Team of Rivals

[Mike L]

For anyone interested in US history - especially the Civil War - who hasn't yet read Team of Rivals by Doris Kearns Goodwin, I can strongly recommend it.

It is essentially a political biography of Abraham Lincoln, in the context of the careers of the three politicians who were his rivals for the Republican presidential nomination in 1860 (all three of whom later became members of his cabinet).

I have read half a dozen or so books about Lincoln, the American Civil War, and the emancipation movement over the last two or three years. This was definitely the best. I was genuinely sorry to finish it.

Amazon have a Kindle edition for US$11.99.

Mike

[issybird]

I will never, ever read anything written by a plagiarist, much less buy something she's written.

I'm sorry; I know your recommendation is based on the book's merits, but this is a hot-button issue for me. I'm quite sure Goodwin no longer plagiarizes, but she's lost her credibility for all time with me.

[Mike L]

I will never, ever read anything written by a plagiarist, much less buy something she's written

This is news to me. It would be very helpful if you could explain it.

Mike

[Section8]

It's covered in her wikipedia article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doris_...sm_controversy

[issybird]

I think this Slate Magazine piece is particularly illuminating.

[Mike L]

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

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by Mike L

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

I agree with you. I read the book back when it first came out and enjoyed it. In general, things like plagiarism aren't nearly as black and white as people make them out to be. Writing a book that takes years of research is a more complex task than many realize. She's not the first to have these problems and I doubt she will be the last. As long as it's not a pattern of behavior, I willing to write it off as a mistake and simply enjoy a well written book.

[issybird]

I think the Wikipedia article underplays the seriousness of what happened.

A few quick points. It wasn't a voluntary payment, it was a legal settlement with stipulations including the one that the author couldn't reveal the amount or discuss the case in depth - which is why it was kept under wraps until the Standard broke the story much later.

The Kennedy book has not corrected the plagiarism. Additional footnotes were added plus a note acknowledging the debt to the earlier work, but no quotation marks were added to the lifted material, as it would have meant rewriting the book from scratch. That also was part of the settlement.

The bottom line for me is that Goodwin has always downplayed her culpability. She knew better (she's a Harvard PhD) and it was her responsibility. I'd feel different about her had she manned up and said, essentially, "I screwed up. I know better, it is a serious matter, and it's all my fault."

[issybird]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

I agree with you. I read the book back when it first came out and enjoyed it. In general, things like plagiarism aren't nearly as black and white as people make them out to be. Writing a book that takes years of research is a more complex task than many realize. She's not the first to have these problems and I doubt she will be the last. As long as it's not a pattern of behavior, I willing to write it off as a mistake and simply enjoy a well written book.

I think in this case it is black and white. Huge portions were essentially copied. Yes, it's a complex task, but that's the job. And I think one reason the problem will keep recurring is that people only get their wrist slapped if caught. Frequently a minor author doesn't have the means to take on a behemoth in addition.

As for Goodwin, evidence of plagiarism was found in another book, too, but AFAIK, the case wasn't pursued.

[Catlady]

I'm pretty much with issybird on this. Plagiarism is the cardinal sin for an author. How can I as a reader trust someone who lies to me by presenting someone else's words as her own? The best-case scenario is that it indicates sloppiness, but that's not acceptable either.