|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 **
Writers' Approaches
Casebook Message Boards: General Discussion: Research Issues / Philosophy:
Writers' Approaches
Author: Martin Fido
Saturday, 28 April 2001 - 11:45 am |        | Dear Tom,
Health Warning – This Is Long!
You asked how I did my own research on the Ripper, and whether there were any tips I could offer new writers. I’ll do my best to answer.
Starting with the publication of Tom Cullen’s book and my acquisition of McCormick’s and then Robin Odell’s, I read every new book on the Ripper as it came out. This was solely a matter of amateur interest. I was teaching full time, and read true crime as a private hobby, with no intention of publishing anything on it. By the time Stephen Knight’s appeared I was starting to feel a little glutted with Ripper books, and only bought his because a cursory glance showed that it really did contain some new material. I was surprised by what a good and exciting read it was, and how much genuinely interesting new stuff there was in it, even though I could see that it was internally self-contradictory and its thesis was tosh. My hi-lighted copy, used in discussion with a barrister friend who had been impressed by Knight, did not return with me from Barbados, so I can’t remember all the detailed points which showed it just wouldn’t do. But I recall from memory that there was absolutely nothing in the Freemasons chapter which convincingly linked Masonic ritual and practice with the case; that the final engraving from a Hogarth series was inaccurately described as a Masonic ritual, when it was in fact a normal public dissection of a criminal in Surgeons’ Hall; that the account of Elizabeth’s Stride’s murder said on one page that Gull must have been the man who bought the grapes from Packer because he was known to eat a handful of grapes where others would have a tot of brandy, and on another that Gull had not gone down Berner Street himself, but stayed in the carriage and left it to Anderson to do his dirty work. And, of course, it was also clear – I think mentioned by Knight himself – that Anderson had not returned from the continent until after the night of the double murders.
I might well have stopped there and read no further books on the Ripper had I not found myself in London a few years later, with a career change to writing on true crime. (That’s another long story in itself!) My first crime book was ‘The Murder Guide to London’, and as part of the research for that I read a lot of police memoirs, including those of Anderson and Macnaghten, as well as the Times accounts of a lot of murders, including the Ripper’s. I also visited the murder sites (though an inaccuracy of Knight’s misled me in my account of Polly Nichols’ site). Since the most recent thing I had read on the Ripper was Knight, and nobody had ever suggested taking Anderson seriously (except, with very guarded warnings about his lack of supporting evidence, Robin Odell and Richard Whittington-Egan), I was extremely surprised to find that the description of a boastful liar that Knight gave simply wouldn’t hold water. It was also apparent to me that Anderson’s ‘poor Polish Jew’ was ‘obviously’ the same as Macnaghten’s Kosminsky, and I couldn’t understand why nobody had noticed, or at least published this previously. (In the light of things I’ve been saying elsewhere – yes, of course I know this is a deduction and not a fact!)
As I completed the ‘Murder Guide’ I had to think about a new project, and seeing the Ripper centenary coming up, decided to write a book on the Ripper. To this end I read more newspaper accounts and more of the books previous Ripper authors cited as containing information and opinions about the case. And, of course, all the out-of-print books about the Ripper in the British Library. At this point in time, my feeling was that the ‘police on the ground’ were the most likely people to have realistic views about the Ripper’s possible identity. (I have a bias in favour of those ‘at the sharp end’ of policing rather than those who survey their results from above). It was carefully noting the differences and contradictions in their accounts that led me to think otherwise. Ben Leeson, for example, gave a circumstantial account of his personal involvement in the Frances Coles investigation which was flatly contradicted by the evidence at her inquest. Stephen White’s alleged account of the man with a musical voice coming away from a closed alley where a victim was immediately discovered was transparently not (as it purported to be) a part of his official report, and seemed to me almost certainly to be describing Clay Pipe Alice’s case, and not a definite Ripper victim. But reading more of Anderson’s books, as well as his son’s memoir of his parents convinced me that his honesty in stating his belief that the Ripper’s identity was known couldn’t possibly be challenged; moreover, his