Plagiarism and making things up are a difficult one. I'd go ahead and read the books but cross reference any historical information. It could be that not all of his books suffered from these atrocities. I wouldn't buy new ones of his though.
Thanks. I probably will read his book on the Russian Revolution, but when I do get to it I intend to research the criticisms beforehand so I can judge it accordingly. If it proves to be too problematic then I'll just chuck it into the book box.
Thanks for this, Mark. I had no idea about the plagiarism allegations or the BBA dumbassery of Figes.
His books are coming off my list. I'm no longer interested in supporting his work (even indirectly), and I'm also not knowledgeable enough about the things he's writing about to know whether they're true, whether he's making them up, or whether he's copying something. As I come to a lot of history books to learn rather than to compare with other sources, I'm not particularly interested in spending a lot of time investigating. I would on topics that I have a deeper interest in...but the books of his on my tbr aren't on those topics. I hope that makes sense.
I really am disappointed that I had missed the plagiarism allegations about Figes, especially as they've dogged him for as long as they have. What amazes me, though, is that he STILL has his position at Birbeck and publishes books (he even has a new one coming out next month) as though none of this existed. Why publishers continue to publish his work escapes me.
BBA Dumbassery aside, it amazes me that people continue to make stupid choices like plagiarism; not only are the odds of not getting slim, but once the author does get caught, it not only devalues the work in question, but all their work, because who's to say the author didn't take shortcuts with every book?
I get the publish or perish culture, and coupled with the pressure of publishing deadlines, the urge to crib from someone else's work must be seductive. But an academic is only ever valued in relation to their work and if their work is someone else's ...
If it were me, with your background, I'd trust my instincts with the Crimean War book; if the Russian Revolution book is one you have on your shelves, you may as well read it - you might be able to find qualified reviews that discuss the creditability of that particular title? Not sure I'd ever read anything else though, because I'd never be able to trust his authenticity or accuracy.
His books are coming off my list. I'm no longer interested in supporting his work (even indirectly), and I'm also not knowledgeable enough about the things he's writing about to know whether they're true, whether he's making them up, or whether he's copying something. As I come to a lot of history books to learn rather than to compare with other sources, I'm not particularly interested in spending a lot of time investigating. I would on topics that I have a deeper interest in...but the books of his on my tbr aren't on those topics. I hope that makes sense.
I get the publish or perish culture, and coupled with the pressure of publishing deadlines, the urge to crib from someone else's work must be seductive. But an academic is only ever valued in relation to their work and if their work is someone else's ...
If it were me, with your background, I'd trust my instincts with the Crimean War book; if the Russian Revolution book is one you have on your shelves, you may as well read it - you might be able to find qualified reviews that discuss the creditability of that particular title? Not sure I'd ever read anything else though, because I'd never be able to trust his authenticity or accuracy.