Eye 1359, page 13
Full story in the magazine, but here's the last part:
"Still investigating". Well, they've had a couple of months so far, given that it was reported to them some time before Xmas, which depending on how you look at it is either a lot (it shouldn't take fifteen minutes to establish plagiarism) or a little (the Times and Spectator have taken more than six months to pass no comment at all).
Assuming any investigating is actually taking place I confess myself intrigued to find out what they'll come up with, given how much there is for Ray to explain away:
- how all the plagiarism is in fact perfectly all right (there's more than we've so far reported, by the way);
- how he neglected to say in the book that lots of the material had been previously published elsewhere;
- how the copyright notice comes to claim that all the material is copyright Ray when so much of it is actually copyright other parties;
- how he apparently failed to bring any of this to the attention of his publisher.
Even by Ray's standards, that's an awful lot of explaining away.
[Thanks to Richard James]
[Dirty Little Secrets I]
[Dirty Little Secrets II]
[Dirty Little Secrets in the Eye]
[Ray Keene plagiarism index]
[Ray Keene index]
2 comments:
According to Keenipedia, HarperCollins was warned prior to publication. I guess they might also have known about Ray from the many Private Eye pieces.
The Times, in whose name the book is published, also knew prior to publication. See here.
shit i just bought that as well !
Post a Comment