Subscribe to my Feed
« Dear Abby: Apologize anyway! | Home | When it comes to apologies, intent matters! »
Do you accept Neale Donald Walsch’s apology?
By Lauren | January 9, 2009
Neale Donald Walsch, bestselling author of the Conversations with God series, astonished his readers this week by shutting down his Beliefnet.com blog. Walsch’s final post consisted of a public apology to fellow author Candy Chand for taking a Christmas story she had previously published and posting it on his blog as his personal experience. According to Walsch, who openly admits that he re-published Chand’s tale without attribution, the incident occurred as an unfortunate trick of his memory. Having received the story approximately a decade ago and repeated it numerous times, Walsch says he “internalized” the story to the point where he honestly thought it was his. Walsch wrote, “I am astonished at my own mental failing here,” and apologized profusely to Ms. Chand and his readers.
In the interest of full disclosure, let me say that I’ve read and enjoyed many of Mr. Walsch’s books and blog posts. I’ve also briefly spoken with him on one occasion, and came away very impressed. My surmise is that, in a hurry to finish his blog post on Christmas Eve, he dug into his clip file, pulled a version of the story that omitted Ms. Chand’s byline and, thinking it was something he had written years ago, posted it online. I believe that it was an honest mistake and that Mr. Walsch’s apology is sincere.
Not everyone agrees. Walsch’s final blog post has received over 200 comments, some blasting Walsch, most begging him to return to blogging. Ms. Chand has said she doesn’t credit Walsch’s explanation, and some commentators have openly sneered at his apology. Interestingly, the various reactions to Walsch’s statement seem to depend on whether the writer had previously been offended, or not, by the unusual premise of his books. The Conversations with God series is presented as an ongoing discussion between Walsch and the Creator of the Universe. Whether divinely inspired or simply allegorical, Walsch’s books have been a revelation to some, an abomination to others.
This episode demonstrates how important past experience is to the effectiveness of an apology. The fans who’ve enjoyed Walsch’s books and blog posts over the years have come to trust him, so they’re quick to believe and forgive him. The people who already thought Walsch was a New Age snake-oil salesman are equally quick to dismiss his explanation as self-serving and dishonest. Whether Walsch’s apology ultimately proves to be effective probably depends very much on your previous point of view.
Topics: Apologies, Personal Ethics, Professional Ethics, ethics |
January 10th, 2009 at 1:46 am
Sometimes, there’s only so much you can do. He’s admitted it wasn’t his, apologized profusely, and even shut down his blog; how much more can he do, save going back in time and not using the story? Some people just seem to enjoy complaining, it seems.
January 11th, 2009 at 2:17 am
You know what? This incident isn’t a little kerfluffle about a man’s memory playing a trick on him. Everyone has “senior moments,” and Walsch is as likely as anyone to forget from one minute to the next what’s going on.
This is about authorial integrity, and a professional writer’s utter disregard for the simplest, most basic rule of his craft. If you can’t produce evidence that you wrote something, either through research, citation, or facts that support what you’ve written, then don’t put it out into the world. Particularly, don’t pass it off as original and “yours.”
I’ve been flabbergasted by the overwhelmingly mild responses by writers online, many of them also professionals, who seem willing to shrug Walsch’s action off with a “Well, he’s apologized, so no harm done.” Wrong, wrong, wrong. He appropriated another writer’s work, “fixed” the first paragraph, and then posted it where a considerable number of people wait breathlessly for every little profound pronouncement from him. He plagiarized Chand’s essay, and then he excuses himself by telling readers it was a trick of faulty memory.
I’m frankly surprised he didn’t write, “The Devil made me do it.” It would have been more in keeping with his public persona, and far less insulting to Ms. Chand, who probably did not realize much profit from the original publication of her essay. However had he not been caught, Walsch, whose books regularly appear in the NY Times Bestseller lists, had plenty of opportunity to realize profits, due to readers cooing over how “precious” and how “deep” his insights are.
About the only good things that have come out of this mess are that Walsch’s arrogance is undoubtedly suffering a beating about now, and Candy Chand is gaining some long-deserved recognition for the original thought and perspective that went into her essay.
Seriously, I hope there are fact-checkers all over the world sharpening their pens, preparing to take a sharp, hard look at what Walsch has already written. How many other essays has he “internalized” with his defective, albeit admiring, memory, and then spun out into his books and lectures?