position was such that he would certainly have seen all the important available evidence, and other people’s descriptions of him indicated that contemporary criminologists held a very high opinion of his abilities. Since no other contemporary gave such a definite opinion on the Ripper’s identity, and no subsequent armchair detection could have the same weight as the opinion of a man on the spot unless it produced very strong new evidence, I concluded that investigating Anderson’s claim, with Macnaghten’s Kosminsky note as an additional clue, held out the best hope of finding the Ripper. I knew, moreover, that Victorian senior police from the Commissioner down often interested themselves in the possibility of doing a little hands-on detection if they could – indeed, as late as the 1920s Assistant Commissioner Sir Wyndham Childs injected himself into the ballistics aspect of the Browne and Kennedy case, preposterously imagining that his own contribution outweighed that of the noted expert Robert Churchill! (This has been given further inferential support recently by Stewart Evans’ undoubtedly correct identification of the memo appointing Swanson as ‘the Commissioner’s eyes and ears’ as originating from Warren himself. It turns out to be Warren and not Anderson, who optimistically thought he could clear up the murders of Polly Nichols and Martha Tabram in a few weeks if only he had the time! I should say that since Stewart first drew attention to the reasons why this document couldn’t have come from Anderson I have come across a photocopy on my files of some of Warren’s letters copied by an amanuensis into the official letter book, and the handwriting seems to me exactly that of the memo appointing Swanson. I’m reasonably sure from what Stewart has said on occasions that he has also noticed this, but I don’t think he’s ever stated explicitly that he had made a compaison of the secretary’s hand with the memo.)
When the ‘Murder Guide’ was published, and I gave a number of ‘milk run’ publicity interviews to radio and TV reporters, I found that they were often more interested in the idea that I had a new suspect for the Ripper than anything else, though I insisted that my research had hardly begun, and it would be premature to see it as anything but a notion at that stage.
The amount of research I had carried out was only intended to support an ‘outline and specimen chapter’ for submission to a publisher. As a working writer I couldn’t afford to devote the time to researching and preparing an entire manuscript with no guarantee that it would find acceptance. I had decided that this should, if possible, be my next project, however, for the simple commercial reason that the forthcoming Ripper centenary made it likely that I would find a publisher to take it up. All but the most successful writers will probably confirm to you that it is easier to write a book than to sell it, and centenaries are the sort of peg that may tempt a publisher to take your bait.
My plan at that stage was to produce the sort of coffee-table book I had written on Dickens, Wilde, Kipling and Shakespeare, since they do not require exhaustive original research and I can produce them very quickly. Since I had decided that the 1888 police investigation was the most reliable source of evidence, I proposed to write a three-part book: The Crimes, The Police, and The Suspects. The careful examination of the characters and personalities of the individual police officers involved would furnish the necessary new material, and the last chapter would propose my final suspect. But I did not intend to look for him myself. The final chapter, which I drafted as the specimen for submission to publishers, simply put together the Anderson and Macnaghten quotations, and concluded that if anyone searched the asylum records for the period they should certainly discover a ‘Kosminsky, who would be a more plausible suspect than any hitherto proposed.’ I did not imagine I would have the time to do this research myself. My aims and ambitions were purely commercial; I wanted the book accepted and the advance in my pocket and off to the next project ASAP. I wasn’t looking to discover Jack the Ripper or establish any reputation for scholarship. Such as it was, I had that already from fugitive articles on Disraeli, Thackeray and Janae Austen in learned journals, and in the very gratifying approval given to my popular books on Dickens and Oscar Wilde by some very heavyweight scholars.
So I offered my outline and specimen chapter to Hamlyns, who mulled it over, and then concluded that it really wasn’t, (in their words) ‘family reading’, and rejected it. It then went to Weidenfeld, who had published my ‘Murder Guide’, and they immediately offered me a contract. But not to write the book I’d proposed. They said that my theory was obviously right, and asked me to find Kosminsky and deliver the manuscript in seven months. Ouch!
