaps a reasonable comparison could be made. Barnacle's other works were also suspect for other reasons, including stealing works from Mike Royko, making up people and quotes, and more. Goodwin's work has never been accused of this level of misconduct.<br><br>As someone who has spent some time writing, I agree that the highest-level of conduct should be expected, but such conduct must be within a context that makes sense and within limits that help produce good work rather than preclude it. <br><br>My 2-cents. Refunds upon demand.<br><br>-- Scott<br><br><br>For a somewhat dispassionate retrospective, see here: http://hnn.us/articles/590.html:B. Scott Andersennoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7490741548532838419.post-18005157272266446812006-05-12T05:44:35.000-04:002006-05-12T05:44:35.000-04:00Now where have I read this b4 :-)Now where have I read this b4 :-)Profhttp://www.penthouse.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7490741548532838419.post-72847174436596586072008-03-05T17:11:26.000-05:002008-03-05T17:11:26.000-05:00the insurance companies don't want you to know...<strong>the insurance companies don't want you to know...</strong><br><br>Information on the life insurance industry...Life Insurance bloghttp://http:/otc-stock-picks.infonoreply@blogger.com