|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 May 01, 2001
Casebook Message Boards: General Discussion: General Topics:
Professional Standards:
Archive through May 01, 2001
Author: Martin Fido
Wednesday, 25 April 2001 - 07:06 am |        | Tom - No, Melvin was not seduced. According to him, the American lady made a pass at him which he rejected. If you'd ever spoken to Melvin's wife, you would completely understand: she made one of the best impressions on me of anyone I've ever spoken to on the telephone for a short time: an absolutely delightful lady with a terrific loyal devotion to Melvin. He'd be out of his tiny cotton-pickin' mind to put his marriage at risk in any way. And, as I have said before, the love his very charming wife shows him is proof that there is another and far pleasanter side to him than we ever see in debates over the Ripper and his work.
Karoline - The Yaz policy of silence applies. Our postings can speak for themselves, and history will decide whether it will interpret as evasion my repeated indication that, stuck on Cape Cod I am physically completely unable to find books and letters and past numbers of magazines to give you the chapter and verse you demand from me (rather oddly in one case, if you have access to 'the Ripper Legacy', but decline to quote the passage to which Paul Begg referred). And history will also decide whether constantly impugning my general honesty and then screaming to high heaven whenever you are personally criticized constitutes 'grizzling'.
Alegria - Fine. you've looked at the evidence. you still think Melvin has a justified grievance. I don't. And again, you, having praised Yaz's earlier recommendation on this board will, I'm sure, join me in inviting everyone else to study the books, letters and postings in question and reach their own conclusions.
And I have nothing to say about Bruce's letter claiming some sort of priority, or Paul's correspondence on the subject, as this is all new to me. Except to remark that Paul's very careful and precise interpretation of his words, as so often, seems to me correct in the long run, though I can well understand why his sort of slow precisian accuracy gives people the screaming ab- dabs, especially if they enjoy Melvin's more racy hit-and-run type of argument. I will admit that there have been times when I have regretted corresponding with Paul almost as much as I regretted corresponding with Melvin or Feldy, since he answers every point in detail, and carefully notes new ones that arise and seem relevant, and this can give a misleading appearance of his trying to move away from what you think you've said.
I don't think John Omlor ever gives that appearance. Even so, given the detail of his answers to everything, I serve notice on him here and now that if we ever enter into private correspondence, the subject shall be restricted to his nieces and my grandchildren! 
Martin F |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Wednesday, 25 April 2001 - 07:23 am | | Hi Martin,
Just to confirm that you and I have never met, and have only ever corresponded via our postings to these boards. I did see you once in the flesh, however, at the April 1999 C&D meeting, but you wouldn't have known who I was then, even if you saw me.
Hi All,
Can I ask a question please?
Getting away from the Paley issue for a moment, because I'm not entirely sure this isn't a bit of a red herring, can I ask what is the basic objection to the actual entry on Melvin in the A-Z?
Is it that people think the authors are wrong here, and that Melvin has never given his opinions in writing of other writers' thought processes (with the inevitable risk of getting a certain percentage wildly wrong)? And that he has never shown any indignation when he believes he has perceived chicanery? And that he has never made any demonstrably unjustified assertions?
Or is it because people feel that, while Melvin has done all these things, he has been unfairly singled out, and that special attention has been given to his faults, while the faults of all other writers have not been painstakingly evaluated and listed for the reading public to see?
I'm just trying to get all this clear in my head, because I am getting some very mixed messages. Karoline, I think, mentioned that if she had been treated like this she would be thinking of taking legal action. But I'm trying to understand what sort of legal action she thinks she could possibly take, since many of us here seem agreed that the A-Z warning, while others see it as selective, and therefore morally objectionable, is certainly in no way, shape or form, libellous.
We have seen here recently just how strongly everyone (I think, without exception) reacts to being accused of doing something they haven't done, or being someone they are not. (Tom, this may be happening right now, to one or more of the suspects in the diary saga - we just don't know yet. But you know what it feels like, and so do I - so I think it's a pretty important issue.)
