Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => Literature, Music, Art & Entertainment => Topic started by: Nearly Sane on October 23, 2019, 03:18:22 PM
-
The interview by Matthew Sweet of Naomi Wolf was so beautifully done
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-50153743
-
The interview by Matthew Sweet of Naomi Wolf was so beautifully done
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-50153743
They covered it in some detail on More or Less a few months ago. Basically, Sweet eviscerated her whole premise. She accepted the mistake with commendable good grace and made corrections to the book for the next edition, but to me (who hasn't read the book) it seems like it is rendered pointless.
-
Agree, it seemed to be a central premise of the book. Given it was based on her Ph.D thesis one wonders what the checking for that was.
As Douglas Murray (ippy's favourite) points out here it isn't an isolated incident.
https://unherd.com/2019/10/how-did-naomi-wolf-get-away-with-it-for-so-long/
-
Wow! That is interesting.
Doesn't surprise me at all; a few years ago I had an autobiography of someone of whom I liked to know. I found two factual inaccuracies: one was the use of the term, 'psychiatry or psychiatrist', when it should have been 'psychology/psychologist'. Can't remember the other one. It niggled me but the rest of the book was OK, not that interesting because it covered old ground that I was familiar with, but alright. What annoyed me most was that it was ghost written! I'd've expected a professional writer to get facts straight.
Anyway I moved on, as you do. ;D.