| Author | Message | ||
| Surfy Registered user Username: Surfy Post Number: 709 Registered: 11-2007 |
I just read this book titled "The White Truth" by John Robertson; Review and Herald, 1981. You have all probably read it already. The point of this book was to vindicate EGW and affirm her as God's annointed prophet. Let me make a few points. He never denied that she copied from other writers. In fact, he emphasises that she did. One of the main excuses was that when she would come out of "vision", many times she was not able to recall exactly what she had just been shown. It was at this point, that she would pickup another book and copy passages from it as it was close to what she could remember. As to plagerism: No plagerism as there were no plagerism laws in the U.S. before 1860, therefore no plagerism, even though she did copy extensively. After 1860: The offended party (author or publisher) would have to take it to the legal arena to get a judgement of plagerism. The author of this book is of the opinion that a verdict of guilty, in a court of law, is necessary to prove plagerism. Since no one ever did, she is not guilty of plagerism. He even used the example of "Sketches From the Life of Paul", another book she copied from to illustrate the point. When the publishers of that book were asked if she plagerised it, they were told that the book was not copyrighted so there could be no basis for a legal battle to begin with. The last paragraph is: "My appeal is this. Mrs. White is not on trial. Those of us who read her are". Surfy | ||
| River Registered user Username: River Post Number: 6934 Registered: 9-2006  |
The use of the Latin word plagiarius (literally kidnapper), to denote someone stealing someone else's work, was pioneered by Roman poet Martial, who complained that another poet had "kidnapped his verses." This use of the word was introduced into English in 1601 by dramatist Ben Jonson, to describe as a plagiary someone guilt of literary theft.[3][11] The derived form plagiarism was introduced into English around 1615–25.[citation needed] The Latin plagiārius, "kidnapper", and plagium, "kidnapping", has the root plaga ("snare", "net"), based on the Indo-European root *-plak, "to weave" (seen for instance in Greek plekein, Bulgarian "плета" pleta, Latin plectere, all meaning "to weave"). (Wikepedea) I am afraid 1601 was a little tad before White was born. Whether there were existing laws on the books against it, it was already establish as a moral wrong. After I wrote "Mr. Cherrybooks" My wife and I were watching a movie, and my wife remarked about the similarities in the story that were similar to my story, so there could be similar ideas by other writers, yet the content of the story would be different enough for a person to tell if plagerism has taken place. For instance, patents have been applied for where inventors in others parts of the country, or even here and abroad, and ideas come to the persons almost simultaneously. If I saw plagiarism of any one of the stories in my books I would be immediately able to tell no matter how careful the plagiarist was. If the work is done with the aim of copying the exact text for some honorable purpose, there would be no plagiarism. But as soon as one copies another work, then claims it came from their own creative mind or Gods either one, it is a lie. Lying is not against the law accept in some case like lying to the police or federal investigators, but the moral reallty of lying has always existed, not only is it lying, it is theft. I write creative fiction, and up until the time I write it, it does not exist nor has ever existed before in the history of man since the day the earth was formed. So...if someone copies it, then claims that as their own work, it is not only lying, but theft as well. If Ellen White copied someone Else's literary work, then claimed it as her own, there is no defense, she is both a liar and a thief. It can only be interpreted as deliberate. So the man has no appeal, the people that read her is not on trial. she is. And that's my final answer, I don't need to call a friend. River | ||
| Asurprise Registered user Username: Asurprise Post Number: 1542 Registered: 7-2007 |
It's weird how Adventists defend her, no matter what you say. My mother said that since other authors expressed the things that God [supposedly] told her, in words that better expressed what God told her, then it was "all right" to use the other authors words. :-/ | ||
| Indy4now Registered user Username: Indy4now Post Number: 932 Registered: 2-2008  |
Hi Surfy, At the home where my mom lives out there, they have a copy of that book in their library. One year when I was out there visiting, I skimmed through that book. I remember that author making that point about her plagiarism. I remember that he concluded one of his chapters (and maybe you can find the exact quote and post it) by saying that since she could write beautifully and concisely that she must be a prophet or inspired. I've been looking for my little notebook where I wrote that quote down... but I can't find it. It's probably already made it to the trash. Can you find that? I remember thinking that if writing concisely and beautifully was a sign that someone was a prophet... well... there are many prophets then! ;) I thought that the author was going to be able to present more facts to defend her, but I remember thinking that he presented more of his own opinions than anything else. vivian p.s. I think it was at the end of the first chapter actually... but don't waste too much time on trying to find it. |
