|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** This is an archived, static copy of the Casebook messages boards dating from 1998 to 2003. These threads cannot be replied to here. If you want to participate in our current forums please go to https://forum.casebook.org **
Archive through April 24, 2001
Casebook Message Boards: General Discussion: General Topics:
Professional Standards:
Archive through April 24, 2001
Author: Martin Fido
Monday, 23 April 2001 - 08:43 am |        | Hi Karoline,
As mooted between us, I've opened a new board for this topic and placed it under general Discussions, Miscellaneous, Harris, Melvin.
I have no recollection whatsoever of ay mention of Paul Harrison's work or Bruce Paley's objection to it as plagiarism. Nor has Paul Begg. (We can't consult Keith, who doesn't have e-mail). As you can see, it is not menioned at all in the two letters we received, which assume that we shall merely note and hopefully publish Bruce Paley's own erroneously assumed indebtedness to an earlier author.
Any complaints Bruce was making about Harrison might, of course, have suplied the context of the conversation at Cammy's. But they were not passed on to us and so played no part in the effort to have Bruce's originality discredited by the A-Z authors.
With all good wishes,
Martin F |
Author: Alegria
Monday, 23 April 2001 - 08:52 am | | Martin,
I wanted to let you know that I am suggesting a renaming of this thread as I do not believe that is actually the topic under discussion, nor is it the one originally introduced. Something more general in the area of: The Gensesis of the Tension or How did it come to this? might be more appropriate. |
Author: Alegria
Monday, 23 April 2001 - 10:15 am | | I have not been posting lately on this thread because I was under the mistaken impression that the relevant quote to accuse Paley of plagiarism was contained somewhere else in the letter of March 22, pages which I did not have. I did not think that the only Paley reference was the quote below. Now that I know that it is, I will post my observations.
"Under JOSEPH BARNETT you might like to note that the essential thesis was worked out in detail in Mark Andrews' novel "The Return of Jack the Ripper". "This was published by Leisure Books, New York, in 1977, five years before Paley set out 'his theory'. Bruce Paley, it should be noted, is a New Yorker who used to import American books and comics. Ah well!"
At no place in this passage does the word plagiarize appear. It is a collection of facts with an ejaculate at the end. The author (Mel’s) opinion of it could be ‘inferred’ possibly through the offsetting of ‘his theory’ and the “Ah well!”. Do I think that this letter implies plagiarism? Yes. I do. However, I am inferring an implication. NOT the most reliable source material.
If I am writing a book, it is my duty as the author to check my facts before I publish it. Martin you agree with me. You wrote:
“If you hear something to another writer's discredit, the proper thing to do is to notify that writer, and if he offers an explanation, accept it and suppress the story.”
Melvin offered straight facts: there had been an earlier printing of the same theory. He prefaced it by "you might like to note" rather than "please note" as he did with the other item's he was submitting. If I wanted to infer, I would infer that he was saying the following information would be something for you to consider, not to be taken as fact like the other listings. As the author of the book this would be printed in, it was your duty to get Paley’s story first. It is not, in my opinion, Mel’s fault if you didn’t.
With Respect,
Ally |
Author: Martin Fido
Monday, 23 April 2001 - 10:29 am | | Ally,
Do you think Karoline would like it if, without notifying her, I wrote to the editor of 'Lewis Carroll Notes' (an imaginary journal) a list of 'please note...' observations for inclusion in his 'Notes and Queries' section, and then added
'Under "Love Life" you might like to note that the essential theory was worked out in detail in J.B. Pratt's doctoral thesis for Boston University. This became available on the internet five years before Ms Leach set out 'her theory'. Ms Leach, it should be noted, has access to the internet and is known to use it for research. Ah, well!'
(For any benighted soul with an unendurably literal mind, ALL the above is fiction I have just invented, except for the basic fact that Karoline Leach is the author of a book about Lewis Carroll which I gather makes new suggestions about his relations with a woman or women.)
I doubt whether she would join you in thinking I was (like Mel) faultless in running the risk that the editor might not check the facts. (And your last sentence might be read by the unwary as suggesting that we didn't check the facts, which of course we did).
You and Karoline both seem very unwilling to answer my repeated question: would I have been justified in sending the discreditable information I received about Melvin to anyone else in any form whatsoever - statement, innuendo, straight facts, or anything else - before checking it out with Melvin himself and acting accordingly?
All good wishes,
Martin |
Author: Alegria
Monday, 23 April 2001 - 10:40 am | | Hi Martin,
I do not feel there was any obligation on Melvin's part to contact Paley before hand. Is someone other than Melvin Harris, Joe Q Public had sent the same information, because they had knowlege of this previous work, would Joe be responsible for attempting to track down Paley first to verify whether he was aware of this work? Of course not. Melvin supplied you with facts which are indisputably facts. The implications that were chosen to be printed along with those facts lie solely on the head of those who decided to print them. He did not publish them in any work and he submitted them for your consideration. I do not think that he was at fault for not contacting Paley. Again this is just my opinion.
Respectfully yours,
Ally |
Author: Peter R.A. Birchwood
Monday, 23 April 2001 - 10:39 am | | Melvin Harris has asked me to place this piece on the boards on his behalf.
TRICKY FIDO MELVIN HARRIS
Martin Fido can deal with the complexities of English Literature, but when it comes to my quite simply phrased writings he misreads, misunderstands and misreports. Perhaps even simpler statements are needed. OK.
First: no insult was felt when Fido took up some of the airtime at LBC Radio. The fault lay with LBC itself. I initially turned down the LBC offer. I was not prepared to devote time to any more publicity. My work for Yorkshire Television had to come first. The station then pressed my publishers and assured them that substantial time would be allotted for me to promote my book. I reluctantly left a YTV planning meeting in order to reach the studio. On arriving I found that a last-minute decision had cut my time by half. This was deplorable since it was not the arrangement made with Harrap. Had I known in advance, I would not have bothered. I am not blaming Fido for this, but he choose to bring the matter up in the first place. And now we have his false conclusion that this event resulted in some "private animus" on my part. Sheer nonsense!
Yet oddly enough, there was some private animus involving LBC but THIS was on Fido's part. We all learned about this quite recently. It involved the bizarre claim that I had tried to steal his radio slot back in 1988. This was a programme that I had never even heard and never even heard of, since I did not listen to LBC. I am told that it was a programme that dealt with murder and murderers. Well that formula, as a matter of course ruled me out of the reckoning. The subjects would not interest me in any way . As I have pointed out often my investigations cover a quite narrow field: that involves forgery, con-tricks, deceptions and counterfeiting onle. But Fido nursed this grudge for years bafore making his illusion public. I find this spineless and disgusting. He lacked the guts to confront me with this wild claim, which could have been refuted at once. Instead he harbored this bitter suspician until he saw a chance to use it to create a false impression of my character. And this is the man who overworks the word "honourable!" A man of honour would have openly raised the issue as soon as the alleged event became known to him.
His pieces show him to be way out of touch with the essential requirements of an honest debate. They shown him painfully short on facts. How on earth can he imagine that my factual posting on the Kosminsky affair was "unsolicited?" This is an open forum and anyone can intervene at any point. No-one has the power to decide that ANY posting is unsolicited. And I posted simply because I found the debate stuck way back in 1988. All the new findings since then were being ignored, and in thinking this I had the full agreement of both Stewart Evans and Nick Connell, two researchers who have not stood still and have added to our Andersonian knowledge.
He is again out of touch when he speaks of the "committee of Integrity" set up late 1994. He writes: "(the first usage of the word integrity in the diary context as far as I know.)" But the Committee's title was a deliberate riposte to the slurs that originated with the diary camp as early as 1992. At my first meeting with Feldman on May 13th 1993 he explained that I had not been invited to see the Diary earlier since some of his advisors had warned him not to show it to me on the grounds that I "lacked integrity." By that date, presumably, he now felt that the risk could be taken since the book was finished and its lucrative rights had been sold.
On June 19th 1993 Feldman confirmed by letter, that several persons had stated that I "lacked integrity." Now these points have already been registered on the nEt and Begg has confirmed the fact that Feldman stands by his words. And in my reply to Fido headed: "THE BLOODY TRUTH," I specifically refer to Feldman's words of May 13th 1993. Why then does Fido dodge the issue and make a false report? Why does he misrepresent the reasons behind the title of the Committee? Why does he try to link that name with the A-Z scurillous entry?
And why again does he falsely report the date of Feldman's accusations against me? He tries to place them two years AFTER the last edition of the A-Z which appeared in 1996. But the lies about the rigging of the ink tests were made as early as December 1994 and fed to journalists then and in 1995. Philip Knightley for one, has gone on record with a statement confirming this. A copy of this statement was sent to Feldman's solicitors. Begg has seen a copy and the text has been displayed on this board. And the whole vile episode was well known in Ripper circles long before the A-Z revision.
