Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Did McWilliams rip off David Brooks?

  • 09-01-2007 12:12am
    #1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,566 ✭✭✭


    I was doing some research recently and came across an American writer called David Brooks.

    In 2002 Brooks was a staff writer for the NY Times and had a number of sucessful books under his belt, in which he classifed the emerging US classes under such names as 'Patio Man' and 'Realator Mom'.

    Interestingly enough, the similarities between Brooks' work and David McWilliams later published 'Popes Children' are a little startling.

    Has anyone else noticed this, or am I just seeing gunmen behind the grassy knoll?


Comments

  • Closed Accounts Posts: 68 ✭✭Thunder_struck


    I was doing some research recently and came across an American writer called David Brooks.

    In 2002 Brooks was a staff writer for the NY Times and had a number of sucessful books under his belt, in which he classifed the emerging US classes under such names as 'Patio Man' and 'Realator Mom'.

    Interestingly enough, the similarities between Brooks' work and David McWilliams later published 'Popes Children' are a little startling.

    Has anyone else noticed this, or am I just seeing gunmen behind the grassy knoll?

    These allegations were made last year (year before?). The article I read quoted several lines from both books, the case against McWilliams looked watertight :rolleyes:

    Amazon review -

    The book on which this documentary alleged to be plagiarised. Here’s the review from Amazon:

    Remarkably similar to David Brooks’s 2000 study, Bobos in Paradise — The New Upper Class And How They Got There. In fact, a recent article in Ireland on Sunday went so far as to quesion whether McWilliams is the new copycat of the Celtic Tiger!

    For example:

    McWilliams writes of a new social class he calls HiCos, Hibernian Cosmopolitans disappointed that the social revolutions they supported in the 1970s, ’80s and ’90s led to mass consumerism rather than radical political change.

    The Bobos — Bourgeois Bohemians — (from Brooks’s book) fret about the same things as the HiCos. Both are seeking new spiritual paths, rejecting Judaeo-Christian worship and looking instead for New Age solutions to fill the aching void that rampant materialism has corroded into their souls, and each is appalled by the vulgarity of the class below. For the Bobo, that is Patio Man; for the HiCo, it is DIY Declan, a citizen of Deckland, McWilliams’s catch-all name for anonymous satellite towns where garden decking is the ultimate sign you have arrived.

    DIY Declan sees Woodie’s as his temple — which makes him a very close cousin of Patio Man, who feels the same about Home Depot.

    And they are aspirational in very similar ways. For Brooks, that means they crave monstrous refrigerators and ’slate shower stalls’; for McWilliams, it means they crave monstrous refrigerators and ’slate wet-rooms’

    In leafy US suburbs, Brooks found that so many blue delivery bags containing the New York Times lay on suburban lawns that the bags were visible from outer space. McWilliams decides that, along with the Great Wall of China, Christmas decorations in Celbridge gardens are the only things that can be seen with the naked eye from space.

    It goes on. For Brooks, lifestyle magazines like Conde Nast Traveler are the new pornography. For McWilliams, The Irish Times Thursday supplement is ‘property porn’.

    Both are amused by the language of recruitment advertising; by the way that we have all embraced artisan breads; by how we drink machiatos and lattes instead of just ‘coffee’.

    They offer new names for the bars we have raised on our own expectations — Brooks has an Achieveatron, while McWilliams invents an Attainometer.

    And both love the wedding announcement pages. Brooks talks of The New York Times, where ‘a Duke MBA who works at NationsBank marries a Michigan law grad who works at Winston and Strawn’. McWilliams, in the Irish Times, finds that ‘lawyer beds down with doctor, AIB marries Anglo-Irish’ etc — and both guffaw at the fact that the engagement announcements are known among the monied classes as the Mergers and Acquisitions Page.

    The similarities in the two books are astounding. The only significant difference is that Brooks’s book was published in 2000 while McWilliams published his book in 2005.

    [mod edit]


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,566 ✭✭✭DublinWriter


    Thanks ThunderStruck, I could have been accused of a bit of plagarism myself had you not told me about the Ireland on Sunday article.