But I couldn’t afford to turn them down. (None of us writing on the Ripper are rich, as you once suggested, Tom. Stephen Knight was the last person to make a fortune from a Ripper book. Paul Feldman has twice been extremely prosperous by virtue of his commercial aptitude and hard work, but working on the Ripper, if anything, impoverished him). So I had to start looking for this man in the asylum. Block number one: the records were closed for 100 years. So it was going to be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to trace him. From Knight I took the hint that poor asylum inmates were usually referred on from workhouse infirmaries. So I examined all the London workhouse records in the Greater London Archives. (Of course, I was also looking for more background material, like Annie Chapman’s supposed treatment in the infirmary shortly before her death). That was when I found Nathan Kaminsky. And Kaminsky was one of the forms of the name Dan Farson gave as a possible reading of his transcription of the Macnaghten memorandum he had seen. But when I wrote to him he courteously replied that he no longer had the notes which would explain why he suggested that form.
My next long research task was to look for Kaminsky descendants. I telephoned ever Kaminsky in the London phone book. I advertised in the Jewish Chronicle. And I traced the death records (looking for all possible variants on K-anything-sky) down to 1960. (And bearing in mind that I had a general sections to write on ‘suspects’ and ‘crimes’ I was also lookjing for Ostrogs and ‘Fairy Fays’. I can’t remember when it was I followed through the Times reports to establish for the first time that the mysterious ‘Eliza Davies’ reported by Stephen Knight as appearing on the Ripper files was actually the woman now usually referred to as Rose Mylett, though this, too, was quite new information to appear in print when I published it).
Other ongoing research, of course, included telephoning Scotland Yard to see if it would be at all possible for me to see the Ripper files, only to learn from them that they had been deposited in the PRO where I was able to study them carefully. At that time they were still boxed and not microfilmed, so I saw and made transcriptions from the originals.
Two possible Kaminskys whose ages were almost right were traced through their families and definitively cleared. I failed to identify Aaron Kosminski as the man I was looking for (although I had him in my notebooks) because he died so late and in a registration area that I did not realize included an asylum for imbeciles. (Perhaps I should say that you can collect names, areas and dates of birth, marriage and death and reference numbers from which certificates can be ordered free of charge. But it costs you £5 or more a time to get the certificates with details of the addresses, causes of death, etc. And I couldn’t possibly afford to buy certificates for more than the most obvious suspect Kos- or Ka-minskys).
It was as I went back and back to the Greater London Archives, searching more and more lunatic records, that the librarians realized that I was serious and not (say) trying to bust somebody’s will on the grounds that they had once been mentally ill. And so they kindly directed me to the addresses of asylum record holders with the assurance that I should probably be given permission to see their records.
How I proceeded thereafter is fully explained in all but the first edition of ‘The Crimes, Detection and Death of Jack the Ripper’.
And general hints? Wells, as you see from above, my first recommendation, unless you are happy to devote free time to a possible lost cause, is get a contract from a publisher before you made a huge investment of energy in research and writing.
Always see original material if you possibly can. Transcription errors will almost certainly have crept into secondary sources.
The earlier a source, the more reliable it’s likely to be. In non-Ripper cases which proceeded to indictments and prosecution, I generally prefer witnesses’ inquest evidence to their magistrates’ and high court testimony, as it gives a fresher account of their immediate impressions.
When gathering source material, it will be enormously helpful to your later work if you can afford to take photocopies, and have everything accurately available to you when you come to write it up. If, on the other hand, you do make written transcriptions as I usually have done, this does have the advantage of fixing things in your memory.
Start writing sections as soon as you can. Even if you have to rewrite them later, it’s far more reassuring to have ms building up than to face an intimidating amount of gathered material and start wondering how you are going to get it onto the blank pages. This is far easier to do now that word processing has replaced typewriting. When I myself first followed this invaluable advice (given by Helen Gardner to a new intake of postgraduate students in 1961) it necessitated having three or four times as much paper as you needed, and either retyping everything every time you revised, or making a horrible mess with paste and sellotape. Now it’s relatively easy, and my rate of composition of acceptable finished work has increased fourfold.