As for Fido's religion, he himself has made a point of relating it to his views on crime and criminals. So when he sneers at Cremers as being batty, I have to conclude that he is exhibiting religious bigotry, because on all other scores, apart from religion, she comes across as a level-headed, well-restrained and convincing testifier. Far from batty and surprisingly accurate. Many of the facts she records were later confirmed by documents unknown, or out-of-reach when she wrote.
Weird indeed is Fido's attempt to claim that I present AS IF IT WERE FACT that Ian Fleming wrote the 8 whores poem. Any honest truth-seeker will see at a glance that I am simply recording MY conclusion derived from a welter of jokes and banter. That the poem is a modern fake presented to the world by McCormick IS A FACT no matter who inspired, or wrote, or part-wrote the lines.
And what means this newly-entered innuendo about "Ripperana?" It is so spliced-in that it reads as if I fulminated away in its pages. But I never wrote for "Ripperana." There was a letter on Wynn Wescott and a press clipping or two, but no articles from me. In fact, after my TRUE FACE in 1994 I wrote nothing on the subject for years. Just three letters to Harrison and Smith and two to Begg. |
Author: Martin Fido
Monday, 23 April 2001 - 11:24 am | | Dear Peter,
Many thanks for acknowledging your delivery of the above.
Unfortunately for Melvin, I checked up in January on the 'wild claims' he disputed when they were discussed earlier: that he attempted to insinuate himself onto or take over the programme slot on LBC that I was offered when Colin Wilson would not accept it as a permanency, and that he made unsolicited approaches to publishers denigrating other people's work. At LBC, my presenter clearly remembered his name coming up in 1997/8, but the detailed discussion was not with him, and the producer involved has now left the company. A publisher Keith and I knew Melvin had approached with criticisms of another writer's work, quite simply said, 'Melvin Harris is a liar' on hearing that he or his (then) company were supposed to have invited Melvin's offerings. On discussion with Paul Begg, however, Keith and I agreed that since we had not been party to the exchanges we could not guarantee that the disagreement did not rest on some misunderstandings between Melvin and the other people involved. And therefore we should have said no more about them, leaving the last word with Melvin, had he not chosen to bring it all up again.
Since he has re-emerged at a time when his conduct in uttering an innuendo about Bruce Paley is under discussion, and it seems very difficult to get his defenders to answer a straight question about the comparative propriety of his doing this without approaching Bruce first, I might put it direct to him. Melvin, you will no doubt remember the occasion when, as you told me, an American lady attempted unsuccessfully to seduce you, and in revenge apparently started uttering malicious falsehoods about something she claimed you had told her about your work. Would it not have been grossly improper for me to invite anybody else to investigate this without having first approached you?
I have not gone into all the other matters raised, because I think most people will find the repetition and endless rehashing of old arguments very boring - and I certainly do! And by and large, I have found that allowing Melvin's postings to speak for themselves very often makes my case for me with objective and disinterested people.
Martin Fido |
Author: Karoline L
Monday, 23 April 2001 - 01:06 pm | | Martin,
Firstly -
I completely agree with Alegria that the title you have given this topic is completely inappropriate. I am not here to assess Melvin Harris's credibility. I am here to try and get to the truth of this situation that for too long has been getting aired in a less than complete manner on these boards.
If Harris's credibility is on the line - then yours and Paul's must be equally so. I suggest we get a little mature about it and give this thread a non-judgmental title that does everyone more credit.
Secondly-
I again agree with Alegria that Harris's letter to you about Paley contained nothing to justify the allegation made by you and by Paul Begg that he was inviting you to openly accuse Paley of plagiarism. Unless you can produce more evidence I think your accusations here are unjustified and should be retracted. And your past commentaries about the matter on these boards might need a little explaining too.
Thirdly:
since Harris has posted here that he never contributed to Ripperana, could you explain what you meant when you said your A-Z criticisms of Harris were principally in relation to this magazine?
Fourthly:
To be honest your contributions from today make me wonder what on earth is actually going on here.
You have compounded the existing situation by making the most incredible sweeping accusations against Harris, suggesting he behaved unethically in any number of ways, from trying to "insinuate" himself into a radio show to being a downright liar and an unreliable researcher whose word can't be taken for anything.
Do you have anything to substantiate this mass of stuff? Do you have the names of these men you refer to? can you quote letters or testimony to give some corroboration to your story?
If you can't or won't I think you should withdraw it - and pretty damn fast.
This isn't a game here Martin, this is a man's reputation you are choosing to publicly denigrate. I hope you are employing a sense of responsibility.
Karoline |
Author: Mike David
Monday, 23 April 2001 - 01:19 pm | | Hi Martin and all.
I would like to raise a couple of points, if I may, regarding the paragraph quoted from Melvin's letter. In the first place, I think it is significant that it is Joe Barnett's entry, not Bruce Paley's own, to which the emendation is recommended. In other words, the intent is not to cast reflections directly on Paley's own work but to provide a comprehensive history of the presentation of the case against Barnett. To me only the first sentence reads like a suggested emendation and the remainder like background information/comment provided for the personal interest of the addressees, but I guess there is an ambiguity there.
Secondly, 'accusations of plagiarism' seems an unnecessarily heated description to apply to the contents of this paragraph. Copyright in ideas is at the best of times a nebulous affair, and often an almost meaningless one - how do you propose to stop people being influenced by other people's ideas, and how much poorer a place would the world be if you could? In this case, where we're dealing with a work of fiction supposedly influencing a work of serious theory - well, how can there be 'plagiarism' when the requirements of the two forms are so different? If Paley had read this novel, thought 'That's an interesting notion, I wonder if there's any real evidence for it', gone to check out the facts and found that for him at least they were persuasive, would that really make him a plagiarist?
(And, parenthetically, would it matter if it did? If I ever wrote a historical novel I'd be delighted to think it had been close enough to the facts to inspire a work of scholarship).
And finally, I have to support Alegria's view that, whatever information an author receives from whatever source, it is really his responsibility to a) check its accuracy and b) decide whether he wants to say it. May I ask, Martin, if you and your colleagues contacted Melvin prior to finalising copy, to clarify which of his remarks were intended for publication and to express your reservations about the accuracy and/or advisibility of doing so?
Regards
Mike |
Author: Martin Fido
Monday, 23 April 2001 - 05:58 pm | | Dear Karoline,
What truth have you been looking for for such a long time? If the truth about the diary, that's the board we've just abandoned for this one!
I note that you and Alegria don't think that slippery innuendo amounts to charging with plagiarism: that is of course your right. I am fascinated to infer that you personally wouldn't have any objection to my writing sceptically about 'your theory' in quotes, with the implication that it wasn't really yours at all, and that you wouldn't mind my concluding 'Ah, well!' after insinuating that you made false claims for your own scholarship. You must by nature be far more tolerant than I or Bruce Paley - and certainly far more forgiving than Melvin has ever shown himself!
All I can deduce from your complaints about the ramifications of the discussion is that you haven't read the earlier posted disputes between Melvin and myself. I don't blame you. They are hardly edifying. I don't propose to rehearse them again.
A long and patient posting from Paul has explained why Melvin's conjectures (often stated as facts) about other writers' thougt processes cannot be relied upon; nor can some of the claims he makes when he believes he has detectd chicanerie. You have not answered or disposed of any of his points. They is not the same as suggesting that nothing Melvin says can be relied on. Nobody has ever suggested that. (Unless Feldy has, somehere!) It's another of the straw men you rather like setting up to knock down instead of dealing with the arguments in hand.
I'm sure most people who have read a lot of Melvin's publications and postings will enjoy the glorious irony of somebody protesting on his behalf that his reputation is at stake! Really, Karoline, can you be naive enough not to perceive that Melvin habitually writes in such a way as to damage other people's reputations - and writes so irresponsibly as a debunker that Paul has suggested the comparison with 'a bent cop'? Is it still unapparent to you that the Bruce Paley incident was essentially the final straw that decided us that we could no longer leave this damaging denigration of other people unnoticed in the A-Z, since innocent people were suffering from Melvin's wish to be known as the great exposer of fraud, and he was now inviting us to become complicit with him?
Dear Mike,
Did you take in the fact that to the best of my recollection the letters were following up a telephone call to me which unmistakeably suggested (nod, nod, wink wink!) that we might look into the possibility that Bruce Paley pinched an idea from somebody else and we might like to put it in the A-Z? Did you miss the fact that the second letter from Melvin to the A-Z authors (the one Alegria started by posting) was in fact an acknowledgement that we had indeed notified him that there was positive written evidence that Bruce's theory predated the publication of the Andrews' novel, and represented a sort of backing off without apology?
