Doris, give it up
Posted on 01/27/2002 10:59:37 AM PST by Pharmboy
Sunday, Jan. 27, 2002
I am a historian. with the exception of being a wife and mother, it is who I am. And there is nothing I take more seriously.
In recent days, questions have been raised about how historians go about crediting their sources, and I have been caught up in the swirl. Ironically, the more intensive and far-reaching a historian's research, the greater the difficulty of citation. As the mountain of material grows, so does the possibility of error.
Fourteen years ago, not long after the publication of my book The Fitzgeralds and the Kennedys, I received a communication from author Lynne McTaggart pointing out that material from her book on Kathleen Kennedy had not been properly attributed. I realized that she was right. Though my footnotes repeatedly cited Ms. McTaggart's work, I failed to provide quotation marks for phrases that I had taken verbatim, having assumed that these phrases, drawn from my notes, were my words, not hers. I made the corrections she requested, and the matter was completely laid to rest—until last week, when the Weekly Standard published an article reviving the issue. The larger question for those of us who write history is to understand how citation mistakes can happen.
The research and writing for this 900-page book, with its 3,500 footnotes, took place over 10 years. At that time, I wrote my books and took my notes in longhand, believing I could not think well on a keyboard. Most of my sources were drawn from a multitude of primary materials: manuscript collections, private letters, diaries, oral histories, newspapers, periodicals, personal interviews. After three years of research, I discovered more than 150 cartons of materials that had been previously stored in the attic of Joe Kennedy's Hyannis Port house. These materials were a treasure trove for a historian—old report cards, thousands of family letters, movie stubs and diaries, which allowed me to cross the boundaries of time and space. It took me two additional years to read, categorize and take notes on these documents.
During this same period, I took handwritten notes on perhaps 300 books. Passages I wanted to quote directly were noted along with general notes on the ideas and story lines of each book. Notes on all these sources were then arranged chronologically and kept in dozens of folders in 25 banker's boxes. Immersed in a flood of papers, I began to write the book. After each section and each chapter was completed, I returned the notes to the boxes along with notations for future footnoting. When the manuscript was finished, I went back to all these sources to check the accuracy of attributions. As a final protection, I revisited the 300 books themselves. Somehow in this process, a few of the books were not fully rechecked. I relied instead on my notes, which combined direct quotes and paraphrased sentences. If I had had the books in front of me, rather than my notes, I would have caught mistakes in the first place and placed any borrowed phrases in direct quotes.
What made this incident particularly hard for me was the fact that I take great pride in the depth of my research and the extensiveness of my citations. The writing of history is a rich process of building on the work of the past with the hope that others will build on what you have done. Through footnotes you point the way to future historians.
The only protection as a historian is to institute a process of research and writing that minimizes the possibility of error. And that I have tried to do, aided by modern technology, which enables me, having long since moved beyond longhand, to use a computer for both organizing and taking notes. I now rely on a scanner, which reproduces the passages I want to cite, and then I keep my own comments on those books in a separate file so that I will never confuse the two again. But the real miracle occurred when my college-age son taught me how to use the mysterious footnote key on the computer, which makes it possible to insert the citations directly into the text while the sources are still in front of me, instead of shuffling through hundreds of folders four or five years down the line, trying desperately to remember from where I derived a particular statistic or quote. Still, there is no guarantee against error. Should one occur, all I can do, as I did 14 years ago, is to correct it as soon as I possibly can, for my own sake and the sake of history. In the end, I am still the same fallible person I was before I made the transition to the computer, and the process of building a lengthy work of history remains a complicated but honorable task.
Doris Kearns Goodwin, a Pulitzer prizewinning author, is currently at work on a book about Lincoln's White House
The facts are thus, Doris: You are a professional historian. You are supposed to put quotation marks around anything cited in your work that others have written. Having many sources and notes does not--for an instant--absolve you of putting in those quotes. You're finished Miss High and Mighty.
Your remarks defending x42 are perfectly understandible in light of your own failings.
Fiction or non-fiction?
Sen. Joseph Biden
(1)Translation from Feminese: I am a wife and mother. I have a wee child. Please do not harm me by saying bad things about me. Mothers are like apple pie. You wouldn't throw apple pie on the floor and kick it, would you? So feel sorry for me and let me skate. [This translation is from a freeper named parsifal and can be found on website:www.freerepublic.com, published January 27, 2002. Further use of this copyrighted translation is prohibited without permission from the author.]
Doris, give it up
However, what gets me is that several years ago she totally eviscerated some other historian for doing no worse than what she had done. In fact, Goodwin's biting criticism of this other historian occurred, I believe, after the plagiarisms in the 1987 publication of her book had already been brought to her attention. She knew what she had done, but castigated someone else for it anyway. Goodwin's arrogant hypocrisy is the real story, as far as I'm concerned.
It was an awful job, but someone had to do it, don't you know.
You know things are going bad for a lib when they have to hide behind the kiddies.
You'd also put on the top line of each note card the basic bibliographical citation to the book.
That's how it was taught in friggin' high school back in the 1970s for cryin' out loud. How the dickens could a supposed Ph.D. "historian" such as Doris Kearns "Joe Biden" Goodwin screw up accidentally on something as basic as properly quoting sources when making notes, when high school students can get it right?
I'll tell you how. It was no accident. It was not carelessness. Whether she consciously did so or not, it was theft, pure and simple. She's trying to backpeddle as fast as she can, to squirm out of having been caught red-handed.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.