Naomi Wolf Learns the Hard Way That Cutting Corners on Research Can Be Costly - and Embarrassing

Naomi Wolf

Naomi Wolf is no stranger to being challenged on the supposed "facts" around which she has based some of her bestselling books. But this time, it looks like she may have really stepped in it because her publisher (Houghton Mifflin Harcourt) is delaying the release of her latest, Outrages, and recalling the copies it has already delivered to retailers around the country.

Last month a BBC reporter questioned Wolf's "interpretation of historical records" during an on-air interview in which he revealed that she had not taken the time to learn the correct meaning of a legal term first used in 1823 Britain, "death recorded."  Wolf made the mistaken assumption that the term meant that a prisoner execution had been carried out, when in fact the term meant exactly the opposite - that the prisoner had been pardoned.  The author apparently relied on the terminology as evidence that "several dozen executions" had been carried out in nineteenth century Britain of men accused of having had sex with other men. 

Wolf was obviously embarrassed to be called out so publicly on her sloppy research, and promised to look into the matter.  She agreed that it was an important question, but at the time she promised only to correct future additions if it turned out that she had used the term incorrectly.  Apparently more will be required of her.

According to a June 13 New York Times article:

"But the errors in 'Outrages' appear to be more grave, given that Ms. Wolf's publisher is taking the costly step of recalling finished copies, a rare measure that is usually only undertaken for books that contain fatal factual flaws or other more serious transgressions."

[...]

"It's unclear whether 'Outrages'will also be recalled in Britain, where it was released in May by the publisher Virago."

[...]

"Publishers often rely on authors to verify material in their books, and if fact checkers are used, it is typically at the author's discretion and expense." 

The Book in Question

This kind of thing is not, of course, a new problem.  But we live in a time in which the credibility of real news has in so many ways been destroyed by easy access to internet sources that don't just make mistakes, but actually purposely lie for financial gain or the destruction of some perceived enemy.  Perhaps this makes it easier for lazier or cheaper authors to justify to themselves a habit of rushing to print without doing the kind of fact checking that would have been second nature only a decade or so ago.  Some writers may figure that the likelihood of being wrong - or caught out by a reader or editor - is unlikely enough to justify taking a chance.  After all, it's all about making money, isn't it?  

The same New York Times piece quoted a publisher spokeswoman as saying, "As we have been working with Naomi Wolf to make corrections to 'Outrages,' new questions have arisen that require more time to explore."  However, as evidenced by the book recall, this is a problem that time alone is unlikely to solve.

First printing of Outrages was set at 35,000 copies.  That's a whole lot of paper to pulp and recycle.