If the novel had indeed predated Bruce's mooting the theory we should have no difficulty in accepting the possibility that he had pinched the idea without acknowledgement (which really is a scholarly sin), or had read it, forgotten it, and carried it in his memory. (Cf the virtual certainty that Agatha Christie 'created' Hercule Poirot from a forgotten memory of some one else's work, and what seems to me the enormously strong probability that J.K.Rowlings had read and forgotten one of the chidren's books of the American author she so uncannily echoes in a few names and identities, but whose plagiarism suit does indeed seem to me vexatious).
From long acquaintance with Melvin, I regret to say that I cannot begin to attribute the innocence of purpose to the words 'his theory; in quotes and 'Ah well!' at the end which you do. Just as I have to question his good faith in implying that Stewart Evans and Nick Connell would have endorsed his deliberately rude and belittling intervention into the discussion on Kosminsky whereby he first attracted my attention to him on the boards.
But even so ... please note below
Dear Peter,
As the medium of correspondence with Melvin, allow me to convey through you my regret for one thing. I had no idea that Feldy had been accusing Melvin of lack of integrity for two years prior to the supposed formation of the 'Committee for Integrity', let alone that Feldy was apparently claiming to do so on advice. I do not know who was giving him such advice - or even, Feldy being Feldy, whether it was an overenthusiastic reading of something different that was said to him. (I certainly hope it was no result of anything I had said! Though obviously at this distance in time I cannot pretend to remember everything that passed.)
In point of fact, the three advisors to whom Melvin most objects were frequently warning Feldy that he was not taking Melvin's criticism sufficiently serously. Melvin's tone might be obnoxious and his patronising manner insufferable, but I for one consistently advised that he was probably right about the ink; certainly right about the will. Of course, trivial points of mistranscription of punctuation could be brought up against him, and in some samizdat documents he made claims that have never been substantiated (like naming Mrs Belloc Lowndes' 'The Lodger' as a source book for the diary). His evasiveness over a long period when asked to identify the three books on which he claimed the diary was based was exasperating. (Board readers will note either the same trait, or the peculiar misfortune that some stickling journalists are forcing him to look evasive over the claim that there is information abroad naming Mike and Anne as 'placers' rather than creators of the diary). But none of this amounted to a clear failure of integrity.
I was personally disgusted by Melvin's attempt to hi-jack my radio work, of course. But I did not share this information with Feldy; indeed, I menioned it to very few people at all, as I had heard in another connection through a common friend that Melvin was or had been under great stress over having to move house - an interesting side fact which Melvin himself coincidentally confirmed in recollecting that the date of the radio series' inception came after that was all over. It did not lead me to doubt Melvin's scholarly integrity. Like Paul and Keith, I flatly pooh-poohed the ridiculous idea that he would have stooped to contaminating the ink sample he sent for analysis. I don't believe anybody but Feldy ever held that opinion, and I am not aware of any other libellous or slanderous accusation that was made against him. Though there was plenty of evidence that a lot of people couldn't stand him!
Doubts about Melvin's scholarly integrity only crystallized in my mind as we tried, hopelessly, to pin him down in arguments about things he had said about other people when (as Paul has mentioned) we were wrangling with him over the entry in A-Z; watched him silently pass over points he could not answer, and move the discussion quickly to another field, offering a good deal of distracting abuse on the way.
But this was long after the period when he had formed his so-called committee. And if he was actually being charged with a lack of integrity for years before he made that move, I sincerely apologise for saying that he was the first to introduce the word into the debate.
With good wishes to everyone,
Martin F |
Author: Alegria
Monday, 23 April 2001 - 07:47 pm | | Okay several minor points at once.
1. I agree with Martin: the suit against JK Rowling is a crock. She is fantastic.
2. Melvin, I understand that you have more at stake here than anyone else, however my honest and NON-maliciously meant opinion is that we had a clearer picture before your post. We are talking about the Paley incident and the genesis of the A-Z entry and my poor brain can only process so much new information at once. Now it is all off wandering and wondering about radio shows.
3. Martin, which in your opinion is more improper: to suggest something in a private correspondence without getting the accused's side or to publish it in a book that is going nationwide without getting his side? You have asked how I would feel if the same happened to me. Angry with the person who suggested it. Livid with the person who printed it.
4. As Martin did suggest it, I am off to see what else the boards have to offer on this situation.
With Regards,
Ally |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Monday, 23 April 2001 - 09:48 pm | | Dear Martin,
Your destiny is irrevocably intertwined with that of dear ol' Melvin...as written in the stars! Why not kiss and make up...cos' tick tick tick and who is going to remember? NOBODY!
Rosemary:-) |
Author: Jeff Bloomfield
Monday, 23 April 2001 - 10:41 pm | | Bravo Rosemary, and wisely said. This unhappy
mutually distructive feud is not helping the
solving of the problem of the murders and their
author's identity. So I would suggest everyone
who feels angry just take a few deep breaths and
concentrate on the events of the summer,fall, and
winter of 1888.
Best wishes to everyone.
Jeff |
Author: Paul Begg
Tuesday, 24 April 2001 - 02:39 am | | Hello Peter
I have no desire whatsoever to open another strand of debate on the Boards, but if it isn’t too much trouble for Melvin I wonder if he would be kind enough cite when and by whom it was as early as December 1994 being said that the ink tests were rigged? Melvin has frequently made this claim, but I seem unable to find anywhere where the charge was specifically made. The best I can find is Paul Feldman believing that Melvin had handled both the ink sample and the chloroacetamide and arguing that contamination could have taken place, which is a hugely different thing to saying that the ink tests were rigged, and I can’t find him accusing Melvin of deliberately tampering with the ink sample. It was only when Melvin wrote to Hawaiian graphologist Reed Hayes and told him that Feldman was lying to him and Feldman consequently began libel proceedings and Melvin produced documentation to show that he’d never handled the chloroacetamide (it had been handled by Nick Warren, editor of Ripperana) that Feldman appears to have appreciated the fact that Melvin could not have contaminated the ink sample at all and accordingly dropped the libel action.
There is a massive difference between suggesting the possibility of contamination and suggesting that the sample had been deliberately contaminated and I’d be interested to know when, how often and by whom the accusation of deliberate contamination was made. |
Author: Karoline L
Tuesday, 24 April 2001 - 02:50 am | | Jeff,
Thanks for the intervention and I do synmpathise with what you say. There is a lot of pointless squabbling everywhere in human relationships, but it seems particularly in forums like this.
However I don't think it's fair to characterise this particular discussion as just a silly old squabble. I think this is something a good deal more serious.
Harris has been publicly accused here of devastating professional failings - lying, smearing other writers,using underhand tactics to acquire employment.
I'm sure you see that these are serious and potentialy libellous accusations which could have great potential effect on Harris's reputation and professional standing.
I don't think it's acceptable that Martin and Paul have made (and indeed in Martin's case are continuing to make) such highly damaging allegations in public wiithout offering any evidence to back them up.
If your professional ethics were consistently attacked in a public forum wouldn't you want your accusers to be asked politely to substantiate their allegations or withdraw them? I most certaibly would. And this is all that I and Alegria have been doing.
Harris is the only author the A-Z authors single out for such accusations of dishonesty, unreliability etc. and it therefore behoves them to give some evidence to justify this unique treatment.
I think it's just about trying to be fair.
Martin,
I will respond to your latest when I have a little more time
best wishes
Karoline |
Author: Paul Begg
Tuesday, 24 April 2001 - 03:14 am | | Hello Karoline
Would you please indicate precisely where in th A to Z that Melvin Harris is accused of "dishonesty" and specify what it is you intend your "ect." to cover.
Thank you |
Author: Alegria
Tuesday, 24 April 2001 - 05:26 am | | Paul,
Could you please explain why when Feldman implies that Harris had handled the ink sample and therefore it was unreliable an implication from which Melvin inferred that he was being accused of tampering, Melvin is completely unjustified in his assumption but when the A-Z infers what is implied but not directly stated, it is a rational judgement? Just wondering is all. Seems kind of like a double standard.
With Respect,
Ally |
Author: Paul Begg
Tuesday, 24 April 2001 - 06:12 am | | Hi Ally
Have I said that Melvin was ‘completely unjustified’ in his assumption? I simply asked for examples of what Paul Feldman said which allowed Melvin to make that assumption.
If Paul Feldman said something that heavily implied that Melvin had purposefully tampered with the sample then Melvin would be right in inferring that purposeful tampering was what Feldman meant. If, on the other hand, Paul suggested on the evidence he thought he possessed that contamination could have occurred because Melvin had handled both the ink sample and the chloroacetamide then I would suggest that Melvin had no real reason to infer that Paul Feldman meant deliberate contamination and that in doing so he was drawing the worst possible inference from what Paul was saying, don’t you think? |
Author: Martin Fido
Tuesday, 24 April 2001 - 06:31 am | | Jeff
- Nothing would give me more pleasure and satisfaction than to follow your advice, and I have tried on a couple of occasions to leave Melvin free to say whatever he wants about me without responding. Unfortunately, this produces suggestions from some quarters that I have backed off because Melvin's accusations are unanswerable. And I returned in this thread because RJP wondered, quite reaonably, why some one who said as many true and insightful things as Melvin was also showered with abuse whenever his name was mentioned.
