historical accuracy/ethics question regarding writing books

[helenazar]

It's very disturbing to me to see so much fiction presented as fact, and plagerism, being exposed in books and articles, even prize winning writings, the last few years. Has it always been done and the writers were just never caught, or has there been a big decline in integrity and honor in writing and reporting in the last decade?

Good question! I suppose it's probably always been done, but technology has made it much easier to root out offenders. Kind of a new age "checks and balances." Because of this, authors who value their reputations should proceed very carefully....

Absolutely! I think the Internet has changed a lot of that, and it is now a lot more difficult for authors of non-fiction to get away with unethical practices. FOTR is a good example of precisely that, the readers were able to communicate with each other and share information and this is how misinformation in the book was revealed. I personally would probably never have bothered to check up on the sources if it wasn't for other readers pointing out the errors, and so I would have just accepted the information in the book as correct and would never have known about the misinformation/mistakes.

[Janet Ashton]

It's very disturbing to me to see so much fiction presented as fact, and plagerism, being exposed in books and articles, even prize winning writings, the last few years. Has it always been done and the writers were just never caught, or has there been a big decline in integrity and honor in writing and reporting in the last decade?

Good question! I suppose it's probably always been done, but technology has made it much easier to root out offenders. Kind of a new age "checks and balances." Because of this, authors who value their reputations should proceed very carefully....

Absolutely! I think the Internet has changed a lot of that, and it is now a lot more difficult for authors of non-fiction to get away with unethical practices. FOTR is a good example of precisely that, the readers were able to communicate with each other and share information and this is how misinformation in the book was revealed. I personally would probably never have bothered to check up on the sources if it wasn't for other readers pointing out the errors, and so I would have just accepted the information in the book as correct and would never have known about the misinformation/mistakes.

Yawn. After all the personal messages I have received, I have a pretty good idea what readers REALLY think of FOTR and the endless, circling, Sisyphean drag of the campaign you three have waged.....

[helenazar]

It's very disturbing to me to see so much fiction presented as fact, and plagerism, being exposed in books and articles, even prize winning writings, the last few years. Has it always been done and the writers were just never caught, or has there been a big decline in integrity and honor in writing and reporting in the last decade?

Good question! I suppose it's probably always been done, but technology has made it much easier to root out offenders. Kind of a new age "checks and balances." Because of this, authors who value their reputations should proceed very carefully....

Absolutely! I think the Internet has changed a lot of that, and it is now a lot more difficult for authors of non-fiction to get away with unethical practices. FOTR is a good example of precisely that, the readers were able to communicate with each other and share information and this is how misinformation in the book was revealed. I personally would probably never have bothered to check up on the sources if it wasn't for other readers pointing out the errors, and so I would have just accepted the information in the book as correct and would never have known about the misinformation/mistakes.

Yawn. After all the personal messages I have received, I have a pretty good idea what readers REALLY think of FOTR and the endless, circling, Sisyphean drag of the campaign you three have waged.....

Good to see that you are still vigilant, Janet A ;-). But if you and your mysterious email corresponders are bored with this subject, all are free to remove the email alert to this thread and let others who are still interested discuss it.

[Puppylove]

Good to see that you are still vigilant, Janet A ;-). But if you and your mysterious email corresponders are bored with this subject, you are free to remove your email alert to this thread and let others who are interested discuss it.

Please, can anyone tell me if a statute of limitations exists beyond which point a book can no longer be discussed? One year? Five years? A millenium? Do I need to lock up the Bible, Shakespeare and Fate of the Romanovs in a safe somewhere?

And Helen, Annie and I have never met, wouldn't recognize each other on the street. We aren't Cerberus, you know.

[Annie]

And Helen, Annie and I have never met, wouldn't recognize each other on the street. We aren't Cerberus, you know.

This is very true. Is it us three, Margarita must be in there somewhere, or does that make four? Am I one for sure?

Janet, it's been made plainly obvious that there were mistakes in FOTR. Do you only still deny this and make more 'grasping at straws' excuses than an AA supporter, and want everyone to shut up because the writers are your friends? As someone obviously interested in Russian history, don't you, for the sake of history and all those to come, think that correct information is more important than any one or two people, even if you know them?

[Robert_Hall]

FOTR has it's own thread now, why are you still dragging it out on this one?