Next come the people who don't like having their real faults identified and chewed over in public. Most people react almost as strongly to this, whether they recognise their own faults or not, but especially if they feel they are being treated more harshly than others, whose faults appear to them equal or worse. (There are a few exceptions, who are happy to have attention drawn to their faults, or possible faults, so they can try to put things right. These people, in my opinion, are the happiest of souls, and the only ones to emerge from such exchanges as these with any real peace of mind.)
Then come all the people who have ever had thoughts put into their heads, or words put into their mouths, by others (must be nearly all of us, no?). This can be done innocently or otherwise, but there's no real way of knowing for sure why some people choose to do this, and do it on a regular basis. But it is extremely irritating and frustrating when it happens, and I, for one, cannot understand why anyone would want to do this deliberately, so I have to see it as an honest, but very unfortunate habit.
Now, all this seems very logical and obvious to me, with my basic qualification from the university of life, and may come across to some of the readers as patronising, trite and unnecessary.
But I would still like to know the answer to my original question.
Thanks to anyone who read this far.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Paul Begg
Wednesday, 25 April 2001 - 07:33 am | | Martin
If I am accused of doing something I did not do, I would prefer to indulge in precisian accuracy and give readers the screaming ab dabs than be misinterpreted. And in this case, I happen to know what I said and know what it was that I was talking about, and it wasn't that Paul Harrison had nicked Bruce Paley's idea but that Paul Harrison's research was seriously amiss. I will in future restrict my correspondence with you to short and pithy description of the World Wrestling Federation and comic book super heroes, thus maintaining my ability to bore you rigid but not at undue length. |
Author: Martin Fido
Wednesday, 25 April 2001 - 08:47 am | | Dear Chas,
You say
"What Mr. Harris said to Mr. Fido remained in a private letter not intended for publication. Anyway, as I have said, it was a perfectly reasonable thing for Mr. Harris to believe and suggest in a private letter anyway."
Now, the letter may have been private in the sense that it was not addressed to anyone else. But it was certainly not private in the sense of being confidential (as was my telephone call to Melvin about the American lady's allegations). It came, as Melvin's sympathizers who have quoted it acknowledge, among a list of recommended additions and emendations for the next edition of A-Z. Those who think Harris is being unjustly blackguarded argue that there is serious discrimination indicated by a small difference in wording: something to the effect of all the others said, 'Please note' and the Paley comment said 'You might be interested to know'. It can be left to the judgement of history whether this clearly differentiated it. (I don't have a copy of the entire original letter and can only say that I don't recollect any impression of its being information of a different order. But this might have been slipshod reading on my part, like that which led me to overlook John's statement elsewhere that he had found the Crashaw poen in several anthologies in his university library, and leave the unguarded observation that I had never found it in an anthology as if it constituted some sort of argument).
It has also been implied that my acknowledgement letter is somehow at fault for not mentioning the Paley offering. I don't pretend to remember the precise order of events, but I do know there was some delay between my informing Bruce of the allegation, and his discovering that he did in fact still have in his possession the 1976 correspondence between himself and Don Rumbelow which proved that he had proposed his theory a year before the appearance of the Andrews' novel he was implicitly accused of following. Until Bruce had been able to send me that confirmation I should have been very chary of stirring up a, "You say the Bruce did this but he flatly denies it..." argument.
With all good wishes,
Martin Fido |
Author: Martin Fido
Wednesday, 25 April 2001 - 07:12 pm | | Dear Melvin,
No, I do not propose to try and start a hunt from Cape Cod for a radio producer who worked for LBC twelve years ago! The reason I didn't bring it up with you, as I thought I had explained, was because (i) it concerned nobody else, and (ii) I had heard through a common friend in another connection that you were under great stress following some house move, and it seemed possible that you had hoped the vacant Colin Wilson slot might come your way, and been impolitic in your response to learning that I was filling it.
There is, however, no possibility of my forgetting or misunderstanding a conversation that ran,
LBC Man: Who's this man Melvin Harris who's calling us up saying he ought to be doing the show and not you?