My explanation to RJP added the info that the reason why Melvin launched a large personal attack on me under cover of a negligible input into the Kosminsky discussion was his distaste for the A-Z entry on him. And this produced an instant duet of, 'Yes, but why did you do THAT?' from Alegria and Karoline. (Sorry to shout in capitals, but this machine sometimes scraps all my work if I go back to format to fish out italics). Alegria's position seems quite consistent. I knew from previous debate that she holds different standards from mine about the ethics of remaining anonymous while placing posts for other people - (not that it is something she has ever done herself). It took us so long to work out that we simply disagreed and were going to continue to do so that she rightly thought I was getting a bit tetchy over having to keep coming back to a distasteful topic, but wrongly thought I wouldn't read her other postings on other boards which show her sense of humour and range of interests, and would always prevent me from imagining she is a 'shrewish harpy'. We worked out where we had to agree to differ over the anonymity/privacy issue, and we are, I think, gradually coming to see where we differ in judgement over the rights and wrongs of privately circulating or publicly printing accurate or inaccurate severe criticism of others. We shall almost certainly draw the lines in different places again, and then retire, saddened maybe, but in no way irritated (at least on my side), that we cannot wholly agree with each other.
I'm less clear whether Karoline is working for 'the common pursuit of true judgement' or a debating victory. I don't mean to belittle the importance of the points at issue in that phrase, but only to indicate that Karoline's position seems to switch without warning or explanation from reproof to joking/teasing to an appearance of agreement to furious argument and suddenly back to reproof. Witness her response on another board to some of John Omlor's long analyses of her arguments, where she seems to me to start amicably, look as if she's working for agreement or a settled truce that shall disturb no more, makes a sort of girlish spology for being frivolous from time to time, and then appears to conclude in a little explosion of waspish ironies as though she can't in the end treat anyone who disagrees with her with respect, or resist a need to have some sort of 'last word'.
But believe me, Jeff, as soon as everyone else shuts up about Melvin Harris, and if he manages to post without belittling other people, I shall be only too happy never to mention him again.
Hi Ally,
In answer to your question addressed to me, I suggest that there is a HUGE (apologies again for laziness in not seeking the underline format) difference between accusing a writer of plagiarism, whether the accusation is open and explicit or presented under cover of hints and quotation marks and 'Ah well!'s; and the charge that he makes wrong assumptions about other people's thought processes and gets carried away into asserting things that are untrue when he believes he has detected chicanerie. Now, it may be that your moral code is different. Somebody was suggesting a few posts back that a novelist whose ideas had been copied by a scholar might well feel flattered. But if you have any doubt about how the scholarly world in general feels about the two charges, please check with John Omlor, or Madeleine if she can be traced, or anyone else who has lived and worked in academe. To put the academic view as simply as possible, deliberate unacknowledged plagiarism is a form of intellectual theft. Misrepresentation is usually a form of mistake. And so it would never occur to me to think I needed to check with Melvin because I questioned his judgement, accuracy, and habit of presenting his conjectures and conclusions as facts. It definitely did seem to me essential to check with hm about the far more serious (scholarly rather than moral) charge brought against him by the American lady who told me she had met him. And it would certainly seem to me necessary to check with anyone at all I proposed to accuse of plagiarism.
Please accept that I am not asking that you agree with me or claiming that academic ethics should reign supreme. I am just explaining 'where I am coming from' in answer to your question.
Hi Karoline,
I think your questions to me are once again answered by Paul better than I could do it myself. Except, perhaps, to say that the blanket cautions against trusting anything in McCormick's book or deriving from Joe Sickert are far more serious accusations of genuine dishonesty than anything said in the A-Z about Melvin. Of course, they are phrased with the caution made necessary by England's extravagant libel laws. Melvin is the only author praised for the quality of some of his research whose work also carries the warning that, nevertheless, not all his statements can be relied on. How and why these misstatements appear is carefully spelled out to make it clear that dishonesty is not implied: a courtesy which is definitely not extended to Sickert or McCormick.
And Ally - I don't understand your last question to Paul. Perhaps this is because my recollection differs from Paul's, and I thought Feldy really was accusing Melvin of deliberate tampering. (It's always nice to prove that the A-Z writers are individual humans and not a phalanx of aggro against anyone who questions any of them!) Since Paul was usually much closer to the Feldman investigations than I, he is more likely to be accurate.
And what do you mean the A-Z inferred things that were not directly stated? Didn't Paul, in response to Karoline, quote you a direct statement in which Melvin falsely accused Keith Skinner and Martin Howells of using a source they knew to be suspect without warning the reader? (I can't be more accurate, I'm afraid, as I don't have either 'The Ripper Legacy' or Melvin's first or second Ripper book with me, and I'm (a) too lazy and (b) too afraid my browser would snap shut and lose all that I've written so far, to go back to the old board and see exactly what Paul said).
As far as my own thought processes were concerned, Melvin stated in print that I found Kosminsky, decided that he was not the Ripper, and went looking for some one else to fit! Now this grievous distortion is not only his entire fantasy, it is in flat contradiction of my published account of the nature and order of my research, and of the account Melvin received from me by telephone when he called me specifically to ask for the details of the Cohen theory, so that he should get it right! And Melvin's distortion, I found, was being used against me on the boards to undermine my scholarly competence. So we weren't inferring anything. We were describing a demonstrable practice with demonstrable lamentable results.
Is there any value judgement to be drawn from the fact that there has never been any apology from Melvin for this damaging misrepresntation, though it has been drawn to his attention?
I do apologize for having to cite my own case. It's the only one I can do from memory. But I was certainly not happy about things Melvin also said about Leeson, the rogue McCormick, and I think, Farson or possibly the Druittites in general in 'the Bloody Truth'. But not having the book to hand, or a library within reach that could obtain it for me, I can't be more specific about them. Apologies.
Back to Jeff
I look forward to the age of peace, tranquillity, and silence about Harris that you long for!
With all good wishes to all,
Martin F |
Author: Paul Begg
Tuesday, 24 April 2001 - 07:10 am | | Hi Martin
At some point Paul Feldman did ask whether Melvin would have deliberately contaimated the ink and individually we immediately and vehemently dismissed the idea as totally absurd. I found out a long time later that Paul thereafter continued to mistakenly believe Melvin had handled both the ink sample and the chloroacetamide and that therefore contamination was possible (especially as from somewhere a story circulated that the ink sample was opened - on which point Shirley sought clarification from Dorothy Simpson; it wasn't). This was, I think, a misunderstanding that Melvin could have easily rectified by simply explaining that he hadn't handled both items. However, I personally know of no instance where Paul Feldman suggested that the ink tests were rigged. Had I done, I would certainly have wanted to see the evidence on which it was based and made my feelings very clear if the evidence was not 100% solid. I therefore suspect that unless you were party to something I wasn't, that your memory of Feldman wondering about contamination was that original question. |
Author: Alegria
Tuesday, 24 April 2001 - 07:17 am | | Martin,
Although we may have to draw the line again and agree to disagree, I agree that this should not be a reason for hard feelings between us or anyone here. For me, this situation is more of puzzler than something I have an emotional stake in so I am sure that it would be a lot easier for me to say no hard feelings than it would be for you, because I am questioning your reasons, not the other way around. So I appreciate that should no agreement be reached, we can maintain harmony.
Again, I would like to repeat that I DO NOT {I'm lazy too) have a lot of background information and so as that is what I am trying to figure out, I have a couple more comments and questions. I would like to know to what degree Melvin Harris knew Paley and to what degree you knew him before this situation. Why do I want to know this? Suppose I had read somewhere that Paley was the originator of the Barrmett theory and I knew that there had been a published theory on that before, I may very well have written you and informed you of this and my implication might also have been that there had been plagiarism with the assumption that you would check to make sure that was indeed the case. I would not have contacted Paley first. If Melvin however, had prior contact with Paley that resulted in 'dislike' or something, then I would be more willing to say that Melvin was in error, because then his implication could be seen as malicious. I hope you see where I am going with this. The bottom line is, Melvin is entitled to his opinion regardless of whether we think it is wrong, overly-suspicious or otherwise. As long as he didn't publish it in a public forum for all to peck at without checking his facts, I do not see how this contributed to the entry in A-Z which is a public forum with a broad range. The implied slur on Paley was sent in a letter to ONE person for him to check out as he chose. The entry on Melvin was written for everyone with a passing interest in Jack the Ripper to see. I am not convinced this was fair. If you could point me to similar instances in his published works, that would do more to convince me.
