I well remember the sudden epidemic of plagiarism and scandals amongst respected historians in late 2001 and early 2002. Giants seemed to fall, some of my favorites. Stephen Ambrose, for example. Joseph Ellis was caught up in a scandal as well. What was up? Lengthy articles were written about the tendency of these big-wig historians to use a team of research assistants to do the grunt work … Hence, a lot of the times the writer will incorporate someone else’s words into his book, without even knowing it. Since he did not do the grunt work himself. This was a revelation to the public, as I recall: that these favorite books, these best-sellers, were basically written by a team, with one author’s name affixed. Etc.
I find this all very interesting. My teachers in high school put the fear of GOD into me, in terms of plagiarizing, and proper credit being given to every single quote. Plagiarism was seen as a big BIG deal. I wonder now if this is not so much the case? It must be way harder to even monitor plagiarism in the classroom, because of all the Internet research that goes on, etc. I remember huddling over little dog-eared card catalogs in the university library, painstakingly writing down author, publishing house, date, yadda yadda.
And so suddenly – all of these GIANTS of thet field were busted.
Anyway, a book has been written about all of this by Peter Hoffer, who is an adviser to the American Historical Association. His specialty is the plagiarism of historians. The book is called Past Imperfect: Facts, Fictions, Frauds – American History From Bancroft And Parkman To Ambrose, Bellisles, Ellis, And Goodwin. It sounds terrific and I have to read it.
Hoffer goes into in-depth the entire Michael Bellesiles debacle – anyone remember THAT one? Bellesiles wrote a book called Arming America – which was hailed by his fellow historians as ground-breaking, blah blah blah, it won prestigious prizes, etc. And then it was revealed that it was all a fiction. Completely made up. His conclusions were based on fantasy research, and madeup numbers. The buzz on that one has not died down yet.
If this topic interests you at all (historical accuracy, research techniques, and also the understandingly difficult task of separating YOUR work from another’s) … the Wilson Quarterly has an extensive article up right now, about this new book, and about plagiarism. Well worth reading.
I’m gonna have to pick up Past Imperfect. A fascinating topic.
funny you should mention this. a reporter at the Worcester, MA Telegram and Gazette stands accused of plagiarizing a writer from Sports Illustrated this week.
http://www.regrettheerror.com/2005/02/plagiarism_at_t.html
Well, Bellesiles is separate from the others though probably another symptom of the same malady. After all, “making shit up” (a la Stephen Glass or Jayson Blair, too) isn’t plagiarism, though they’re both completely inexcusable. As you know, I was a history major before law school, and just can’t express how strongly I feel about this. For a historian or a journalist to do either of these should rightfully make them persona non grata. Forever: no second chances.
I know Bellesiles is separate, Dave J. I’m familiar with all of these cases, as I stated in the post.
Hoffer is looking at all types of falsification, inflation, lying … whatever.
Joseph Ellis and what he did is a separate issue as well.
From what it sounds like, Hoffer differentiates between flat-out lying and falsification (Bellesiles), and “compiling” books using a team of assistants (Ambrose), and inadvertent copying of someone else’s words (Goodwin), and lying about one’s own credentials for whatever mysterious reason (Ellis).
Oh and for the record:
I LOVE Joseph Ellis. I’m still reading his American Sphinx right now and count his Founding Brothers as one of my favorites.
I think inflating your credentials like Ellis did (as you said, who knows why) may earn you a more skeptical readership, but I wouldn’t regard it as the same kind of offense against the entire profession as dishonesty WITHIN your actual work.
I don’t think so either, and neither does Hoffer. Nobody is saying it is all on the same level, or the same level of wrong-ness.
Oh, and SOMEWHAT off-topic, but I blame you for the fact that Paula Abdul’s “Straight Up” is now stuck in my head. Arrrrgggh, make it stop!!! :-p
Hoffer reserves his most cutting indictment to Bellesiles – which is one of the main reasons why I want to read the book. Hoffer describes, point by point, what happened, how people got suckered in, how Bellesiles made things worse by lying even more, blah blah blah.
//whow people got suckered in, how Bellesiles made things worse by lying even more, blah blah blah. //
Especially his fellow historians. No doubt it helped that Bellesiles’ ‘evidence’ was supportive of an anti-gun position popular in academia.
Sheila, do you remember that time that I almost threw up while reading Sandra Cisneros’ A house on Mango Street? I realized that Bobby had basically taken one of her vignettes and had used it as hi OWN POEM in our creating Poetry class. I remember reading his version and thinking, “Wow, this is really good, but where did he come up with the whole Latino ghetto motif?” Fucking Liar! So, wherever you are, Robert Frost Parsons, know this — you are a goddamn joke!
jean: I remember! disgusting!!!
My teachers in high school put the fear of GOD into me, in terms of plagiarizing, and proper credit being given to every single quote. Plagiarism was seen as a big BIG deal. I wonder now if this is not so much the case?
I think it’s definitely still the case in most college classrooms – it was when I was a history major in a competitive research-oriented program a few years ago, at any rate. But many historians writing “popular” (as opposed to academic) history today were journalists or members of another profession, not necessarily historians by trade, so the strict standards that historical writers are held to may not have been so obvious to them.
Nicole … Yeah, I remember my English teachers in high school telling us that being caught plagiarizing was enough to be expelled from college. It made a huge impression on me.
Of course, too, we must take into account the fact that my father is not only a librarian – but he is a man who is pretty much obsessed with bibliographies … so I grew up in a house where proper quote attribution was a way of life.
Hm. I bet there’s a pretty funny essay in that, come to think of it. Anne Fadiman-esque.
I grew up in a house where you would be ostracized if you did not practice proper quote attribution. If you made mistakes in your footnote format, you would be grounded for 2 months, and if you plagiarized the work of another author, you would promptly be put up for adoption.