Fido: WHAT?
LBC Man: Yeah. He says he'd be better for us, or at least we ought to take him on as well...
I finally mentioned it on the boards as it stands in such curious contrast to your expressed indignation with LBC management for failing to give you all the time and exclusiveness you expected on the Pete Murray Show a few weeks previously.
Equally, there is no likelihood of my forgetting or misunderstanding exactly what passed between the American lady and me, nor your exact response to it and account of your relations with her when I telephoned you, none of which were quite as you describe them.
And, as I said before, you know exactly which publishers you have corresponded with about other people's Ripper books. The materials Karoline keeps producing suggest that you have maintained a comprehensive file of your correspondence. It should be perfectly easy for you to establish that each and every one of them solicited your opinions before you gave them by reference to that.
Finally, I don't toss about the words 'liar and libeller' which come so easily to your pen, but I think most people looking at the posted correspondence including your attempt after the event to claim that you were only approaching Bruce Paley's friends so that they could clear his name wil conclude that you were - shall we say - disingenuous? As I have remarked elsewhere, and apparently it hasn't been transmitted to you: you would not hear from us about Paley's rebuttal until it was documented, which came quite a long time after we originally informed him of what you were saying. You would not hear from us that we had no intention of printing anything at all on the subject given Bruce's perfectly credible denial even before he found the documentation. And we were under no more obligation to tell you what we proposed to write about you than you were obliged to advise me that you were about to claim patronisingly that you would treat my research with the same standard you applied to your own, before giving an inaccurate and belittling account of it, including your own erroneous speculation on my thought processes, all in direct contradiction of the account I had printed in the paperback edition of my book and given you over the telephone when you asked me for information. What you were about to say was about to appear openly in print, and I could respond to it if I wished. The same applied to our account of your methods. What you said about Paley was behind his back, and addressed with other material recommended for publication to people who might well publish it, and it seemed you hoped they would.
Martin Fido |
Author: Tom Wescott
Wednesday, 25 April 2001 - 10:49 pm | | Martin,
Thanks for filling me in on Melvin's (lack of) escapades. That was a sincerely heartwarming post and very generous of you. Others should take note.
Yours truly,
Tom Wescott
P.S. Have there been any Ripper books since yours came out that you like (other than Sugden's and 'UJTRC')? |
Author: Martin Fido
Thursday, 26 April 2001 - 05:02 am | | Hi Tom,
And thank you for your kind remarks.
As this ongoing dispute leads me to find myself throwing out yet more hints that events were less simple and unperturbing than Melvin now remembers them, and I find this unedifying - indeed, the whole rowdy dispute feels rather polluting - I should welcome objective assurance that Melvin'sd repeated claims that my attempts to end it by retreating into silence are by no means any sort of admission that his charges are correct or I cannot answer them. You know, of course, from experience, that he will say this, and Karoline at least will believe him. I said in a previous posting that I couldn't care less what Karoline thinks about me or Melvin, and it is true. Too much about her postings suggests that she is his willing mouthpiece and not an independent thinker. (This not, of course, 'conspiracy' on their part. But I'm not wasting my time tryng to persuade the vice-president that the president's pollicies are wrong).
I do, however, care to a reasonable extent about my good name. I am perfectly prepared to let charges of lying, libelling and whatever stay just where they are in the certainty that right-minded people seeing the tone in which they are delivered will also notice that they come fully equipped with fresh instances of overstatement to the point of untruth where Melvin thinks he sees chicanery, and wildly unjustifiable conjectures about what I think and how I am motivated. But every time I fall silent, there comes a sort of, 'Yah! Boo! Sucks! Can't answer!' This has been going on way before the boards, right back to the time when Paul and Keith and I were trying to argue with Melvin about instances of his writing as we described, and we broke off correspondence because of the intolerable demands made on out time by having to move the debate to the new areas Melvin opened up whenever (as we inferred from him failure to respond to points from us) he thought we had esyablished a point against him, and our own necessity to keep revising our answers so that they were worded in a way that all three of us found acceptable. It was either in Ripperana or in letters to Nick Warren copied to us that Melvin demanded peremptorily that we answer every point he made (ignoring, of course, the fact that he didn't and doesn't do the same thing himself) and then crowed that our silence 'showed the stuff we were made of', or words to that effect.