Paul,
"If, on the other hand, Paul suggested on the evidence he thought he possessed that contamination could have occurred because Melvin had handled both the ink sample and the chloroacetamide then I would suggest that Melvin had no real reason to infer that Paul Feldman meant deliberate contamination and that in doing so he was drawing the worst possible inference from what Paul was saying."
Melvin stated a fact with an implication and Paul stated a fact with an implication. Mel's ah well might imply plagiarism but it was not said, Paul's saying it could have been contaminated might imply tampering but it was not said. Considering that other people had no doubt handled the sample, I could infer that Paul Feldman's singling out Mel's name rather than saying "Because people handled the sample" could be construed/inferred as/imply an attack on Mel. As of right now it is a moot point because we don't know what Feldman actually said. My comment which I still do believe, is that if you are going to argue your assumption on Mel's intention was justified, then Mel's assumption about Feldman's intention must also be considered justified. Therein lies the inherent problems with assuming, which I know has tripped us all up more than once!
Much regard,
Ally |
Author: Martin Fido
Tuesday, 24 April 2001 - 07:30 am | | I'm sure you'll be right, Paul. And I'm sure you will happily confirm to everyone that I was a very bored and very unwilling accessory to the Feldmaniac 'researches' (until the point when he finally paid me to transcribe a letter for him and make some enquiries of and about his critics and the period when Florence MAybrick resided in Truro). My original official role was as a remunerated advisor to Shirley, and this was a completely happy and different kind of work, simply supplying her with facts and comments as she requested them; never being badgered by her to think what she did, and never having her take umbrage and argue with my opinions which she knew she was free to accept or reject for her own purposes without my wanting to insist on them.
And I have no hesitation in pointing out the mercenary end of this. Since I never believed the diary to be genuine, I was only willing to give time up to working on it if I was paid. In this I differed and differ from you and Keith, both of whom are seriously interested in the question who forged it.
I'm embroiled in this discussion now for exactly the reason Alegria and/or Karoline - or some one else with more power than I over the web management and a wish to try and spread criticism away from Harris and onto his critics - has renamed this board about Melvin Harris: 'professional standards'. (It may prove a bit of a shock to any new reader who joins us and thinks he's going to learn from it some guidelines to the proper conduct of research or publication!) But there are now some standards of real excellence appearing in the discussion of the diary. But there are also some lamentable ones, as ever! (And, of course, excellence and lamentability have nothing to do with the conclusions espoused. Its the methodological debate that has been so worth reading).
With all good wishes,
Martin |
Author: Paul Begg
Tuesday, 24 April 2001 - 08:02 am | | Hi Ally
“Considering that other people had no doubt handled the sample, I could infer that Paul Feldman's singling out Mel's name rather than saying "Because people handled the sample" could be construed/inferred as/imply an attack on Mel.”
Indeed you could infer that, assuming that you know that Paul Feldman knew that other people had handled the sample and the chloroacetamide, which Paul in fact may not have done. And since I have not and am not saying that Melvin’s assumption wasn’t justified, but am attempting to find out what Paul Feldman (or whoever) actually said in December 1994 that formed the basis of his assumption, then it seems a bit silly to start drawing comparisons. But if Paul Feldman said “the ink test was rigged. Melvin Harris handled both the chloroacetamide and the open ink sample. Ah well!” then I would say that Melvin Harris would have been more than justified in thinking that he was being accused of purposefully contaminating the sample. In much the same way as I think saying that Bruce Paley’s thesis was first presented in a book published in New York and then urging the additional note that Bruce Paley is a New Yorker who imported US books and concluding “Ah well!” fully justifies Bruce Paley's conclusion that he was being accused of appropriating someone else’s ideas. Indeed, in both cases I can’t think of what other inference might reasonably or, indeed, could possibly have drawn from either statement. However, if Paul Feldman merely said that Melvin Harris had handled the chloroacetamide and the open ink sample and that contamination could thus have occurred, I think assuming that Feldman was accusing him of rigging the ink test would be placing the worst possible inference on Feldman’s words.
Cheers
Paul |
Author: Alegria
Tuesday, 24 April 2001 - 08:03 am | | Martin,
I renamed the board as I said that I do not believe that it was fairly titled. It is not a debate on Mel's ethics but on where all the bitterness and rivalry started. That was my original question and it continues to be my aim in everything that I post. If you have an alternate suggestion for a title that fairly reflects all parties involved I will be happy to change it. I didn't want to title it anything against the A-Z or against Melvin or anything FOR either one either. As I did originally start this (don't I always) I would like to post my reasons which I previously sent to Paul in a letter.
" If you are wondering how this all originated, I was having a conversation with someone about Melvin Harris. This person was defending him and saying that the acrimony could be traced back to the reference in A-Z. I stated that if there was an uncomplimentary listing, that was the nature of the game and if Mel's works were treated in a less than complimentary manner it was no doubt no different than the treatment of other writers. I then picked up a copy of the A-Z and flipped to Melvin's entrance, then to Stephen Knight's, later to Donald McKormick, and found myself totally unable to argue further."
As I am the one who began this I can assure you that ! I ! am the only one who guides my questions and comments. As I also stated in a letter to Paul, regardless of what I am sent, unless there is some documentary evidence not, 'he said, they said' but places where it can actually be shown, nothing but my own inquiring mind is influencing my opinion. This is not an attempt to spread criticism from Melvin to his critics.
I have not been Mel's biggest supporter in the past and I doubt that I will be in the future, to be honest. However, right now there has been a lot of criticism against Melvin, some of it perhaps justified some of it perhaps not. However, I would feel it less than fair if I allowed broad criticism of Mel to continue while any questioning of that criticism is dismissed as indicative of a conspiracy by anonymous others or people unwilling to put their name behind it and therefore unworthy of being answered. |
Author: Martin Fido
Tuesday, 24 April 2001 - 08:17 am | | Hi Ally,
I've just accidentally erased my full answer to you while attempting to proof it, so apologies if this comes disjointed or terse!
I certainly did know Bruce before we received Melvin's 'hint' that he was a plagiarist. (I had known Melvin rather longer). I think I first met Bruce at one of Cammy Woolf's lunches, and I certainly liked him immediately. I think it was on that occasion that he and my wife (though we might not have been married yet) agreed as Americans in England that what they most missed was baseball. I think I'm right in saying that I read the ms of Bruce's book for Headline and recommended that they take it. I can't remember whether that was before or after I met him. But, of course, he had already published a journal article stating his Barnett theory which had impressed Paul, Keith and me by its responsibility, and had earned a mention in earlier editions of A-Z.
I'm sorry to be a bit hazy about times of events, but I was over 50 by the time the diary emerged, and despite the wonderful counter example of Rick, most of us find our precise memory of recent events starts to get hazier from that age onward. I have long regretted relying on an exellent memory in my younger days, so that I never built up the excellent collection of files created by wiser contemporaries.
I don't think I have ever known whether Melvin knows or ever knew Bruce.
I think you and I will probably always differ about the relative seriousness of plagiarism and overenthusiastic misrepresentation. I can only repeat my reauest that you check with other academics whether I am alone in thinking they represent a different order of scholarly charge (even though the consequences of the latter can be more serious than the former). And it is that presumption that Bruce was charged with a 'mortal' and Melvin with a 'venial' sin that ha consistently made me feel that it was wrong for Melvin not to have contacted Bruce before relaying his suspcions to anyone else, and it was not wrong for me to publish criticism of Melvin's work without notifying him.
By the way, the unwary might think that your perfectly fair generalisation that Melvin is entitled to his opinion carries the corollary that his opinion of Bruce's originality may still stand. Let's be perfectly clear that it does not. Bruce enunciated his theory before the appearance of the Andrews novel, and I have documentary proof of this. Now, if I had made such a serious charge against anyone - whether publicly or privately - and then found I was completely wrong, as Melvin did, I should feel I owed the victim an apology, and should make it. To the best of my knowledge, Melvin has never either apologised to Bruce, or asked any intermediary to convey any regrets to him. At the most charitable I could only call this an extreme instance of scholarly bad manners. But in fact I really regard it as complete recklessness about the denigration of other people.
With all good wishes,
Martin |
Author: Martin Fido
Tuesday, 24 April 2001 - 08:47 am | | Gosh, Ally!
I hope I haven't said anything that suggests I think you have been in conspiracy with anyone? I don't think Peter Birchwood is 'in conspiracy' with Melvin: he is perfectly entitled to share Melvin's opinions and is doing us all a service when he openly posts Melvin's comments. I don't think Karoline is 'in conspiracy' with anyone, and never doubted for a moment that you and she, separately and independently, voiced genuine instantaneous personal responses to my reference to the A-Z when I posted to RJP, which purely coincidentally happened to be similar.
