The Trouble With Books

One thing I'm not sure most people realize is that unlike magazine articles, books don't go through any kind of formal fact-checking process whatsoever. An author worried about inadvertent errors sneaking into his work (i.e., me) can hire someone out of pocket to check things, but there's nothing stopping an unscrupulous writer from just passing off fabrications as true. Ben Mezrich's Bringing Down the House (the basis for 21), for example "is not a work of "nonfiction" in any meaningful sense of the word."

So it's no surprise to see that Mezrich's proposal for a tell-all book about the true story behind Facebook seems to have some questionable sourcing. But some of this stuff is just sloppy -- Mezrich talks a bunch, for example, about a Facebook predecessor that he thinks was called "FaceSmash" but was in fact called "FaceMash." They have a campus newspaper and everything that covered this when it happened.

Comments

"Eco-friendly yacht"? Isn't that an oxy-moron.

And is anyone surprised that college kids would be sitting around trying to figure out ways to increase their chances of getting laid?

Posted by Nicholas Beaudrot | May 24, 2008 2:20 PM

"But some of this stuff is just sloppy ..."
-------------
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

[snicker]

hahahahahahahahaha [cough][choke][gasp]

Posted by Don Williams | May 24, 2008 2:21 PM

...books don't go through any kind of formal fact-checking process whatsoever ...there's nothing stopping an unscrupulous writer from just passing off fabrications as true.

Ding Ding Ding Ding!

Goldberg! Paging Jonah Goldberg!

Posted by Jemand von Niemand | May 24, 2008 2:28 PM

A lot of university presses put manuscripts through fact-checkers (not that that necessarily leads to better books).

Posted by Reality Man | May 24, 2008 2:34 PM

Mezrich embellished the blackjack books with a screenplay in mind.

But then, the movie changes a key aspect of the book: the fact that the main real life characters are Asian. They fool the pit bosses because of the casino executive's racist belief that all Asians are just gambling fools...so let them play, unwatched, at least to begin with.

Not even in the movie.

Posted by Garuda | May 24, 2008 3:56 PM

It wouldn't be correct to say that all books aren't fact checked. At least if one is talking about non-fiction books in the sciences or other academic subjects that are published by academic presses it is common practice to have the manuscript reviewed by several other experts in the field prior to publication. I suspect it would be fair to say that many non-fiction books for the popular press are not vetted as thoroughly.

Posted by factchecker | May 24, 2008 6:24 PM

Aren't editors supposed to sniff out the worst sort of howlers? I think that's how the traditional responsible ones used to work. (See The Hoax for an example of how basic truth used to be a big issue) Then too books, pre publishing, used to be passed about thus vetting the information in them being one of the motives.

Maybe this is all sort of old fashioned. Not that there always hasn't been publishers with an agenda that contains no interest in truth but only persuasion or profit, or both.

Posted by rapier | May 24, 2008 6:48 PM

Matt:

Factchecker is right about the scrupulous review of academic manuscripts published by university presses and their brethren imprints in the trade, often because life-and-death decisions like tenure could be riding on the outcome. There are few things a professor will take more seriously than a colleague's make-or-break book. It's a different scene at the trade houses, where editors tend to utilize copyeditors, legal readers and proofreaders to vet the manuscripts throughout the pre-publication process. The in-house editor should play a crucial role here, but often more than one pair of eyeballs is required, and alas, still some mistakes creep into the finished book. Make those corrections for the reprints!

By the way, how is your book selling?

Posted by BryklynLibrul | May 24, 2008 8:10 PM

Oh God, you are actually serious about this.

You are actually bringing up sloppy fact checking.

A ton of narcissism but not an ounce of awareness.

Posted by James | May 24, 2008 9:29 PM

Speak for yourself, Matt. When I wrote my book, there was actually a fact checker who went through once to check for glaring errors. The editor of my press also read through it and even asked me to check the name of a somewhat minor political group. Of course, I was responsible for all original research (archives, interviews, statistics) but there was actually an attempt to make sure that the book contained no glaring mistakes that would be obvious to educated readers. This is in addition to going through traditional blind review.

PS. My book's amazon URL:

http://www.amazon.com/Black-Power-Studies-Movement-Discipline/dp/0801886198

Feel free to mention it!!