    So does that mean David McWilliams now falls into the phylum of 'Plagarism Man' ?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 244 ✭✭pjbrady1


    [mod edit]. I am basing this on you providing the information where the 2000 book has "a slate shower stall", McWilliams has a "slate steam room". [mod edit]. I'v never heard of a slate wet-room, the more normal thing for a person to write would be "timber wet-room, or tiled wet-room". In Ireland we more commonly only use the term slate for roofs.
    The outer space reference is very close as well. There is no real literary need to mention that Christmas decorations would be visible from space.
    Engagements announcements are not known in this country by any class of people as the "Mergers and Acquisitions page" [mod edit]. In fact engagements announcements are not really that common here.
    [mod edit] I wondered about this reference point from McWilliams.
    "Both are amused by the language of recruitment advertising;"
    Recruitment advertising is hardly a hammer point of conversation/public thought/media or literary discussion. [mod edit]


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,726 ✭✭✭✭DMC


    A lot of these advertising terms try to identify a target audience, one that they are trying to appeal to, and are not unique to either man. It has been used in elections to identify the swing voter. One would remember the term "Soccer Mom", and from Britain, "Mondeo Man" and "White Van Man".

    Also, I'd be wary of this thread going down the road of alluding to someone being a plagiarist.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 68 ✭✭Thunder_struck


    DMC wrote:
    A lot of these advertising terms try to identify a target audience, one that they are trying to appeal to, and are not unique to either man. It has been used in elections to identify the swing voter. One would remember the term "Soccer Mom", and from Britain, "Mondeo Man" and "White Van Man".

    Also, I'd be wary of this thread going down the road of alluding to someone being a plagiarist.

    It's not just the 'advertising terms', which, in some cases, are uncomfortably similar, it's the style, themes and whole approach of the two books....:eek:


  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 10,247 Mod ✭✭✭✭flogen


    pjbrady1; it doesn't matter if you qualify everything you say as a matter of your own opinion, the publication you publish these thoughts in (in this case boards.ie) can still be open to libel proceedings on the back of them - I've edited your comments (and the comments of others) to take anything I deem to be potentially dangerous out and would ask that you and everyone else refrain from making assersions that are based on opinion or that could lead the site in any legal trouble.

    If you or anyone else has any trouble with this, feel free to PM me or start a thread about it on Feedback.

    As a heads up, I'll move to edit anything I think is dodgy and will ban repeat offenders. If the thread takes up any more of my time than I think it merits, I'll just lock it and leave you to share your opinions elsewhere. Only the legal system can decide that someone is or is not a plagiarist and until they do that, you'd be better not to jump to the assumption on your own.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 68 ✭✭Thunder_struck


    flogen wrote:
    pjbrady1; it doesn't matter if you qualify everything you say as a matter of your own opinion, the publication you publish these thoughts in (in this case boards.ie) can still be open to libel proceedings on the back of them - I've edited your comments (and the comments of others) to take anything I deem to be potentially dangerous out and would ask that you and everyone else refrain from making assersions that are based on opinion or that could lead the site in any legal trouble.

    If you or anyone else has any trouble with this, feel free to PM me or start a thread about it on Feedback.

    As a heads up, I'll move to edit anything I think is dodgy and will ban repeat offenders. If the thread takes up any more of my time than I think it merits, I'll just lock it and leave you to share your opinions elsewhere. Only the legal system can decide that someone is or is not a plagiarist and until they do that, you'd be better not to jump to the assumption on your own.

    Did I ever think Amazon would be a more open forum for freedom of speech and expression of opinions than boards.ie!! The above quoted review is still on their site.......and has been there for months. Evidently, it has never been challenged. Perhaps that's because the evidence is irrefutable??? :rolleyes:


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,566 ✭✭✭DublinWriter


    Did I ever think Amazon would be a more open forum for freedom of speech and expression of opinions than boards.ie!!
    Meh. Surprise surprise.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 382 ✭✭misterq


    Disclosure: I know David McWilliams personally. Maybe that taints my points below, I will let you be the judge of that. I can tell you that David is a bit upset about this type of comment but respects people's rights to make them. Even on his own site, let alone boards.ie. I think you are safe from lawyers in this case. (that is just my opinion though, from knowing the guy).

    @Thunder Struck: If I accuse you of having the IQ of a toothbrush and nobody removes my post, it holds true that I am correct? You sir are a toothbrush! :p

    The bloke that wrote that Amazon review clearly has an axe to grind. He has posted a number of comments on McWilliams' own site, which have been left up and McWilliams has defended:
    http://www.davidmcwilliams.ie/2006/11/13/in-search-of-the-pope%e2%80%99s-children-episode-2

    (comment is towards the end of the page).