Since I wasn't around when all that nastiness went on two years ago, and don't really follow all the carping and complaining about it going on elsewhere, I'm not in the business of conspiracy-hunting, though, to a greater degree than you, I'm anxious to have any future suspicion about it put down by complete transparency when anyone posts for anyone else.
Now, as to the entries in A-Z and the check they caused you: Paul remarked elsewhere that our wording was probably unacceptable. Perhaps the biggest weakness was our very cautious politeness in referring to McCormick and Sickert. Our words 'treat with extreme caution' are really a euphemistic shorthand for, 'this man is a completely unreliable liar!' And so it seemed to us that we had carefully discriminated the quite different charge against Melvin, that in certain particular circumstances, his statements are not to be relied upon. Of course, the distinction may have been rendered the more opaque by the fact that we wrote the different entries on different occasions, years apart. We should probably have been much more clear if we had written them all at the same time. Only when we wrote our first entry on Melvin, it wasn't apparent to us that his occasionally offensive tone could and would be used to make damaging statements about other people that don't stand up to inspection.
The Stephen Knight entry was complicated by the fact of his untimely death, so that hitting him hard for inaccuracy would have looked a bit like kicking a man who couldn't answer and crudely disrespecting the 'nil nisi bonum' principle . And it is also my belief at least (I can't certainly answer for Paul and Keith) that Knight was originally genuinely misled by Joe Sickert, and only realized he was purveying falsehood after he was so deeply committed to publishers that he didn't see how to get out of it. And finally, the masonry/anti-masonry bsiness was raging at the time, with Knight's death being used to circulate the absurd suggestion that masonic surgeons deliberately killed him. And I guess that usurped space that might otherwise have gone into examining the changes in the evidence reaching Knight before his death. (With Don Rumbelow remarking that his acquaintance/friendship with Stephen Knight actually gave him some personal mauvaises quarts d'heures in his work as a police officer, we were particularly anxious not to give aid or comfort to anyone abusing Knight's death with silly conspiracy theories; yet, as our entries on the masons show, we saw Knight's own work as contributing just such dangerous silliness).
So, sorry if we look as if we think worse of Melvin than we do of McCormick and Sickert. The reverse is the case. And enough time has gone by that I can equally say that, by the end of his life, Knight was, in my belief, wittingly purveying falsehood in ways that Melvin never has done.
With all good wishes,
Martin |
Author: Alegria
Tuesday, 24 April 2001 - 09:18 am | | Martin,
I think that I could rest with just one question answered which is really my original question.
Are there any examples of the implication of wrong doing without facts to back it up in any of Melvin's published works and if so could you point me to them?
Saying that Melvin implied in a letter written to one person there was reason to believe that Paley might have previously been exposed to the Barnett theory before he published it is does not seem to be a reason for an entry that suggest "his occasional postulation of other writers' thought processes can be wildly wrong and actually conflict with impeccable written evidence,"
Melvin in a letter to a single person Implied that Paley might have plagiarized. The A-Z entry states directly that Melvin ignores written evidence and in short, makes up stories. For a researcher this is as serious a charge as plagiarism.
"his indignation when he believes he has perceived chicanery may lead him to make demonstrably unjustified assertions"
Here it seems the A-Z does exactly what it accuses Melvin of doing: "postulation of other writer's thought processes".
I do not see postualtion on Paley's thought processes in what Mel wrote. I see two facts: It was previously published in an American journal and Paley collects American journals. Was it phrased in such a way that Mel's opinion (at the time) could be inferred. Yes. However, the postualtion and research was left to the person who would be the one writing the book and therefore responsible for the ultimate form in which it would be presented. If Melvin had published this without checking all facts involved, different story.
Even if Mel had stated clearly "Paley may have plagiarized the Barnett thing", which is a serious charge I agree, he did not do it in a public forum. He sent it to a researcher who was writing information on Paley and who was perfectly capable of dialing up Paley and getting his side perhaps more capable than Melvin himself was.
Many may disagree with me but I do not see how the Paley incident could have been the determining factor for writing the A-Z entry. Even if Melvin was in the habit of wildly postulating and speculating on the motives of others in every one of his personal letters, what matters is what he wrote in his books that were distributed to the public which is where the accusation against him was printed. If the A-Z entry had been written in a private letter you sent to someone, then it would be a case of this for that and no harm, no foul. He writes his opinion, you write yours. However, the level of exposure on the two examples given are vastly different.
With Regards,
Ally
P.S. Sorry for the long, repetitive post. More coffee is needed. |
Author: John Omlor
Tuesday, 24 April 2001 - 10:10 am | | Whew. I just finished reading this whole thread in a single sitting. I just wanted to mention one thing. It seems to me that Alegria is right when she suggests that the discussion was a bit simpler and more focused before Melvin's post.
She wrote:
"2. Melvin, I understand that you have more at stake here than anyone else, however my honest and NON-maliciously meant opinion is that we had a clearer picture before your post. We are talking about the Paley incident and the genesis of the A-Z entry and my poor brain can only process so much new information at once. Now it is all off wandering and wondering about radio shows."
Believe me, I appreciate and understand and even sympathize with Melvin's desire to respond specifically to every possible issue. I am often guilty of giving in to this desire myself. But I am afraid that Melvin's own style of rhetoric and breadth of response seemed to me to work against his best interests in this discussion.
Oh, and one other thing.
Peter posted a message from Melvin that included the following phrases:
"TRICKY FIDO"
"Martin Fido can deal with the complexities of English Literature, but when it comes to my quite simply phrased writings he misreads, misunderstands and misreports. Perhaps even simpler statements are needed. OK."
"But Fido nursed this grudge for years before making his illusion public. I find this spineless and disgusting. He lacked the guts to confront me with this wild claim, which could have been refuted at once. Instead he harbored this bitter suspician until he saw a chance to use it to create a false impression of my character. And this is the man who overworks the word 'honourable!' A man of honour would have openly raised the issue as soon as the alleged event became known to him."
"His pieces show him to be way out of touch with the essential requirements of an honest debate."
I swear to God that I did not actually write any of these passages. 
--John |
Author: Karoline L
Tuesday, 24 April 2001 - 10:54 am | | Paul,
You ask me to tell you where in the A-Z you accuse Harris of dishonesty. As a matter of fact I was not merely referring to the A-Z but to the general tenor of your posts against the man over the past two years.
With regard to the A-Z entry itself, I think that claiming Harris makes "demonstrably unjustified assertions" is a pretty clear and public implication of dishonesty, while under the 'etc'. please file such things as your accusation that Harris "can be wildly wrong" and "conflicts with impeccable written evidence"
I hope this settles that point.
Martin, Paul -
Without wishing to unduly criticise, it seems neither of you seem to be quite getting what this is all about.
The point is that you two and Keith Skinner, as joint authors of the A-Z have published a frankly defamatory personal critique of Harris in your book. "Readers are warned" your entry says, and goes on to condemn him for unreliability and for "confliciting with impeccable written evidence". He is the only author who gets this fairly libellous treatment.
The fact that only he is singled out for this public warning that he can't be trusted, clearly signals to any of your readers that he is a special and dangerous case - more dubious and unreliable than anyone else mentioned in your book, including Stephen Knight and Paul Feldman.
Both of you have also posted equally strong accusations against him right here on the discussion boards. Between you, we have heard accusations that Harris is unreliable, underhanded, you have specifically stated - repeatedly - that he accused another Ripper author, Bruce Paley of plagiarism, that he has sought to publicly smear other authors. Martin Fido has gone even further and claimed that Harris tried to 'steal' a radio show he was involved in, that his word cannot be taken on trust, and that a so far unnamed publisher accused Harris of being a liar.
I'm not a Harris apologist. If you are right, then you are right. If he did these things then your comments are fair enough. But if you make public accusations you have to be prepared to publicly backup those accusations with facts.
What's being asked here is very simple -
will you please quote what evidence you have to show these allegations are justified.
So far, the only documentation posted here has come from myself and Alegria, and what it has shown is that Harris didn't accuse Paley of plagiarism either publicly or privately. You may be right that an implication is present. But, as has been said here several times already, this was a private letter, and as such falls outside the remit of commentary in your book. I don't think it can justify either the A-Z entry or the torrential condemnations both you and Paul have made of him about this matter.
(If anyone is interested in forming their own opinions of this, then a search of the archives for "Bruce Paley" in the text will bring up the whole mass of words that was being exchanged over this last year.)
So here are some specific questions:
1. Martin - a few days ago you claimed that your A-Z condemnation of Harris was inspired principally by what you had read in the Ripperana magazine. But Harris has stated right here that he never contributed to Ripperana. So,what is going on here? can you explain how a mag that Harris never wrote for was involved in your decision to publicly warn readers about his perceived unreliability?
2. Could you supply the name of the LBC producer you claim Harris approached in order to 'steal' your radio show?
Can he provide a written confirmation of your claim?
Do you have any documentation to back this up at all?