If this wasn’t an innocent mistake, as Walsch disingenously claims, we’ll soon enough be reading about it.
Stay tuned.
January 11th, 2009 at 4:29 pm
Memory lapses DO happen and they happen in the most embarrassing of ways. Let those who cast the first stone realize they may have done worse.
January 11th, 2009 at 10:10 pm
Ooh. I hate to say “case in point” but, well… case in point.
January 12th, 2009 at 1:44 pm
Dear Lauren,
Not being familiar with the matter, I cannot comment on this specific issue other than to say that if you feel that the man has a fair degree of integrity Lauren, that is good enough for me.
I think you do make a valid point, and your point in my view underscores the importance of building up a positive reputation. As you say, depending upon the seriousness of your mistake (deliberate or otherwise), the reputation which you had prior to the mistake occurring will have a significant impact upon your chances of being forgiven.
July 8th, 2009 at 7:57 am
Criticism is good. Critics need not be. If the intentions are good what’s wrong in using another’s sayings and apologizing to the entire audience & that too if his audience eagerly waits..tendering an apology in public shows he had no wrong intent..
Most religious God head are thankfully in heaven..if they were to come down to earth ..they probably can’t quote from their own religious books fearing copy rights and legal battle..:-)
October 23rd, 2009 at 9:04 am
I have spent several week ends at work shops with Neale Donald Walsch and I was a wonderful, amazing fabulous speaker, full of humour and very self effacing and humble and warm, through writing his books i have loved to read i cannot tell you how grateful I am, I don’t know who had done more than he, with every cell of my being I have to thank him, and how human he is, had he ever pretended to be perfect, he has my undying affection and loyalty and if possible, protection.
He had the courage to write the books and did not feel he was good enough for the role, but in my view he is.
October 26th, 2009 at 3:11 pm
Yes i do accept his apology. We are quick to put people in the pits when they make a mistake, to second guess their intentions
hell it was only a story..
Get over it!
November 29th, 2009 at 4:48 pm
I haven’t repeated a story so many times that I thought the story was mine. Its human nature. Neale has apologised, lets move on.
January 13th, 2010 at 10:51 am
he apologized..didn’t he??
January 31st, 2010 at 11:06 pm
He NEVER apologized, only made egotistical excuses.
March 10th, 2010 at 7:11 am
Well “perspective creates perception”
(-Home with God)
May 3rd, 2010 at 10:33 pm
I have a hard time explaining my ideas of this sort, but I will try.
I must start by saying that Walsch’s ideology is based on a literal mathematical error. I am not saying he formulated this faulty premise to lead others astray, although it certainly is possible that he engineered it as a virus.
I have no personal qualms with Walsch. I do not know him. But if he has confused himself with another person (by internalizing someone else’s experience as his own), I still fear (though he would tell me that fear is the opposite of love…not true in this case..)for his mental health. I see the correlation between his teachings and his “mistakes”. I do not say this in judgement, but in empathy. Everyone has done this sort of thing. We do it when we fantasize. We do it when we “compare our insides to others’ outsides”. But the problem comes when we really start INTERNALIZING these things we make up! Walsch admitted to doing this by accident. His shadow seems to sneak up on him. Does no one else see that Walsch may need help? His accidents behave more like computer glitches, and this is a red flag in mental health issues.
Am I being coherent here? Sometimes it’s hard to tell..
May 3rd, 2010 at 10:36 pm
And yes I accept his apology! (Sorry- forgot to answer the question at first, didn’t I?)
May 4th, 2010 at 1:36 pm
I posted yesterday and was censored. I will post it again and again, because I cannot turn my back.
Neale is showing signs of mental illness.
From Wikipedia:
“Generally, internalization is the long-term process of consolidating and embedding one’s own beliefs, attitudes, and values, when it comes to moral behavior. The accomplishment of this may involve the deliberate use of psychoanalytical or behavioral methods.”
This definition does not include “embedding someone else’s experience as one’s own” in the definition. This is why I fear (though he would say fear is the opposite of love…not true in this case…)for Neale’s mental health. He has created a system based on false premise (maybe just accidentally), and his creation is turning on him by mis-wiring his brain, to use a not-so-technical explaination.
I could explain my study in detail, but I will save that for a forum instead of just comments. My research is extensive.
I do not mean any of this perjoratively. I just know that if I were showing this sign of identity confusion, I hope my friends (and in Walsch’s case, followers) would get me some help.
