|
Post by montrose on May 19, 2016 5:17:58 GMT -6
I am doing research on King Philip's war. This has put me in frequent touch with the Plymouth historical community, wish is a large group of being as committed to their topic as the LBH community.
Philbrick wrote a book on the Pilgrims a well as LBH. It has the same things we all see in his LBH book. The footnotes do not support the written text. He obviously is using material from other people's work, without citation.
The book appears written by committee with several pages written in different writing styles, indicating massive plagiarism.
Stephen Ambrose had the same issue. Scholars eventually pealed back the curtain, and found little known works, unpublished manuscripts and various theses that were the actual source of his works (every single thing Ambrose ever wrote, including in grad school, was plagiarized).
Eventually, Philbrick will be caught, as well.
|
|
|
Post by dave on May 19, 2016 14:13:49 GMT -6
montrose Lazy writers, those who do not do their own research, generally get caught when after an initial success they get greedy and and publish one more book. That is what happened to Ambrose and it will to Nathaniel as well. Regards Dave
|
|
|
Post by edavids on May 20, 2016 12:36:41 GMT -6
The Last Stand was the first book I read specifically about The Little Bighorn. I did not know enough about the battle to critique his accuracy, "ibids," "op cits" or footnotes. Probably still don't. I do recall that it was a good read and whetted my interest to the point that I've added Son of the Morning Star and Strategy of Defeat to my "have read" list. He did have some strong opinions on Reno and Benteen as I recall and chose not to bite into. I will at least compliment his writing style and ability to draw the reader into his narrative. I do have a lot more books to read but Philbrick wasn't a bad place to start.
Best,
David
|
|