3. Could you provide the name of the 'publisher' you claim accused Harris of being a liar anf of otherwise offering defamatory criticisms of other writers' work? ? Can he produce a written confirmation of your claim?
Do you have any documentation to back this up?
That will do for now, since I know you dislike long posts.
Karoline |
Author: Warwick Parminter
Tuesday, 24 April 2001 - 11:03 am | | Martin,
I'm far from being a "learned" man, and I may be opening myself up to ridicule for not being able to understand. I don't know how this discussion came up about Bruce Paley being a plagiarist,--or why. When reading The Mammoth Book of Jack the Ripper, I noticed how similar were Paley and Paul Harrison in their theories, it was like reading the same story twice. So, who copied who?. Is my naivety showing again when "I" say neither! they both came to the same conclusion with the facts that were available. If I were to attempt to write a book on who I thought JtR was, it would be based on Barnett being the guilty party, (it couldn't be anything else),it's what I believe. I have a very few variations compared to Bruce Paley's version, I've read his book, and except for a few details I agree with him. But supposing I had never read his book, and I wrote mine,-would I be a plagiarist?, how would I prove that I had never read his book to give me the idea?
Regards Rick |
Author: Yazoo
Tuesday, 24 April 2001 - 11:14 am | | A brief intrusion on my part; and pardon if it is unwelcome:
1) I take the message that Melvin supplied to the A-Z authors as an implied accusation of plagiarism on Paley's part. If accusation is too strong a word, I have no object to any softer noun as long as it remains completely understood that the implication exists.
2) Martin has argued whether it was his (and the other authors' of the A-Z) responsibility to confront Paley with someone else's implications regarding their work. I the heated atmosphere of this debate it's unclear if this charge is real or a wavering mirage caused by the heated air.
3) Never being one to miss the opportunity of avoiding Melvintonian prose, John has provided a telling distillation of one piece of that prose:
"But Fido nursed this grudge for years before making his illusion public. I find this spineless and disgusting. He lacked the guts to confront me with this wild claim, which could have been refuted at once. Instead he harbored this bitter suspician until he saw a chance to use it to create a false impression of my character. And this is the man who overworks the word 'honourable!' A man of honour would have openly raised the issue as soon as the alleged event became known to him."
4) I would say that Melvin's own words apply to himself as well as to Martin and the other A-Z authors. If Melvin had the slightest suspicion of Paley's work, he should have immediately confronted Paley...as Melvin reprimands Martin for allegedly not doing so with him.
5) It seems Melvin chose to pass his 'suggestions' about Paley to the A-Z authors instead of confronting Paley to discern whether there was any real or implied 'plagiarism' involved in Paley's work.
6) Combining numbers 4 and 5, above, it would therefore appear that the rules of appropriate conduct which Melvin believes should be observed by every honorable person, do not appear to apply to Melvin in the mess involving Paley and his work/Melvin's suggestions/and what the A-Z authors should/might do about it.
Perhaps appearances are deceiving? Perhaps individual standards regarding what is "honorable" are not as monolithic as we care to think? Perhaps "honorable" people follow the rules of their own consciences without regard to what others may think or feel on the same issue?
Ah well!
Yaz |
Author: Karoline L
Tuesday, 24 April 2001 - 11:18 am | | Paul Begg wrote:
"I have no desire whatsoever to open another strand of debate on the Boards, but if it isn’t too much trouble for Melvin I wonder if he would be kind enough cite when and by whom it was as early as December 1994 being said that the ink tests were rigged?"
Maybe this wiil help bring some clarification:
On June 30 1995 PHILIP KNIGHTLEY, a journalist made this signed statement:
"I Philip George Knightley , author.....state as follows:
Some months ago, about the time that news was appearing in the Evening Standard about the authenticity or otherwise of the Ripper diaries, I had a telephone call late in the evening at my home. A man introduced himself as Feldman and said he wanted to talk to me about the diaries. I said I knew who he was and asked why he wanted to talk to me. He said it was because I was a fair-minded journalist and he wanted to convince me that the diaries were genuine
I said what about the ink tests which were reported as showing a chemical element which had been used only recently.
Feldman said that the ink samples had come from America and had been handled by Melvin Harris and that when they reached the laboratory in Britain they had been opened.
I expressed scepticism about this but he insisted he was right. He then went on for about forty five minutes offering reasons why the diaries were genuine and why Harris was determined to show that they were not."
hope this helps clarify
Karoline |
Author: Alegria
Tuesday, 24 April 2001 - 11:24 am | | Yazoo,
Excellent post. I appreciate your drawing my attention to another aspect of the situation that had escaped me. Would you mind posting your opinion on whether Melvin's implication in a private letter warranted the entry in the A-Z? You seem to be one of the coolest heads among us and your comments on this could be enlightening.
Thanks!
Ally |
Author: Paul Begg
Tuesday, 24 April 2001 - 11:31 am | | Hello Karoline
It doesn’t settle the point at all and I would be grateful if you would now also demonstrate where “the general tenor of my posts” over two years have accused Melvin of dishonesty.
But to return to the A to Z and just so I understand what you are saying, you seem to be saying that a person cannot honestly and sincerely make an assertion which can be shown to be unjustified or to conflict with written sources and that anyone doing this must be dishonest. Or to put it another way, that when Melvin wrongly accused Martin Howells and Keith Skinner of knowingly using bogus material because it supported their theory, you think Melvin must have said this in the full knowledge that it was a lie? You see, Karoline, I don’t think Melvin was lying at all. I don't think Melvin's honesty is or ever has been in question. I think he perceived chicanery and in light of that was moved to honestly – albeit incorrectly - express what he thought the writer’s motives were. |
Author: Paul Begg
Tuesday, 24 April 2001 - 11:53 am | | Karoline
Thank you. I am familiar with the letter by Philip Knightley, but it is Mr Knightley’s recollection of something Paul Feldman said several months earlier, not what Paul Feldman actually said, and it would be dangerous to infer Paul Feldman’s actual words and, more importantly, his meaning from a second-hand account.
I was not aware of it at the time, of course, but I have since come to understand that Paul Feldman believed that the ink sample had been opened and that Melvin had handled both the ink sample and the chloroacetamide and he thought that contamination could therefore have taken place. As far as I know, when he learned in or just after June 1995 that Melvin had not handled the ink and the chemical and that the ink sample had not been opened, Feldman did not make the suggestion again. What I am trying to find out is how and why the possibility of accidental contamination became an accusation that the tests had been rigged. |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Tuesday, 24 April 2001 - 12:10 pm | | Hi Paul,
You have just voiced my own feelings on the question of trying to read minds and getting it wrong (in your post of 11.31am). Dishonest is an entirely inappropriate term to use here, because one cannot logically be dishonest about guessing people's thought processes. Only the people concerned know whether the guesswork is right or wrong. If someone consistently uses such guesswork in their work, it simply suggests to me that they could very likely be wrong 50% of the time, and therefore one has to question the reliability of their opinion, not their sincerity or integrity.
Love,
Caz |
Author: John Omlor
Tuesday, 24 April 2001 - 12:10 pm | | Hello all,
Since it has been a while here since these words have appeared, and they are, after all, the topic of discussion, I thought I might repost them in their entirety so that they might be read slowly and carefully, sentence by sentence, to see if they ever actually assert malicious wrongdoing or deliberate lying or anything as intentionally venal as that on Melvin's part. What does the A-Z actually say, again, in its entirety, concerning reservations about Melvin's conclusions?
I hope I have the proper edition. Here you go:
*
"Readers are warned that while many of the unsourced statements in Harris's earlier books rest on well-researched documentation, his occasional postulation of other writers' thought processes can be wildly wrong and actually conflict with impeccable written evidence, and his indignation when he believes he has perceived chicanery may lead him to make demonstrably unjustified assertions."
*
For the record, I would just want to say here that at least on these boards I have seen Melvin "occasionally postulate" concerning "other writers' thought processes" including Paul's and Martin's, in such a personal and private way that I could not understand how he could claim to know what they were thinking. This, I suspect, might very well be a by-product of his intense rhetoric, which sometimes favors blatant ad hominems and the language of the schoolyard showdown (yes, I can cite numerous passages here such as "Fido will now go quite over the top, and slither down into the mire of The Last Ditch." -- a delightful phrase which I confess I used word for word in one of my own little pieces of mischeif).
And yes, I have also seen here on these boards clear and unmistakable indications of Melvin's "indignation when he believes he has perceived chicanery."
Now the question becomes, where specifically has this indignation led him "to make demonstrably unjustified assertions?" What would be such an assertion and can it clearly be demonstrated to be unjustified?
I suppose that is what you are all now discussing.