[helenazar]

FOTR has it's own thread now, why are you still dragging it out on this one?

Ask Janet Ashton ;-) Apparently no one is allowed to mention FOTR even as an approrpriate example on this thread without someone jumping down our throats and starting the bickering again...

[Puppylove]

FOTR has it's own thread now, why are you still dragging it out on this one?

Thanks for the reminder. Anyone please feel free to change Fate of the Romanovs to Nicholas and Alexandra in my last post. I was speaking in generalities.

Sarushka, maybe you overlooked my question. I'm curious to know how you're viewing truth for the purpose of this thread.

Thanks, Jenn
 

[Annie]

I would have just accepted the information in the book as correct and would never have known about the misinformation/mistakes.

This is what everyone should be able to do with any nonfiction book.

[Janet Ashton]

And Helen, Annie and I have never met, wouldn't recognize each other on the street. We aren't Cerberus, you know.

This is very true. Is it us three, Margarita must be in there somewhere, or does that make four? Am I one for sure?

Janet, it's been made plainly obvious that there were mistakes in FOTR. Do you only still deny this and make more 'grasping at straws' excuses than an AA supporter, and want everyone to shut up because the writers are your friends? As someone obviously interested in Russian history, don't you, for the sake of history and all those to come, think that correct information is more important than any one or two people, even if you know them?

For the record, I have had no direct personal contact with Penny Wilson in three years. Different people, different lives. Nor have I ever stated that FOTR does not contain errors. Nor, in my wildest dreams, would there ever be the remotest possibility of shutting you up......or even of getting you through a post wthout mentioning Anna Anderson.

[Janet Ashton]

Good to see that you are still vigilant, Janet A ;-). But if you and your mysterious email corresponders are bored with this subject, you are free to remove your email alert to this thread and let others who are interested discuss it.

And Helen, Annie and I have never met, wouldn't recognize each other on the street. We aren't Cerberus, you know.

Wasn't referring to you. My dear, don't give yourself airs.....

[helenazar]

Okay, moving right along...

Sarushka, maybe you overlooked my question. I'm curious to know how you're viewing truth for the purpose of this thread.

I would like to know what Sarah's take on this is too.

[Sarushka]

Sarushka, maybe you overlooked my question. I'm curious to know how you're viewing truth for the purpose of this thread.

Thanks for the reminder. I've been thinking about this, and I'm having a bugger of a time coming up with a concise answer. Historical truth is a lot trickier to nail down than mathematic or scientific truth. Sure, there are facts, but there's a lot more to history than just names and dates. Point of view so often comes into play. If you ask two people -- let's say Alexandra Feodorovna and Alexander Kerensky for the sake of example -- to tell you the "facts" about the Russian revolution, you're likely to get wildly different answers, yet neither one of them would be lying. Events are so much more subjective, which is part of why I think balance is an important aspect of conveying history accurately.

This reminds me of a Russian saying: The truth is found between two lies.

More musings as they occur to me...

[Annie]

to tell you the "facts" about the Russian revolution, you're likely to get wildly different answers, yet neither one of them would be lying. Events are so much more subjective, which is part of why I think balance is an important aspect of conveying history accurately.

This reminds me of a Russian saying: The truth is found between two lies.

I see what you're trying to say but in this case, they can't both be right. Either the Grand Duchesses were left in peace, or they were not. There's not even an Obi-Wan Kenobi 'certain point of view' about it, just yes or no.

[Sarushka]

to tell you the "facts" about the Russian revolution, you're likely to get wildly different answers, yet neither one of them would be lying. Events are so much more subjective, which is part of why I think balance is an important aspect of conveying history accurately.

This reminds me of a Russian saying: The truth is found between two lies.

I see what you're trying to say but in this case, they can't both be right. Either the Grand Duchesses were left in peace, or they were not. There's not even an Obi-Wan Kenobi 'certain point of view' about it, just yes or no.

And that's part of why that passage of FOTR is flawed: the presentation of the events on the Rus is neither complete nor balanced enough to be taken as truth.


Edited to add: However, when I read that section I don't get the impression that K&W intended that passage to be taken as truth -- only possibility. That said, the information they present is still too sketchy and contentious for me to accept the scenario of abuse as a likely possibility.