And approaching possible informants? This is one where I have the peculiar habit of tending to avoid them. I was brought up among people who simply didn’t lie habitually, and apart from one very disturbed student whose tendency to tell self-inflating whoppers culminated in her suffering a hysterical pregnancy, I had never encountered the completely unreliable informant until I met Mike Barrett. And so I tend to believe people. If I had approached Joe Sickert for his account, I am virtually certain that like Stephen Knight at first and Melvyn Fairclough right up to the point of publication, I should have BELIEVED him! And I guess I’d have no reputation at all today! When I wrote on Kipling, his daughter Elsie was still alive. But it was apparent to me that almost all previous books gave an account of Rudyard’s mother and wife that derived from her opinion of them, which didn’t seem to me to match that of Kipling’s other contemporaries, or, indeed, their own behaviour. So, unwilling to give offence by seeking information and then not using it, I deliberately did not approach her. I rather gathered she was not very pleased. But that’s the way I work. Similarly I did not approach Agatha Christie’s daughter and grandson when writing about her, and was later told that this was probably very wise, as ‘the family’ are rather insistent that their point of view should always appear – particularly with reference to the missing eleven days’. Since I believe they repeat Agatha’s ‘amnesia’ story, and I think this has been completely exploded by the account of a deliberate hoax given by the daughter of the friend who aided and abetted her, I am thankful not to have been put in embarrassing position. In the Ripper case, I wrote as I have said to Dan Farson asking for clarification on one point which he was regretfully unable to give. I wrote to Don Rumbelow – I forget about what – but the letter never reached him. And I wrote to Richard Whittington-Egan; not about the Ripper in the first instance, but to explain something he had queried in a review of the ‘Murder Guide’. I was by that time looking for ‘Nathan Kaminsky of Black Lion Yard’, and he was immensely encouraging when I told him this, saying that he had always thought Anderson was quite probably pointing in the right direction, although without any supporting evidence it was impossible to rely on him. And, of course, noting that Black Lion Yard was quite the most likely ‘home ground’ ever proposed for the Ripper. When I sent him my final ms he was very generous with his praise, saying it was ‘first’ among the books coming out for the centenary, and adding that he liked my theory and he wanted to believe it, but he couldn’t. He has never changed this opinion in my favour, and I have never tried to urge him to do so.
And one warning from other people’s experience. Never start with a theory or conclusion and let it determine the way you interpret your research. Keith Skinner and Martin Howells did something very like that, reading the available books on the Ripper; deciding from them that Druitt was the most likely suspect; and then letting that conclusion decide what they did and didn’t follow up. As a result, they failed to follow out their own perception that Anderson’s Polish Jew seemed to be Macnaghten’s Kosminsky, and so failed to contact Mr Jim Swanson, whose identity and address Keith had established. Had they done so, they would of course have become the first people to publish the Swanson marginalia, and their name in Ripper history would have stood even higher than it does (if such eminence is possible). Everyone who has worked with Keith knows how deeply he has taken this to heart. He will NEVER declare something to have been ‘proved’ unless it can be absolutely solidly shown to be either definite fact or a conclusion beyond reasonable doubt.
ALWAYS be willing to change your mind and swallow your own words in the light of new evidence.
Tom, you have the patience of a saint if you plough right through this. but if you do, I hope it’s of some use.
All good wishes,
Martin |
Author: Tom Wescott
Saturday, 28 April 2001 - 11:40 pm | | Martin,
Thank you for sharing all of that. It was very interesting as well as encouraging. As I have to work a day job at the present time, the time I can spend reading, researching, and writing is limited. However, I have found the Ripper to be an exciting hobby as the majority of the people on these boards have, and have enjoyed great satisfaction from having been able to do some of my own research and even get some positive feedback such as I've received from my article on the provenance of the 'From Hell' letter in Ripper Notes. As to keeping an open mind I completely agree with you. I have no problem with admitting I've changed my mind. In fact, I have recently come to believe that Eddowes' ear in fact was never severed, even partially, and as this stance would cost me a validating point in my argument that the Dear Boss letter was real it would be tempting to keep that under my hat, but I'm going to write an article up on it just the same. I am also avidly awaiting Stewart's upcoming book BECAUSE it promises to take a view opposite mine and not in spite of it. The prospect of new information in this case, whether it confirms or contradicts what I already assume/believe, is what keeps it exciting.
