A look at the claims, predictions and behavior of a media "psychic".

Articles

Articles Pages

Added May 13 2008

Added Apr 28 2008

Added Apr 21 2008

Added Apr 09 2008

Added Apr 04 2008

Added Apr 02 2008

Added Mar 31 2008

Added Mar 20 2008

Added Mar 19 2008

Added Mar 03 2008

Added Feb 27 2008

Added Jan 31 2008

Added Jan 30 2008

Added Jan 16 2008

Added Jan 07 2008

Added Dec 30 2007

Added Dec 15 2007

Added Dec 13 2007

Added Nov 28 2007

Added Nov 20 2007

Added Nov 08 2007

Added Nov 04 2007

Added Oct 27 2007

Added Oct 19 2007

Added Oct 10 2007

Added Oct 07 2007

Added Oct 05 2007

Added Sep 23 2007

Added Sep 21 2007

Added Sep 10 2007

Added Sep 03 2007

Added Sep 01 2007

Added Aug 22 2007

Added Aug 19 2007

Added Aug 17 2007

Added Aug 15 2007

Added Aug 14 2007

Added Aug 08 2007

Added Jul 12 2007

Added Jul 08 2007

Added Jun 29 2007

Added Jun 11 2007

Added May 30 2007

Added May 29 2007

Added May 26 2007

Added May 09 2007

Added May 02 2007

Added May 01 2007

Added Apr 29 2007

Added Apr 21 2007

Added Apr 14 2007

Added Apr 11 2007

Added Apr 02 2007

Added Mar 30 2007

Added Mar 25 2007

Added Mar 14 2007

Added Mar 01 2007

Added Feb 28 2007

Added Feb 27 2007

Added Feb 25 2007

Added Feb 08 2007

Added Feb 06 2007

Added Feb 04 2007

Added Jan 12 2007

Added Jan 10 2007

Added Jan 03 2007

Added Dec 31 2006

Added Dec 29 2006

Added Dec 19 2006

Added Dec 14 2006

Added Dec 07 2006

Added Dec 05 2006

Added Dec 03 2006

Added Nov 29 2006

Added Nov 27 2006

Sylvia Browne and Literary "Borrowing"

Phrases in one of Browne's books are identical to those written years earlier by another author.

This 1998 magazine and Browne's 2005 book contain nearly-identical passages.

Background

I have often wondered just how much of Sylvia Browne's books are actually written by Browne herself.

Many of them are co-authored with other authors (Harrison Lindsay and Antoinette May among them). Was Browne a true co-author of these books, or did the others write them, with Browne's name on the cover to make them sell?

Even with those books with only Browne's name on the cover, the same question is valid. Did she write them, or were they written by an uncredited author ("ghost-written" - a common occurence with celebrity books)?

These questions occur to me not only because of the sheer volume of her books (four in 2006 alone: If You Could see What I See: The Tenets of Novus Spiritus, Exploring the Levels of Creation, Insight: Case Files from the Psychic World and The Mystical Life of Jesus: An Uncommon Perspective on the Life of Christ), but also because the command of the English language shown in the books seems to me to be far superior to the command of the language she demonstrates when speaking in person (an example of which was discussed in this article).

Of course, when writing, a person has the luxury of editing and rewrites, which they do not have when speaking off the top of their head, but I would think that the person (or persons) who wrote those books would have a better spoken command of the language than that which Browne exhibits in her personal appearances.

Another question which arises when an author produces as much material as Browne has: is it all original, or was some of it "borrowed" from other works?

Joe Nickell Speaks Up

In 2005, Browne's book Secrets & Mysteries of the World was published. It contained Browne's "explanations" of all sorts of places, things and phenomena, including the famous "Shroud of Turin," a cloth said by some to be the burial shroud of Jesus of Nazareth.

Later that year, an article appeared in Skeptical Inquirer magazine, in which author Joe Nickell showed some rather blatant similarities between Browne's "Shroud" analysis and that which Nickell had made in an article ("Science vs. `Shroud Science'") he had written some seven years earlier, published in the July/August 1998 edition of Skeptical Inquirer.

Here are the relevant sections of Browne's and Nickell's text:

From Browne's 2005 book, Secrets & Mysteries of the World, page 196:

"If the Shroud were in fact painted, it would explain some image flaws that have always raised questions. For example, the hair hangs as for a standing rather than a reclining figure; the physique is unnaturally elongated (like figures in Gothic art); and the 'blood' flows are unrealistically neat (instead of matting the hair, for instance, they run in rivulets on the outside of the locks). You see, real blood soaks into cloth and spreads in all directions rather than leaving picturelike images."

From Nickell's article in the July/August 1998 issue of Skeptical Inquirer magazine, page 21:

"That the Shroud is indeed the work of a medieval artist would explain numerous image flaws. For example, the physique is unnaturally elongated (like figures in Gothic art!). Also, the hair hangs as for a standing rather than recumbent figure. . . . Everywhere the 'blood' flows are unrealistically neat. Instead of matting the hair, for instance, they run in rivulets on the outside of the locks. . . . In addition, real blood soaks into cloth and spreads in all directions, rather than leaving picturelike images."

Here are those sections again, with color-highlighting to emphasize the "similarities."

From Browne's 2005 book, Secrets & Mysteries of the World, page 196:

"If the Shroud were in fact painted, it would explain some image flaws that have always raised questions. For example, the hair hangs as for a standing rather than a reclining figure; the physique is unnaturally elongated (like figures in Gothic art); and the 'blood' flows are unrealistically neat (instead of matting the hair, for instance, they run in rivulets on the outside of the locks). You see, real blood soaks into cloth and spreads in all directions rather than leaving picturelike images."

From Nickell's 1998 article, in the July/August 1998 issue of Skeptical Inquirer magazine, page 21:

"That the Shroud is indeed the work of a medieval artist would explain numerous image flaws. For example, the physique is unnaturally elongated (like figures in Gothic art!). Also, the hair hangs as for a standing rather than recumbent figure. . . . Everywhere the 'blood' flows are unrealistically neat. Instead of matting the hair, for instance, they run in rivulets on the outside of the locks. . . . In addition, real blood soaks into cloth and spreads in all directions, rather than leaving picturelike images."

Analysis

This is not just a matter of ideas being the same.

In my opinion, there can be no question but that the passage in Browne's book was blatantly copied, almost word-for-word, from Nickell's article. Further, the article was not even credited as a source in Browne's book (this is a frequent criticism of her books - little if any references are ever given).

Is this plagiarism? I do not know if it meets the legal definition, but it certainly meets the dictionary definition:

pla·gia·rism
–noun
1. the unauthorized use or close imitation of the language and thoughts of another author and the representation of them as one's own original work.
2. something used and represented in this manner.

Of course, this makes me wonder what else in that book was "borrowed" without permission from other sources, and passed off as Browne's own original work?

And - what about her other books? How much "borrowing" do they contain?

Conclusion

Does this have any bearing on whether or not Browne is a "real psychic?" Of course not.

But, like her conviction for securities fraud, I think it is evidence of her character, and therefore something which should be taken into account when deciding whether or not she is a person whose word should be trusted.

Related Links

Clicking on any of these links will load a separate browser window for viewing the linked page.

StopSylviaBrowne.com is not responsible for the content of any of these linked pages.