|
Thank you both for clarifying this, and for posting the sources.
I would never condone plagiarism, and you are right to draw attention to these allegations. But I have say that, even though I now know about this, it does not detract from my enjoyment of the Lincoln book nor of the value that I obtained from it.
That said, I might think twice before reading her Kennedy book, which is the one that the allegations referred to - although I gather from the article in Time that the plagiarism was corrected in later editions.
I wonder if it's right to condemn an entire work of this size, based on ten years of research and a study of thousands of documents, just because the author "inadvertently" confused her own notes with verbatim copies from her sources. (I put "inadvertently" in quotes because we only have her word for that.)
By the way, the Wikipedia article that you referenced appears to give a balanced account of the controversy (as far as I can judge). But I felt that the Slate article was a little over the top - especially the statement that she "paid hush money to one of the people she plagiarized". There is surely a difference between voluntarily compensating someone for a mistake that you made (possibly to avoid legal action) and paying "hush money". But I won't press the point.
Mike
|