Uhm, Cecil, not to be picky, but that’s spelled “principle controversy.” A “principal” is something entirely different. But since you know everything, you might want to alert the folks at Webster and American Heritage and Random House that they are behind the curve.
Link to column: Did John F. Kennedy really write “Profiles in Courage?”
Go ahead and be picky if you like, but maybe find a dictionary first. Cecil’s sense of the term was entirely correct: principal means “first” or “foremost in importance”, which was exactly what was meant.
Ouch! A slam on a slam.
However, this was a pretty good article. Controversial, light-hearted, dismissive and well-grounded.
Dr. Cobweb is right.
Does anyone else find it rich that Cecil claims credit for all those SD columns that you know Ed Zotti has ghostwritten?
What do you mean, “there’s no Cecil”? Heresy!
Yes, but I know better than to bite the hand that gropes - er - feeds us.
I owe my internet name, AskNott, to JFK and, apparently, to Ted Sorensen. The two of them may have lifted it from somebody else.
In the movie where Michaelangelo is seen working on his back, slaving at the Sisteen chapel ceiling comes from our ‘single one’ or any of the theories or our separateness.
In fact, Michaelangelo had many workers in his staff who did a lot of the work.
Many important works where the ‘person who conceived the idea’ did no more than direct it and made it come to fruition, would not have been realized without the ‘brain’ of the operation, despite of the fact that it was the ‘arm’ that actually executed the act!
Humans work in groups, in the same way as the mind has the body to execute its will.
Without Kennedy or without Michaelangelo, neither Profiles in Courage, or the Sisteen Chapel ceiling would have come to pass.
Nick
Dr. Cobweb swings the axe and wham! - OkProf’s head is on the ground, rolling away.
And whit3hawk… it’s “Sistine”.
… unless he means the Cistern Chapel?
I presume that when George W.'s book comes out, you will be as charitable?
The fact that it was ghostwritten isn’t the issue; most books by well-known people are, and many of them are excellent. The issue is that it was passed off as JFK’s own work, with some help from a “research assistant”, when in fact Sorensen did essentially all of it, according to Cecil.
Well, not exactly. If there is no literal Cecil, somebody writing under a nom de plume is a different issue than authorship attributed to an actual person being ghosted. You could claim a parrallel if you believe there was originally a real Cecil Adams, who has since retired, died, moved on, or otherwise turned the column over. OTOH, that is an established tradition with long-running syndicated columns, and is not always done publically.
Where is the dividing line that determines when ghostwriting is so extensive that it removes authorship from the source of the idea?
If the writers and contributors still attribute source to JFK, where is the debate? Why bother?
It’s a matter of credibility…
As for George W, BrotherCadfael, … I’d have a hard time believing the ability …
Again, it’s a matter of credibility…
It doesn’t seem reasonable to assume that JFK didn’t review the progress of the writing from time to time and steered the course of the writing, even if he didn’t write a single word.
That would have been Cicero (Κικερον), of course.
Michelangelo did the actual design. Michelangelo had the real skill and did the preliminaries.
Jack the Zipper was just another rich boy fraud who bought the credit.
Perhaps the issue is that Michaelangelo could have done all of it and organised journeyman help for the less important parts to save time.
Cecil, when he talks about style, seems to imply that Kennedy could not have written the book, and the key skill was Sorensen’s