    There are a couple of holes in the plagiarism argument:
    1) It ignores all the research that is in the book on Ireland (not New York)
    2) It seems to preclude two people making the same conclusions in two separate books. If I wrote a book that said 2+2 = 4, am I plagiarising 2Busy at maths 1"??
    3) It assumes that Gill & McMillan, the publishers, would go ahead and publish a book and release a paper back version several months after, even with doubts over plagiarism (and give him another 2 book deal soon after)
    4) McWilliams is a lot of things but he isn't thick. I think he would be wise enough to know if he cogged someone else's homework and published it, then made a tv program about it that maybe, just maybe, if he had done something wrong it would be found out.

    and finally:
    5) If there was a case for plagiarism don't you think Brooks' lawyers would be suing McWilliams? Or maybe they are the sort of lawyers that think "hmm, best-selling book, tv series. Nah, we won't sue him for a cut of those profits."

    My main bugbear about this is that it seems to all stem from one comment on Amazon that has been repeated by others who have possibly read the McWilliams book, but most likely have not read "Bobos in paradise".

    I've just ordered a copy to see what the fuss is about. Then I will make up my mind.


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 10,247 Mod ✭✭✭✭flogen


    Did I ever think Amazon would be a more open forum for freedom of speech and expression of opinions than boards.ie!! The above quoted review is still on their site.......and has been there for months. Evidently, it has never been challenged. Perhaps that's because the evidence is irrefutable??? :rolleyes:

    You thought boards.ie was an open forum for freedom of speech and expression? Take a look around the Feedback forum; this place aint made for you to say whatever the hell you like*.

    And Amazon can do whatever the hell they like - unfortunately boards.ie does not possess the same financial clout as them should a court case come a knockin'.

    As far as irrefutable goes, that's a decision for a judge to make in a court of law, not you or I.

    *I shouldn't take this much time to explain, but I'm going to just to make it clear and help you feel less censored.
    All rights come with responsibilities. If you fail to be responsible in enacting your rights you are accepting the possibility that your own rights will be removed (as to safeguard other's rights).
    So, for example, you have the right to free assembly, but if by exercising your right you infringe on someone else's rights in any way - let's say their right to own property (by trespassing on it) - then you waive your own rights and are left with far fewer (the right to remain silent, perhaps).

    So in this case you have a right to free speech - however in using that free speech to say that someone has committed an offense they have not been convicted of you are denying them their right to be innocent until proven guilty in front of a court of law - and so again your own rights can be limited to ensure those of others are not.

    Now - in other circumstances (e.g. a real world conversation between people) the consequences of you infringing on someone else's rights by giving such an opinion would lie purely at your own feet. If you decided to infringe someone else's rights then you and you alone would deal with the consequences and as a result I would have no business in stopping you from putting yourself into that situation (that would be the job of the authorities or the offended party).
    However, due to the pretty archaic Libel laws which exist in Ireland, making comments on a website (or any form of media) means that the publisher [read: site owner] would be held accountable for your actions (the explanation for this is that these laws were enacted under the traditional media system, like a newspaper, where a publisher would generally have a chance to stop something from airing before it aired. As a publisher can check all content before publishing it can be assumed that failing to stop something means they OK'd it and are ultimately responsible for it going public).
    Under these circumstances I'm sure you can appreciate why I, acting in what I believe to be the best interest of the owners of this site and the site in general, removed the offending comments from this thread.

    Hope that helps, if you want to discuss it further then PM me or bring it up on Feedback - do not reply on this thread and once again can everyone please refrain from making potentially libelous comments. Thank you.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,566 ✭✭✭DublinWriter


    misterq wrote:
    My main bugbear about this is that it seems to all stem from one comment on Amazon that has been repeated by others who have possibly read the McWilliams book, but most likely have not read "Bobos in paradise".
    Personally I never even knew about the comments on Amazon until they were mentioned here.

    What made me start this thread was an interview I heard with Brooks on Air America radio where he talked about 'Homebase Man', 'Realator Mom', etc and I thought to myself "where have I heard this before?".


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 68 ✭✭Thunder_struck


    misterq wrote:
    Disclosure: I know David McWilliams personally.
    misterq wrote:
    I've just ordered a copy to see what the fuss is about. Then I will make up my mind.