But this would seem at least one point that might easily be clarified with a few examples from any and all involved. I'm not going back into the archives at this point and read all of Melvin's posts again looking for an unjustified assertion that can be clearly demonstrated to in fact be unjustified. I'm hungry. But I hope this at least gives us a little, logical, reading pointer towards one question that might be useful to examine and to eventually answer and what specific form such an answer might take.
Thanks all,
--John |
Author: Yazoo
Tuesday, 24 April 2001 - 12:36 pm | | Hey Alegria:
It would be unfair of me to put words or arguments into the mouths or minds of the A-Z authors.
Speaking for myself, I was troubled by Melvin's approach to a topic when I read his The True Face of Jack the Ripper.
There are many instances in that book which can only be described using the "objectionable" language of Melvin's A-Z entry. We are presented with an action or a speech or just some document/record of an event, then Melvin proceeds to place himself and us inside the minds of these historical persons to come out with the most damning interpretations against his suspect, Stephenson, as can be drawn. There is little or no supplemantary evidentiary support for any of these 'nefarious' conclusions except that you should trust Melvin because, somehow, he knows! The little support he provides in some cases again relies on questionable interpetations or inappropriate application of someone else's work (especially egregious is the claim that, being a veteran of warfare, in and of itself further predisposed Stephenson to become a psychotic killer -- a conclusion all veterans might take as being offensive as Mevin takes his A-Z entry).
I think his own published writing is enough for any reader to judge whether the A-Z entry on Melvin is fair and accurate or not. We need not drag any other private or semi-private "evidence" onto these boards. I can only see this causing collateral damage to otherwise unsuspecting innocent bystanders.
But a lot of the evidence being asked for -- both now and the last time I was here, when Paul faced this identical challenge alone -- requires producing private letters, recollections of private discussions and phone calls...pieces of "evidence" that make me very uneasy because of their private nature, at the very least.
Why does anyone need to go that far? Just read Melvin's books. You either see and agree with what the A-Z says about Melvin or you don't. Opinion is everyone's right; clarity of thought and critical understanding are more gifts than rights. No writer can be held responsible for what someone else either misreads or misinterprets or exaggerates in their work; just as it is an unexpected blessing when someone demonstrates they understood your thoughts and your intentions.
Should the A-Z authors' have published what they did in Melvin's entry? Yes, if they believed it. They would be hypocrites otherwise and the value of such a book as the A-Z would be extremely dubious.
Do we, as readers of both Melvin and the A-Z, have to accept one or the other or both versions of Melvin? No, we can make up our own minds as to who or how much is right. How we choose to make up our minds -- i.e., how do we test whether the A-Z is right about any entry, let alone just Melvin's -- is to seek out the public sources for that entry, read them, and make our own determination. That's our responsibility as readers -- of Melvin, Martin, Paul, Karoline, and all published authors.
Was Melvin unfairly singled out in the A-Z? It appears not -- quoting Martin: "How and why these misstatements appear is carefully spelled out to make it clear that dishonesty is not implied: a courtesy which is definitely not extended to Sickert or McCormick." So at least Sickert and McCormick have some negativity in their entries. A truly rabid anti-Melvintonian might use this quote to argue that Melvin was unfairly singled out -- at least he got special treatment in regards to others who may also have made "misstatements." (That way, madness lies...which won't stop someone, anyone from going there.)
Does anybody seriously claim that any author should be prohibited from writing what they think -- especially since free speech is concurrently under discussion on the Casebook?
Here, as a matter of fact, someone actually did believe in such a prohibition and publicly proclaimed it during "Begg's Last Stand" a year or more ago. I distinctly recall -- still with great loathing -- how Melvin proudly (it seemed to me) announced how he went to the A-Z's publishers with some form of threats if they published the A-Z.
If we are speaking of "professionalism" as well as integrity here, I can think of no more discreditable action on the part of one writer as trying to deny any writer's right to publish...to earn his daily bread!
Melvin has a host of other remedies to choose from if he truly feels libeled or slandered besides allowing this discussion to continue in his name. Choosing any one of those other avenues would be beneficial to both himself and to this public forum.
Just as I asked the last time I was here, I ask again: Melvin! Please choose another, more appropriate venue for your self-defense. Stop relying on others to make your arguments since they lack the knowledge which only you possess.
The argument/disagreement is between Melvin and the writers of the A-Z. No one -- unless one of the parties involved calls them as a witness -- is qualified or knowledgable enough to enter such a dispute.
Sorry for the length but that's the last I'll post on this issue. Hope it helps -- but it never did in the past, I'm afraid.
Yaz |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Tuesday, 24 April 2001 - 12:39 pm | | Hi John,
I can't be bothered to go trawling through the posts right now (my daughter needs the pc for her homework) but I seem to remember one occasion where Melvin posted that Shirley 'couldn't be bothered' to travel to see Ms. Simpson at one time. (I think it was to do with the test to see if the chloroacewotsit could have got into the ink from the diary paper - none was found.) When I asked Keith about Melvin's assertion, he said that Ms. Simpson herself had suggested that she was in town anyway, so she could meet Shirley there, saving her the trouble of travelling. So perhaps this constitutes an 'unjustified assertion' of a minor sort, if not directly connected with perceived chicanery? Assuming I have all my facts right, of course.
This is a trait that is in some ways far more irritating than getting facts wrong, because it is almost impossible for Shirley, in this instance, to prove that she would have been bothered to travel!
Love,
Caz |
Author: Martin Fido
Tuesday, 24 April 2001 - 12:39 pm | | Cor! Slip out to a dental appointment and get back to find it's all been buzzing in the meantime!
Praying my browser doesn't carry everything off to Mars, I'll try to answer the points raised by various people.
Ally - I'm not sure how broadly you want to spread the word 'wrong doing'. Obviously our entry on Melvin did not refer to or make reference to the Bruce Paley letter: that, as I said, was the 'last straw' deciding us that we must draw attention to the misstatements to be found in Melvin's published work lest his determined 'most damaging interpretation' of other people's words injure innocent parties. Paul has given excellent examples of two of these, falling exactly within the range we defined, and pointed out that they did not trigger our deccision, or we should have made the observations inthe previous revision of A-Z. I can't go any furthder for you as I don't have Melvin's first two books on the Ripper, and they are not within the library loan service range on Cape Cod.
I'd do more for you if I could.
Karoline,
For treatment to be libellous it has to be untrue. Paul has given you examples proving the exact truth of what we wrote, and you choose to ignore it and reassert that it is damaging and defamatory.
You also ignore my explanation that our words 'treat with extreme caution' in earlier editions represent a far more serious charge of dishonesty levelled at other writers. I agree that the wording might not make this clear, for which I apologise.
You ask about the early Ripperana. I don't have back copies of everything that was appearing at that time and I was writing from memory. Was it in the Mark Galloway edited predecessor of Ripperologist that Melvin remarks appeared? Or am I thinking of Nick Warren's association of things he wrote in Ripperana with 'my friend Melvin Harris' - (the quotation is from a letter he wrote me at the time objecting to my protests about things that were being said about Shirley).
If Melvin will publicly state through Peter Birchwood or anyone else that he has never believed Mrs Harrison to be a dishonest scholar; that he accepts her complete integrity in everything she has written about the diary, and that he regrets that it has ever been suggested that he said or implied anything other - nay, he may go further and deplore the wickedness of Tricky Fido in thus maligning him! - if he will thus stake his reputation on Mrs Harrison's good name, them I will unhesitatingly withdraw everything I have said about his references to her and apologise.
I deliberately withheld the names of the radio producer and publisher in question because of Melvin's habit of bombarding anyone saying things about him he dislikes or wishes to dispute with endless exhausting correspondence. At the prime diary time, without having offended either of them, I suffered the constant badgering of both Melvin and Feldy. Melvin knows who he communicated with, and he can and will go about acquiring statements clearing himself if it can be done.
Yaz - I'm not sure that Melvin is complaining that we didn't consult him first about the words we used to describe him. He complains about the words themselves, as he is, of course, perfectly entitled to do. I think it is only his defenders who have suggested that there is a parallel with teh Bruce Paley case. In other words, I don't actually think Melvin did anything in this instance which justifies accusing him of applying a double standard.
Trust me to undo the good work of some one writing apparently in sort of loose support of me!
Rick - You've obviusly missed - should I say been spared - this horrendous discussion. There is no question at all that Bruce Paley published his Joe Barnett theory - in article and book form - long before Paul Harrison appeared on the scene. I have not myself heard Harrison accused of plagiarism: only of rather bad manners in not acknowledging that some one else had proposed Barnett as a suspect previously. But the meat of Harrison's work was tracing and identifying a different Joe Barnett, so I shouldn't ever accuse him of plagiarism myself.
I have nothing to offer on the Knightley/ink discussion, not having been privy to any of its details: indeed, I had no idea Philip Knightley had involved himself with the question.
No doubt while I've been writing yet more input will have appeared.
All the best to everyone,
Martin F |
|
|
|
|
