Publishing Scandals

Well, he seems to be a prisoner. He probably doesn't have anything else to do.

maxell131313 wrote:What on earth did Tony Danza do to insult this guy?

Clearly, he's the boss.

woolhat wrote:

maxell131313 wrote:What on earth did Tony Danza do to insult this guy?

Clearly, he's the boss.

Wait, I thought Angela was the boss.


I would really love to know what the people who had to read that lawsuit, like the courthouse staff or whatever, thought when they saw that come across their desks!

Everyone knows it was Mona.

Oatmeal update: As promised, pictures of the $211,000 and change. He's also made a comment explaining a bit of the "behind the scenes."

Consensus seems to be that he has won the internet.

So Jonah Lehrer made up quotes from Bob Dylan* and plagarized himself and Malcom Gladwell, so now he's resigned from the New Yorker, and his publisher's apparently going to recall Imagine (I doubt they're going to refund all the money they've made so far, though.)

I think this dude's got it all figured out:

Todd Gitlin, a professor of journalism and sociology at Columbia, said in an interview that not only had Mr. Lehrer carved out a career in the popular niche of brain science, but he had created a persona that is perfectly suited to a 21st-century media environment.

“Conjure me up a guy who talks science winningly, who shows you that everything is transparent, and does it in a self-help-y spirit,” he said. “In our age, a guy who looks cute and wonky is better positioned to get away with this than others.”

I also think the folks in various comment sections pointing out that this sort of pop science wasn't very good to begin with do have something of a point, though willfully fabricating quotes and being a lazyass who decides you can get away with not writing new material in the age of Google is another level.

*seriously, why the hell would you make up quotes from anybody with an obsessive fanbase? DUMB.

Hack masquerading as historian David Barton's publisher pulls The Jefferson Lies for "factual inaccuracies."

I read that earlier and thought that it was especially pathetic given it was his own conservative Christian peeps who were all "...no, really this is badly wrong."

Much like Jonah Lehrer manufacturing Dylan quotes and facts, somebody writing made-up stories about Jefferson is just hilarious to me. As much as there are obsessive fans of founding fathers, Jefferson has them. There are whole books (more than one) just about Jefferson and his favorite wines. Whether they love him or hate him or have complicated ambivalent feelings about him, there are many many people that know their stuff. You will get caught.

Maybe this is sad, but it's not even the lying that surprises me. It's the audacity. How can you think you'd get away with making things up about Bob Dylan or Thomas Jefferson? It's not like there isn't already an easily available historical record that contradicts you.

Part of the Jefferson deal with Barton is that there is a whole subgenre of Christians these days that want to believe that not only do we not know everything about what the Founding Fathers truly believed, but it's been willfully hidden by an agenda-driven media and academia (conveniently ignoring their own biases and agendas, of course). Jefferson in particular has been held up by "secularists" as someone who didn't try to found America on a Judeo-Christian basis because he wasn't a "believer," as evidenced by his cut out Jefferson Bible and other issues. So somehow, if Jefferson could be "reclaimed" for Christianity, it would prove that everything that the "secularists" have been saying is wrong. And to that the "celebrity" that Barton has gained because of Glenn Beck and that just feeds more and more into this desire to produce something that will continue that celebrity.

Fareed Zakaria apologizes for plagiarism

As usual, in fact maybe more-so than usual, I wonder how people imagine they won't get caught. The audience for both Zakaria and Lepore must overlap so someone was sure to spot the similarity, and even if not, GOOGLE EXISTS! How have people not caught on to Google's plagiarism-catching powers yet?

GODDAMNIT, NOT FAREED!! I love him. What the hell is WRONG with people? JUST WRITE YOUR OWN SHIT!!

particle_person wrote:Fareed Zakaria apologizes for plagiarism

As usual, in fact maybe more-so than usual, I wonder how people imagine they won't get caught. The audience for both Zakaria and Lepore must overlap so someone was sure to spot the similarity, and even if not, GOOGLE EXISTS! How have people not caught on to Google's plagiarism-catching powers yet?