I understand your advise about getting an advance from a publisher, but how would I go about doing that? I'm not an accomplished teacher or respected author. I had pretty much resigned myself to the fact that if I got a book on the Ripper published one day I would at the most break even and possibly be a bit out of pocket. However, I would absolutely love to make some money as a writer, particularly in true crime. What would you suggest in getting this started? How would I go about approaching a publisher? How did you get this first deal? Once again, let me express my profound appreciation for your help and advice, and allow me to extend that to any others who join in on this most worthwhile discussion.
Yours truly,
Tom Wescott |
Author: Martin Fido
Sunday, 29 April 2001 - 06:39 am | | To get a publisher in America, I believe an agent is absolutely essential. Get a copy of The Writers' Handbook and pick one who seems to share your interests and invites unsolicited approaches. They'll probably want to see copies of past work, as well as an outline and specimen chapter of what you're working on that you hope they can place for you.
All the best
Martin |
Author: Tom Wescott
Sunday, 29 April 2001 - 10:17 am | | Martin,
Thanks for the advice. You mentioned 'in America'. Is the process different in England? Also, would I have to limit myself to publishers in my own country?
Yours truly,
Tom Wescott |
Author: Christopher T George
Sunday, 29 April 2001 - 11:22 am | | Hi, Tom:
I don't think you necessarily have to limit yourself to working with a publisher in your own country but certainly it would be easier, if you are in the United States, to work with a U.S. publisher. I am thinking in terms of mailing and currency exchange problems not to mention distribution questions and author appearances which are easier to arrange if your publisher is in the same country.
Whether you need an agent or not, I don't know. In the past three years, I have published two nonfiction books and have not used an agent. Some 15-20 years ago, when I was mainly writing fiction, I was briefly linked up at different times with a couple of New York agents on a couple of different projects, but severed connections with them when the novels I went nowhere. (One of the novels was based on the Maybrick case, the real one not James as JtR.) Since then, with my nonfiction works, I have just contacted the publishers directly, and am still doing so about other projects I am now working on.
As for the method of writing, as you are doing with Ripperologist and Ripper Notes, I had written a number of magazine articles and scholarly articles before I embarked on a book project. I basically find that any writing project grows by accretion, that is, I assemble a body of research or a body of evidence and keep adding to it until I have enough to publish whatever I wish to put before the public, be it an article, a pamphlet, or a full-length book.
I think, as with most things, writing is a matter of persistence and never giving up even if you encounter disappointments. So, thus, although I had a number of rejections in terms of the novels that I was writing 15-20 years ago, I didn't give up, and I subsequently found that my forté was perhaps writing nonfiction, where I have achieved the success I was not getting in attempting to write novels. I have recently turned back to writing "fiction" in terms of the Ripper musical on which I am collaborating.
I hope these remarks have helped.
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: Tom Wescott
Sunday, 29 April 2001 - 09:00 pm | | Chris,
They not only helped, but I find them quite encouraging. Tell me, how did you approach a publisher without an agent? How did you sell them on your book? Not to be nosey, but have you made any profit? I enjoy non-fiction but would someday like to write a fiction novel as well. I have a couple ideas that I think are pretty darn good.
Yours truly,
Tom Wescott |
Author: John Omlor
Sunday, 29 April 2001 - 09:37 pm | | Attention all,
Chris George has just unintentionally let something slip out in a parenthetical aside. He was writing about two novels he has worked on in the past. In the midst of his paragraph there appears this:
"(One of the novels was based on the Maybrick case, the real one not James as JtR.)"
Wait a minute... Are you telling me that Ripper enthusiast Chris George was working on a novel about James Maybrick!? How long ago was this, I wonder? Before 1992? He only says "some 15 or 20 years ago." But, wait, that would be just right! And, oh yes, didn't Chris once live in Liverpool!
 So, let me get this straight, we have a known Ripper enthusiast from Liverpool writing a novel some 15 or 20 years ago about James Maybrick?!
Well, that's enough for me. I have a new "most likely" scenario. And it's name is "Christopher T. George!"
Wait until Marvin Harrison hears about this one! Even Fido might be dropped from the suspect list.
--John
PS: Chris, I have so many questions.... Let's start with your bank records... No wonder you know the diary text so well.... It all fits together so neatly.... So tell us, finally, did Mike know? |
Author: John Omlor
Sunday, 29 April 2001 - 09:46 pm | | Still more!