Walsch is a very special man with charisma and drive. It would be a shame to let him languish. Someone help him out!
Does anyone know what I mean?
May 4th, 2010 at 1:44 pm
Ok now my censored post was replaced. These message boards are so odd!
May 4th, 2010 at 6:37 pm
It frightens me that Walsch confused his own experiences with someone else’s. I am a die-hard follower. But if Neale shows any more sign of schizoid stuff, I gotta rethink his ..program
May 5th, 2010 at 6:48 pm
Hmmmmm…. interesting…
June 6th, 2010 at 8:52 pm
When I ask myself what possible need Mr. Walsch would have for deliberately using another’s account as his own, I come up with nothing. Would he not be a complete fool to do this on purpose, knowing well enough it would be exposed as another person’s. It’s ‘good news’ for some to find fault with someone who claims to talk with God, but for me, this is just an instance of human error. He gave such credence to a good story that he overlooked the author! It’s been done before! Almost daily.
June 9th, 2010 at 10:56 pm
I have never heard of someone doing this before unless it was on purpose.
So if it was not on purpose, and Walsch really started to believe that someone’s else’s experience was his own, then this man has some very serious delusions that require mental help. It’s ok! Let’s just see it for what it is and be careful not to follow the example of someone who has trouble sorting reality until he gets his bearings back.
July 16th, 2010 at 1:59 am
Dear Lauren,
I agree with you as it’s my observation as well that our reaction very much depends on our personal experience. It makes such reaction highly subjective.
Yes, taking someone else’s previously published story and posting it on his blog probably does not contribute much to Neale Donald Walsch professional image. Stating that he has a mental health issue (per one of the comments in your blog) would be as irresponsible.
We are not aware of the fact that we constantly mimic each other in our ways of physical behavior, in accepting new and rejecting old values, in our desires and thoughts, etc. None of us actually has anything of our own. It happens because we are influenced by the society we live in. It also happens because we are connected by the Thought of Creation. We are ONE. Once we finally become aware of it we’ll understand that having common thoughts is quite normal and personalizing other people’s ideas does not necessarily point to a mental health problem.
I my opinion Neale Donald Walsch deserves a credit for realizing it and posting a question of how we could make people understand that we are already united.
Please refer to below link for Neale Donald Walsch’s interview with Dr. Michael Laitman.
http://www.kabbalahblog.info/2010/07/neale-donald-walsch/
August 14th, 2010 at 5:35 pm
At the age of 12, my first published poem (”A God So True”) appeared in a couple of small-town newspapers. A mere 7 years later, a colleague with whom I had recently become acquainted asked that I read a newspaper clipping which he had long carried in his wallet. The credit was folded inward so as not to readily appear to the reader. After reading the poem, I handed it back to him and expressed my pleasure for the writing. Seemingly surprised by my reaction, he unfolded the article and asked, “isn’t this you?”. It was - and, even after having read each word, I had not remembered. The human mind may indeed be the ‘last great frontier’ of which we know so very little. May we each seek to replace judgmentalness with discernment.
August 27th, 2010 at 3:56 pm
Howard- Neale did not forget that he had written something and later confuse it for someone elses. He published someone else’s work and then claimed it as his own.
When you were confronted with your own work, how did you find out it was yours? Did you just remember? Did you go back through your old files to find it? Did you search your work on the newspapers’ site?
If there was any inkling of doubt that the words Walsch were publishing were not his own, he would have done well to make sure.
He stole from Chicken Soup for the Soul, founded by Jack Canfield. I know that Walsch has worked closely with “TLC” in the past. Maybe ol Jack gave Neale permission to rip him off? Yeah that could be. Then I guess the problem is that people don’t really like being lied to.
Walsch and the whole New Wage is going down the crapper, and fast.
August 30th, 2010 at 9:12 pm
Discernment. Yes. That is exactly what we are employing by commenting here. Who said anything about judging or sentencing him, anyway?
It does not matter that Walsch copied. The thing is that he says he thought it was his.
I would rather hear him say “Yeah I ripped some Chicken Soup for the Soul writer off. I don’t believe in ‘intellectual property’. What of it?” instead of the all the nonsense.
December 16th, 2011 at 2:04 am
From a guy who’s made a fortune bashing the worst aspects of 1950’s Catholic politics and brushing off great works and sacrifices of some of the greatest thinkers and humanitarians, I am not shocked.