That's what gets me about this, too (among many other things). If you plagiarize from the New Yorker, someone is going to notice! It's not from an obscure doctoral candidate's dissertation, but the NEW YORKER, for Pete's sake! It's like when my students choose to plagiarize from the very first result they find on Google. This is like cribbing from SparkNotes, Fareed!

My dad (a high school teacher) says the students who are diligent enough to put in the effort to find non-obvious sources to plagiarize from are also the ones who are diligent enough not to plagiarize in the first place.

I'd hope a professional columnist would work harder than a lazy high schooler, but hey. (The only thing I could think of was perhaps bad notetaking and not realizing your "paraphrase" was so close to the source? But again, that's lazy-procrastinating-student-pulling-an-all-nighter level, not "I have a regular column in Time magazine.")

I am currently reconsidering my decision not become a professional writer, though. Apparently my personal standards might be a little too high.

More Amazon review trouble. This time with Emily Giffin.

Wow, I read this yesterday and the post was a lot shorter then. Things have degenerated further.
--
I believe it became personal AFTER the author's husband got involved. That was...not a good idea. I mean, if you are a friend or sig other of an author, you really do them no favors by going on Amazon and calling a reviewer "psycho." And if your sig other DOES that, you have to accept that people are going to post 1-star reviews after that. It's the consequence.

I have an old coworker who went on to be a very successful genre writer after I knew her. She is absolutely, completely the most batshit crazy person I've ever met. But she has never gotten into as much as a peep of an argument with readers online, which really makes me wonder how much MORE crazy all these authors who can't keep their virtual mouths shut are.

I was blown away by her suggestion that the author's response to getting death threats should be to delete her one-star review. REPEATED suggestions that this was the solution. That is so tone-deaf.

Clearly, Emily Giffin and her husband are both in the wrong here but I kind of don't agree with the reviewer who changed her review to 1-star to protest the Giffin's dickish behavior. Obviously, this is not to say that she deserves the abuse and the death threat but she probably should have just left her original review of the book itself alone. Just write a separate blog post if you want to talk about how obnoxious the Giffins are.

Heather wrote:I was blown away by her suggestion that the author's response to getting death threats should be to delete her one-star review. REPEATED suggestions that this was the solution. That is so tone-deaf.

That part made my jaw drop. DEATH THREATS were made. How is that the poster's fault?? No, I don't think she should have changed her review either, especially as the review is supposed to be about the book, not the author's dickish family and friends, but she does have the right to do so. Giffin and her cadre are in the wrong and need to say so immediately, not claim this is all because of the original poster.

I've never read any of Giffin's books before and I certainly won't be starting now.

I have only read Something Borrowed, and I didn't love it. I can't believe that basically the author is saying "SHE DESERVES IT AND I'M NOT OVERREACTING ONE BIT.

I don't think I approve of the star change (just because the stars are supposed to be about the book quality, not the author quality) but I see it as an inevitable reaction to being argumentative with a reviewer online. It may not be morally justified, but it's sure going to happen, and that's why you don't DO that!

I can see how having a negative experience with an author can color your perception of a book, so I don't even have a problem with her changing her review. Emily Giffin is acting like a 12 year old mean girl.

Based on her books since Something Blue, I have LONG thought that Emily Giffin is more of a Darcy than a Rachel (and that is NOT a compliment). I am sooo not surprised that she would do something like this and it makes me happy that I haven't paid for her last few books. Ugh.

(And it's TRUE, nothing since Something Blue has been NEARLY as good as her first 2 books - go back to focusing on female FRIENDSHIPS which is what made those first 2 so special).

The initial review which set off everything was pretty mild. She was disappointed with the book and all her comments were about the book. I have no idea how Giffin's husband saw a personal attack on Giffin herself in that review. I also like how Giffin pointedly says she's not reading the reviews on Amazon yet keeps bringing up those very reviews--seems disingenous to me in a "I'm not one to gossip BUT" sort of way.