And then Chris teasingly writes:
"So, thus, although I had a number of rejections in terms of the novels that I was writing 15-20 years ago, I didn't give up, and I subsequently found that my forté was perhaps writing nonfiction..."
Or maybe something in between fiction and non-fiction? Perhaps. Like a "diary?" Like a fake "diary?" Sounds awfully suspicious to me.
I want Paul Feldman's phone number! Now!
--John  |
Author: Christopher-Michael DiGrazia
Sunday, 29 April 2001 - 10:10 pm | | I want Feldy's number, too - he owes me an interview for "Ripper Notes!"
Tom, perhaps I can help to answer some of your questions with a little bit of my own experience. I am presently working on a Ripper book with 2 others, Dave Yost and Alex Chisholm. It is a transcription of almost all the major articles in the "Daily Telegraph" during the course of the Ripper murders, annotated with footnotes expanding on what the papers had to say, where they were wrong and where they suggested worthwhile avenues of investigation. In effect, it's like a time machine - you are reading what our great-grandparents read in 1888, but with the added benefit of hindsight and the latest research to keep you on the straight and narrow.
But the book DOES NOT put forth a new suspect. Or even bolster the case against an old one. That isn't its purpose.
So what did we do? We decided on the format and sketched out a book proposal expanding on what I said above. Then, I looked through my Ripper books and saw who put out the most and the best-quality works and approached them with a cover letter and proposal. And did that with other publishers whom I thought would have an interest in such a work.
So - if you want to write (besides doing the writing itself, which is the most important!) - decide what you are going to write about and break it down into a short synopsis or proposal. Then look through the "Writer's Digest" (any bookstore or library will have a copy) to see what publishers would be interested in the sort of book you propose.
But that's for submittals without an agent. Many publishing houses only take agented submittals, but many more accept a good, honest, enthusiastic writer. The "Writer's Digest" will tell you who takes what sort of book and whether or not they require an agent.
And now for something completely different -
I don't know how many of you are G&S fans, but I just picked up a CD of Sullivan's "Martyr of Antioch" today and have it playing as I type. Absolutely wonderful stuff - if you like that four-square, churchy Victorian cantata style, and I do.
CMD |
Author: Christopher T George
Sunday, 29 April 2001 - 11:29 pm | | Hi, CM:
"The Martyr of Antioch" by Sullivan???!!! Never heard of that one! Are you sure it is authentic Sullivan (as opposed to G&S)?  It sounds like an arcane work, maybe something like Donizetti's "Emilia di Liverpool" (1824) in which the Italian composer, who apparently had never been to Liverpool wrote songs for the "Mountain climbers of Liverpool" not knowing there were no mountains on Merseyside.
John, I must protest my innocence! My Maybrick-inspired work is entitled "The Tavisham Case" and I relocated the action to outside of Lichfield in the Midlands of England--I was trying to win the Lichfield Prize with it. The James Maybrick-like character, Alfred Tavisham, is a papermaker allegedly poisoned by his wife, an American woman named Laura. And I did not even use Diamide ink to write it! I still have the typescript and the rejection letters to prove that I am utterly innocent of the charge of having a hand in forging the Diary. 
And with that I bid you all a good night. I assure you, John, I will sleep guiltlessly. 
Chris |
Author: David M. Radka
Sunday, 29 April 2001 - 11:33 pm | | I've got a good deal of Mr. George's confidential historical bank records in my accounting office! I'll be opening them up first thing Monday morning, and looking for rather large deposits during a particular time period!
David |
Author: Christopher T George
Sunday, 29 April 2001 - 11:44 pm | | | Gulp. |
Author: Paul Begg
Monday, 30 April 2001 - 04:48 am | | | All joking aside, I think a very good thesis is emerging here. Liverpool knowledge, fiction writing, knowledge of the Ripper and Maybrick, a proven ability to research, regular contributions to the Maybrick Board (returning to the scene of the crime!) And that dreadfully drunken and tearful confession in Park Ridge... How many tuna and anchovy pizza shall I demand to keep my files closed!!! |
Author: Christopher T George
Monday, 30 April 2001 - 09:37 am | | Hi, Paul:
I absolutely tremble at the thought of you opening up your files to reveal the truth about my involvement in the forgery of the Dreaded Diary. I especially regret giving you the handwriting sample at the US convention when I wrote the salutation to you on the souvenir Dear Boss pamphlet in my unforgivable drunken state at Park Ridge. I had banked on you forgetting all that, as in the cups as you were too, Paul. Darn!
