And then what? That's a subordinate clause, not a sentence. There's supposed to be a verb that tells us what happened.
Maybe this guy needs a better ghostwriter.
The new "Tom Clancy Command and Control" is by someone who almost gets Clancy's style right. But his work is still inferior to the actual books written by Tom Clancy, who's been dead for a decade.
He could use a ghostresearcher. Most of his claims are rather dubious.
There's no shame in it: academics have grad students, who at least sometimes get a mention in the acknowledgements.
In what field????? In fields I'm familiar, whoever does the research (i.e. the grad student or the postdoc) is the first author, helpers are co-authors and the PI i.e. the main academic who leads the lab is the last author. In what field PI is the first author and grad students "sometimes get acknowledgement"? That sounds like academic fraud.
I'm not sure where that might happen or be tolerated, today. If you go back and look at research into antibiotics, DNA, etc. back in the 1940s and 1950s ... and even research in the 1960s and 1970s, decades later, there ended up being serious questions around ethics, authorship, etc. for some really seminal papers, for example.
Funny enough, my mind first went to Bernie Sanders' My Revolution.
Either he didn't use a ghostwriter, or the ghostwriter was Larry David doing a Bernie Sanders impression.
The Wikipedia entry for the book doesn't mention a ghostwriter[1]. But after reading this article, I think Wikipedia should have a policy of explicitly stating so-and-so did not use a ghostwriter for what are apparently edge cases.
Hey Wikipedians-- can you make this so?
How could anyone ever verify that was the case? Most people who use a ghostwriter won't admit to it, so anyone who claims that they didn't can't be trusted.
I'm not a big memoir guy, but your description is enticing.
So I don't know what the author actually intended. The train of thought in the article never gets particularly close to anything that resembles a paradox.
> [...], so much so that when it turned out that one of the books had “at least 95 separate passages” of plagiarism, including “long sections of a chapter on the cardiac health of giraffes.”
"so much so that when ..." what?!
meta commentary?
This is a common enough turn of phrase, at least in my corner of the world. What's your problem with it?
https://www.collinsdictionary.com/sentences/english/so-much-...
"So much so that when {occurrence} {outcome}"
This has the occurrence (the inclusion of the topic) but not the consequent outcome - seems like some anecdote about that author not recollecting the clearly memorable topic got mangled.
There's a missing word later in the piece as well.
You mean where the author, Andrew Gelman, "What I wanted to share today is a fascinating story from a magazine article about the affair, where the author, Joel Stein, 'Nearly all experts and celebrities use ghostwriters,' and then links to an amusing magazine article from 2009," and just completely skips over the verb?