Bent Ramrod:
I won't deal with lies, since it seems counterproductive to discuss the essence of lying, especially in our time when morality seems so widely considered to be relative, but the issue seems simpler to me.
I don't think anyone has ever suggested that the collection of reprints of older Africana by St Martin's Press represented plagiarism. Nothing atall wrong with doing contemporary intro's for re-printed older works. And it certainly WAS a service to the reading part of the hunting community to bring back some of these works in cheap editions using a marketable name to sell them. I surely made use of them since one could buy them for little more than paperbounds and I carried some of them overseas rather than more valuable original editions. For some it made it possible to own works that presumably couldn't otherwise be afforded or gave access to works that previously were difficult to find.
Hate to beat a dead horse, but perhaps the reason that A MAN CALLED LION is different from the Meinertzhagen bio is that BRIAN MARSH (who is only credited briefly in the intro for his contribution and not on the cover or title page) provided the basic manuscript for Pondoro's biography.
You're certainly right about the prominence of in-your-face and what-it-means-to-me-is-the-important-thing styles of writing. Still, that's a different from using your pen to cast yourself as an authority when the substance of the experience was someone elses. That's not referring to Capstick referring to Ionides or anyone else doing X, but the many episodes in which the author stars when his involvement and actual experience upon which his expertise is supposedly based was limited to listening whilst serving drinks. I think that's what the issue is--or at least to me, it is.
Somewhat off the point, but another minor point about the Pondoro biography that is unfortunately all too typical of our modern world is the collection of Taylor's magazine articles included in the limited edition version. They were edited by the publisher for political correctness and much of Taylor's original words specifically in referring to blacks was altered or dropped along with who knows what else. One can't know without going back to the original source and meticulously comparing.
The primary reasons I bought the volume was knowing that Marsh's manuscript was the base and for the original Taylor articles. I objected strenuously to the publisher--who gratuitously ignored the complaint since it was evident that the editing was a family matter (and not Capstick's fault, by the way). Still, to me, it's another form of intellectual dishonesty in the name of some DimLib's PC values imposed on those read the material and I object to seeing it done.
Nothing wrong with somone enjoying a good read that entertains one. Surely is worth knowing the value of that read if it is not quite as purported to be and it's really a loss if that precludes one from reading the earlier sources which are authorotative and well written, albeit as befits a more literate time, perhaps somewhat more difficult to read for many.
