Her Book in Limbo, Naomi Wolf Fights Back

Apparently this 'book' is based upon a PhD. Whoever examined this work should hang their heads in shame. Ah. but you say, it is a 'celebrity PhD.' That's all right then!

"Helena Kennedy, a prominent barrister and human rights advocate in England, who, in a June 28 article in The Independent, dismissed the uproar over “death recorded” as a trivial academic spat that needed to be put in its “insignificant place.” Presenting "death recorded" to mean the opposite of what it actually means is "trivial"? So we should accept that concerns over accuracy are merely the stuff of academic debates and that the rest of us shouldn't care. Is that it? That's a pretty weak argument. I wouldn't want Helena Kennedy as my barrister, that's for sure.

What Sweet did to her in the interview was appalling. He could have said something to her beforehand, to give her time to think about her response. Instead he kept it to himself until the middle of the interview, pretending to be your typically neutral kind of interviewer, then put her on the spot and humiliated her. And he clearly relished it. Those comments were more appropriate for a debate, not an interview. Springing it on her like that was despicable, and the sign of an author with second-rate ideas trying to climb up on somebody else's shoulders.

Wolf has been a highly successful writer for nearly 30 years, despite her shockingly sloppy work. Anyone interested in reading Naomi Wolf in 2019 must be naive or in need of flat fiction for a long flight.

Just finished this article on Ms. Wolf and had to wonder: Would all this print have been devoted to Dr. Wolf if her beauty and success did not create jealousy, and it was not about gay men being prosecuted in repressive Victorian England along with the homosexual overtones of the book. Being a 60’ s child, I remember the criticism that another pretty, sexually liberated author, Erica Jong, endured. Her adventurous novels opened a love of reading that has, thankfully, lasted so many years. Would a few mistakes that should have rightfully been vetted further cause all this ado if someone other than Naomi Wolf was the author? Why not fix the mistakes and let her audience enjoy the book in the USA? Have we gotten into censoring books now?

Sounds like her approach to previous topics .... Say it's so and push it through. "Truth" lies beyond facts in her world, it seems. This was mentioned in the NYT review. How about she just get it right so this would not be an issue?

Why is this news?

You can't buy publicity like this at any price - my take? Someone at the publisher lacks business acumen AND scholarly courage. Seems like the error(s) could be corrected by an insert?!

Ms. Wolfe's sloppiness, and the publishers who've enabled it, has caught up with her. Ms. Wolfe's defense is weak. She should have been contrite, gone back to her research to correct a substantial error, and resubmitted the ms for review and editing. She's a publicity hound masquerading as an academic. That is the outrage.

Nonfiction should not sink to the level of "inspired by true events."

Brutal job by Ms. Wolfe and her publisher. Ms. Wolfe has earned her opprobrium. Her efforts to push back her critics (along with those of her husband) only emphasize her guilt and complacency. Let her readers beware.

A few weeks ago, the NYT published the most scathing book review (of 'Outrages') I have ever read. Seems like Dr. Wolf is not just trying to rescue this book but her entire literary career and enterprise. Damage control may be an understatement. Naomi Wolf’s Career of Blunders Continues in ‘Outrages’, by Parul Sehgal, NYT, June 5, 2019

"“I would have called for changes to correct what I consider factual and interpretive errors on 46 of its 300 pages.” " This is a weird statement. Do the errors on 46 of 300 pages affect the final conclusion? That's what I really want to know.

Just read the defense of Wolf by Emma Rees in Public Seminar. It’s an embarrassment to Rees. It contains no factual defense of Wolf’s account, instead offering only a circuitous argument and comments about Wolf’s personal likability. The whole thing is a disgrace.

Oy, Naomi Wolf, again.

When a book becomes more about the author's self-promotion than the book itself, one can reasonably conclude that the book has serious flaws. Why so defensive Ms. Wolf? You protest too much, I think.

I'm no scholar and certainly no expert in the subject matter, but it appears to my layman's eyes that the error or inaccuracy is a technical one which doesn't significantly damage the overall integrity of the book and which could be easily corrected. I suspect that what we're seeing here is a panic-stricken, knee-jerk reaction by the publisher.