Posted by Fabio Rojas | May 24, 2008 11:14 PM

Speak for yourself, Matt. When I wrote my book, there was actually a fact checker who went through once to check for glaring errors. The editor of my press also read through it and even asked me to check the name of a somewhat minor political group. Of course, I was responsible for all original research (archives, interviews, statistics) but there was actually an attempt to make sure that the book contained no glaring mistakes that would be obvious to educated readers. This is in addition to going through traditional blind review.

PS. My book's amazon URL:

http://www.amazon.com/Black-Power-Studies-Movement-Discipline/dp/0801886198

Feel free to mention it!!

Posted by Fabio Rojas | May 24, 2008 11:15 PM

Speak for yourself, Matt. When I wrote my book, there was actually a fact checker who went through once to check for glaring errors. The editor of my press also read through it and even asked me to check the name of a somewhat minor political group. Of course, I was responsible for all original research (archives, interviews, statistics) but there was actually an attempt to make sure that the book contained no glaring mistakes that would be obvious to educated readers. This is in addition to going through traditional blind review.

PS. My book's amazon URL:

http://www.amazon.com/Black-Power-Studies-Movement-Discipline/dp/0801886198

Feel free to mention it!!

Posted by Fabio Rojas | May 24, 2008 11:16 PM

They're still trying to find the body of Matt's last copy editor. He swallowed a pound of C-4 like the guy in "Hitman" after desperately trying to proof Matt's book.

"By the way, how is your book selling?"

Need you ask? You'll embarrass him!

Barnes and Noble Sales Rank: 51,858

Bit better at Amazon: 8,627 in Books

That only means nearly 10,000 other books are more important than Matt's - or nearly 52,000 otherwise.

I love this review at Amazon:

"Yglesias smartly avoids making a specific foreign policy prescription..."

Bwahahahahahahah!!! What have I been saying here about Iran?

"He supports the war in Afghanistan..."

Thus demonstrating how little he knows about foreign policy or national security.

"He admits that some of these institutions, such as the U. N., need some measure of reform, though specifics are not given about what to do."

Again, no specifics. Guess this is why he likes Obama, whose foreign policies are equally nebulous.

"On one hand, it's hard to take someone seriously as a foreign policy expert when they are no older than I am."

Right.

"This unfortunate little book has about as much gravitas as the hole in a donut, perhaps even less. The arguments, rationale and presentation are indistinguishable from the somewhat typical "conventional wisdom" prevalent among those who congregate at the Left's Washington DC hangouts and parlors."

Bwahahahahaha!!! Obviously that was Petey under a pseudonym! Only thing the "reviewer" left out was "trust fund scumbag"!

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | May 24, 2008 11:17 PM

What about the Bible? They must have fact-checked the shit out of that book.

Posted by Delicious Pundit | May 25, 2008 12:42 AM

I've written two non-fiction books, and I think Matt's right. Editors are so overworked at publishing houses that they often have little time to edit, let alone fact-check. And they're certainly not going to pay for an author's fact-checker. Eric Schlosser hired his own fact-checker for "Fast Food Nation," but he almost had no choice, because he figured that the food industry would try to find things wrong with the book. If you look at a non-fiction book close enough, you'll always find errors, so it's a good way to "discredit" someone-c.f. Mike Davis, for example.

As for Mezrich, putting the phrase "true story" in your title, and then putting a little disclaimer on the copyright page that essentially says "this is not a true story," which is basically what happened with "Brining Down the House," strikes me as laughably cynical. (I'm reminded of David Cross as "Marilyn Monster" telling new employees, with a big smile, "And don't forget to break some rules..."[double-take, serious face] "But don't break any rules.")

I read Mezrich's terrible book a few years ago, and I was surprised there weren't more of these sorts of objections at the time. The book really doesn't pass the smell test. For one thing, you keep waiting for some revelation about the incredible methods these geniuses devised to beat casinos, but it really just comes down to the kind of card-counting schemes I'm sure have been tried thousands of times before. Also, Mezrich is such a hack-ish, uncreative writer, that the whole book is told after the fact. It's structured as Mezrich meeting these people after the whole scheme collapsed, and getting their story from them. And for some reason (probably rank hackishnesss), Mezrich throws in pointless banal details, like describing one of the characters changing lanes to pass a car on the freeway, that we know he is making up, since we know he wasn't there. In other words, he's such a hack that he can't help but foreground his hack-osity.

I'm disappointed that the guy getting beat up in the bathroom didn't happen, though, because by that point in the book I remember thinking that he so obnoxious he had it coming.

Posted by Greg | May 25, 2008 5:39 PM