Now, I wish to shut up and leave Melvin to say whetever he likes about me (while I will still answer courteous and non-repetitive queries about his points from other people about the matter, unless, like Karoline, they seem to me to be mouthpiecing for Melvin). But as I am letting pass a good deal of bruising and completely untrue insult in the process, I would welcome some assurance that nobody thinks I am chickening out or that silence means I have no answer.
With thanks again for your kind remarks,
Martin |
Author: Martin Fido
Thursday, 26 April 2001 - 05:41 am | | Dear RJP,
What I've just said to Tom applies still more to you. Thank you for your kind intervention. I am sure Melvin has been kind and generous in his responses to you, as I'm sure he is to most or all honest enquirers who approach him from outside. I once said on a tape that I wish I had made his acquaintance via the field of baroque music in which he is unquestionably the expert and I the amateur. As it is, my experience has always been different from yours; practically every encounter I have had with him from the very start has opened with his making some sort of one-upping put-down of myself or somebody else, and I think this has to do with the fact that I had just published a book on the Ripper which he saw as serious competition to his own standing. (Sorry that had to be put, as it is, of course, postulating his thought processes, and he will be pefectly justified if he wishes to respond with a denial).
But this sort of ongoing abuse on the boards is distasteful to me; must be extremely embarrassing for our common friends who may find themselves dragged in by name (like Stewart Evans) or by unnamed reference if they don't contribute to the boards. And I suspect it is as distressing to you as it is to me when I see two people I have enjoyed debating with hurling abuse at each other on another board.
So I should welcome your assurance that you would find it acceptable if I simply let every future intervention from Melvin pass by in silence, and would not be influenced one way or the other by assertions that this means I can't answer.
And if you choose not to answer I shall not be inany way offended by YOUR silence. There is no need for you to put your good relations with Melvin at risk, if you feel responding would do so, merely out of concern for my tender sensibilities!
With all good wishes,
Martin |
Author: Peter R.A. Birchwood
Thursday, 26 April 2001 - 09:07 am | | (In the rush of getting the house ready for visitors, I put this on the wrong board yesterday. Apologies. Peter Birchwood.
STANDARDS IN DOUBT
As readers can now see, Fido will post libels and muddled recollections freely. First he used the excuse that my posters were Anon in order to avoid accounting for his smears. But when faced with my post placed by Mr. Birchwood he devises yet a different excuse for not answering. Then he reluctantly concedes that his "integrity" sneer was based on ignorance but still persists in repeating the lying claim that I had tried to hijack his radio slot! I now ask him to provide a detailed sworn statement from the former LBC producer whom Fido states is responsible for this lie. If this cannot be furnished, then I expect Fido to withdraw this claim pronto and without reservation.
Since Fido is making much of my failure to contact Paley, perhaps he can explain why he failed to contact ME over this LBC fantasy? Or is he exempt from the standards he expects me to hold to? Further to that, he actually went ahead and PUBLISHED this lie. In Paley's case I published nothing, NEITHER DID I ASK FOR ANYHTING NAMING PALEY TO BE PUBLISHED. Mike David has got it right. He has correctly observed that I was suggesting an amendment to the BARNETT entry and no more than that. The remarks on Paley himself were for the consideration of the compilers only and they would have been irresponsible idiots if they had repeated my words without checking with Paley.
But Fido and Co. live by double standards. They thanked me for my letter. They made no reservations. They later made no attempt to ring or write to me and explain that Paley had developed his ideas before the Andrew novel saw print. Fido is once again being dishonest when he draws Mike David's attention to words of mine which he describes as my:"...acknowledgement that we had indeed notified him that there was positive written evidence that Bruce's theory predated the publication of Andrew's novel" The words in question were written by me on April 11th 1997. Before that date, the Three dishonourably sat on their knowledge and used a convenient misreading of my letter in order to justify their revised entry in the 1996 A-Z. I knew NOTHING of Paley's claim until I challenged that revision.