    So, you come on here to refute the allegations made against your acquaintance's book.........and then admit that you haven't actually read David Brooks' book? :confused:

    One word: Comical!

    :D


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 68 ✭✭Thunder_struck


    flogen wrote:
    You thought boards.ie was an open forum for freedom of speech and expression? Take a look around the Feedback forum; this place aint made for you to say whatever the hell you like*.

    And Amazon can do whatever the hell they like - unfortunately boards.ie does not possess the same bla bla bla bla bla bla.........

    Raw nerve struck! What utter drivel, go and moderate on an 'I Love Barbie' website and leave the expression of opinions and intelligent discussion to the adults. Fool.


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 10,247 Mod ✭✭✭✭flogen


    If I have to leave, I'm taking you with me.

    Either that or I'll stay and you'll enjoy your 1 week ban.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,566 ✭✭✭DublinWriter


    Raw nerve struck! What utter drivel, go and moderate on an 'I Love Barbie' website and leave the expression of opinions and intelligent discussion to the adults. Fool.
    I was more of a Sindy man myself, she had that look in her eyes whereas Barbie always came across as a stuck-up and unapproachable cow...

    http://www.sindy-dolls.com/


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 382 ✭✭misterq


    So, you come on here to refute the allegations made against your acquaintance's book.........and then admit that you haven't actually read David Brooks' book? :confused:

    One word: Comical!

    :D


    I didn't refute any allegations. I posed a few questions as to why I felt the allegations didn't make sense. I also pointed out that I didn't have enough information to hand right now to make up my own mind, and that I would do so after I have read the Brooks book. You simply repeated my point.

    I questioned if anyone here had actually read both, so far nobody has come back and said they have.

    Sorry if that confuses you.


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 10,247 Mod ✭✭✭✭flogen


    misterq wrote:
    Speaking of comical, perhaps comics would be a more suitable source of reading material for you thunder_struck as you obviously weren't able to grasp the full meaning of my post.

    I didn't refute any allegations. I posed a few questions as to why I felt the allegations didn't make sense. I also pointed out that I didn't have enough information to hand right now to make up my own mind, and that I would do so after I have read the Brooks book. You simply repeated my point.

    I questioned if anyone here had actually read both, so far nobody has come back and said they have.

    Sorry if that confuses you.

    Perhaps the "I love Barbie" site would be more up your street after all.

    Play the ball, not the man - your post is leaning too close to personal abuse for my liking and there's really no need for it, just because the comments made at you verged on personal doesn't mean you should respond in kind.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 382 ✭✭misterq


    fair nuff flogen, I wouldn't want to upset anyone too much by making baseless remarks that would have the effect of upsetting someone unless I had very good reason to make them

    Post edited.

    Happy Monday all.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,149 ✭✭✭J.S. Pill


    They offer new names for the bars we have raised on our own expectations — Brooks has an Achieveatron, while McWilliams invents an Attainometer.

    And both love the wedding announcement pages. Brooks talks of The New York Times, where ‘a Duke MBA who works at NationsBank marries a Michigan law grad who works at Winston and Strawn’. McWilliams, in the Irish Times, finds that ‘lawyer beds down with doctor, AIB marries Anglo-Irish’ etc — and both guffaw at the fact that the engagement announcements are known among the monied classes as the Mergers and Acquisitions Page.

    The similarities in the two books are astounding. The only significant difference is that Brooks’s book was published in 2000 while McWilliams published his book in 2005.

    [mod edit]

    yes there are some simularities between McWilliam's treatment of HiCos and Brooks take on Bobos but lets not forget that McWilliams tried to deal with far more social groups and subgroups (Decklanders etc.) than Brooks dealt with. Brooks was concentrating on one social group whereas McWilliams was trying to get a bigger picture. Yes I know that Hicos are the most important group in the book with preceeding chapters more or less setting the scene for the introduction of the Hicos but anyone who says that McWilliams is in anyway plagerising Brooks ideas because they deal with two elites in two different countries in a similar way seem to be ignoring this little detail (i.e. probably haven't read both books).

    I'll follow up on this another time - got to get back to work


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 44 EDO


    Well I have read both books

    this topic came up on the AAM website ages ago - heres the reply I gave then - nothing since has changed my mind

    http://www.askaboutmoney.com/showthread.php?t=40716&page=4


  • Advertisement
Advertisement