Luckily for me, though, you will never open your files, because, as you will well remember, the unfailingly dependable Melvin Harrison has categorically stated:
Paul Begg's files are trapped in amber.
Best regards
Chris (just call me "Sir Jim") George |
Author: Christopher-Michael DiGrazia
Monday, 30 April 2001 - 10:04 am | | Hum - here I thought it was that his "flies" were trapped in amber, which led to a rather interesting picture. No matter. And I always thought CG had a rather sneaky look to him during the Park Ridge to-do. "War of 1812," my arse. Perhaps a little itching powder would get him to confess, eh, Paul?
But seriously - "Martyr of Antioch" is a 'Sacred Musical Drama' which Sullivan composed for the Leeds Festival of 1880. It's a live recording from the Seventh International G&S Festival in Buxton, Derbyshire in August 2000. It's part of a (From my viewpoint) long-overdue revival of Sullivan's non-Gilbertian music, such as recordings of his 'Irish' symphony, the Cello Concerto, the incidental music to 'The Tempest' (which first brought him to fame) and a world premiere recording of his 1872 Te Deum included with last month's 'BBC Music' magazine, among much else. He had an astonishing output, especially popular song and sacred hymns. |
Author: Christopher T George
Monday, 30 April 2001 - 10:18 am | | Hi, CM:
Thanks for your support in my present predicament, ha ha. Just don't let Paul give me the Ripperological comfy chair!!!! 
I will have to check out Sir Arthur Sullivan's Te Deum and Antioch. I am aware of and admire a number of his non-G&S works although orchestral works, not choral. Incidentally, I trust you received the copy of the CD and book for Jack--The Musical I sent you for review in Ripper Notes?
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: Martin Fido
Monday, 30 April 2001 - 10:19 am | | Chris,
Whether or not Mr Begg keeps his flies in amber, I'm not sure. I have no doubt 'The things themselves are neither rich nor rare', but I'm far too pure-mindedly non-Farsonian ever to 'wonder how the devil they got there.'
Martin |
Author: Tom Wescott
Monday, 30 April 2001 - 09:50 pm | | CM,
Your book project sounds very exciting. In fact, the thought of such a project had crossed my mind a time or two, as I'm sure it has The Viper's. I do indeed intend to take your advice in the future when I have my project underway. Tell me, you mentioned how you have submitted your proposal, have you received any replies yet? Have a publisher? I'd like to know the reaction you get.
Yours truly,
P.S. If you need/want any help with the book, let me know! |
Author: Neil K. MacMillan
Sunday, 13 January 2002 - 03:11 pm | | | I'm glad to know that I'm not the only one! My novel is strictly that. I read the diary but that's it I never Inhaled to quote former president clinton. Neil |
Author: James Terence Kearney
Monday, 14 January 2002 - 01:45 pm | | | The moment I decided to take up this subject I hadn't known the amount of stuff and material that was out there. I recently however came across the video of Jack the Ripper The Final solution, which is I feel a complete load of rubbish. But non the less is now part of the Ripper study. Trying to get to the real face of JTR is a challange. I have now set out on a course which is very likely to become an obsession. |
Author: David O'Flaherty
Friday, 19 April 2002 - 06:10 pm | | Hello, Tom
I don't know if you ever picked up a copy of Writer's Market, but it's a great source for information on book publishers, agents, and magazines (most of their information is for organizations in the US). You can also subscribe to their website (www.writersmarket.com) for $3 a month and receive continually updated markets, along with helpful articles from working writers and agents.
An agent is probably a great idea, unless you have your own contacts in the publishing world. Most unsolicited/unrepresented manuscripts get tossed into the dreaded "slush pile," and never see the light of day.
Best of luck,
Dave |
|
|
|
|