And is it not devious to talk of an anon publisher who was once upon a time approached by me with criticism of an anon author? As for the American lady who tried to seduce me, well this really is fantasy run wild. The lady entered my publisher's Ripper competition and at the same time asked if she could meet me when she came to London. I had to reject her entry since it was a straight copy from Whittington-Egan's book, and I turned down her offer to meet. Following this, on one of Fido's walks, she claimed that she dined with me and heard me confess that I did not really believe in my own candidate. Ripperology certainly does attract some odd balls, apart from Fido.
And the deadly silence on the "Ripperana" issue is significant. Did Fido suddenly realise that he had made an utter fool of himself? As for Begg's query about the ink tests, I refer him back to the material I sent him. In short, journalists were indeed told by Feldman that I TAMPERED with the tested samples.
Finally, if Fido is not willing to read the early material posted here, then he has to accept that he is not competent to judge on many issues. His remarks on Belloc-Lowndes for example would never have been made if he had read my "Guide through the Labyrinth." And not naming the three books was never an evasion but a deliberate choice on my part. I waited until I had the time and the reason to present a full analysis. Even so, and prior to that, I did give the title of the most important Ripper book to Mrs. Harrison, though I doubt if she ever followed it up!
Melvin Harris |
Author: Yazoo
Thursday, 26 April 2001 - 09:18 am | | Hey Martin:
If my opinion means anything to you, I would not think your silence on these matters is anything more or less than the best part of wisdom -- not an admission of weakness or inability to repsond in kind.
This whole dispute centers around what people think and their interpretations of meaning surrounding, now not just the A-Z entry's wording, but a growing and widening web of what others said/think/thought/felt/etc.
If you write 100,000 words, it will not change many people's -- anybody's? -- own, personal beliefs about 'meaning' and the intepretative processes involved in 'proving' one meaning over any other. The proof of this is the duration of this issue, Paul's long defense in the past, and now your current defense -- the issue will not die. It seems it cannot be put to rest by reason, arguments, facts, beliefs, compromise, quotes from letters/books/articles/ etc., introduction of new examples and 'witnesses', or anything else short of total submission by one peron or persons to the opinions of the other person or persons.
Your silence -- as well as Melvin's or anyone else's silence on this unreconcilable issue -- is, IMHO, Golden.
Yaz |
Author: Martin Fido
Thursday, 26 April 2001 - 10:25 am | | Thanks, Yaz. Your opinion is very reassuring, just as your personal preference for posting under a pseudonym is one of our several guarantees that there is nothing necessarily wrong with preferring that degree of privacy. (Any schoolteacher, for example, might quite reasonably not want his or her pupils picking up the fact that he or she liked playing the Ripper boards).
All good wishes,
Martin |
Author: Tom Wescott
Thursday, 26 April 2001 - 11:03 am | | Martin,
I second Yazoo's opinion. Not carrying on this debate would be wisdom, not weakness. I know it's hard when somebody's egging you on, but virtually no one would think any less of you or Melvin if this stopped now. A lot of new people visit the boards each day to read, a lot more than actually post. Seeing their favorite authors going at each other's throats (pardon the pun) could be a little intimidating. I could still be harping on the recent allegations made against me, but like Alegria, I decided to stop. If I kept denying that I'm a multi-poster all that would do is bring to the attention of more people that I was accused of being a multi-poster, so it would do me no good. See what I mean? It's obvious to everyone that what we have here are simply two stubborn people with a personality conflict. I for one do not dislike either of you. Unfortunately, I haven't had the opportunity to see the more personal side of Melvin as I have you, so perhaps that's why I seem a little biased. But it's all good. In the end we all do what we want to do, we just have to ask ourselves if what we're doing makes us feel better.
Yours truly,
Tom Wescott |
Author: Martin Fido
Thursday, 26 April 2001 - 11:16 am | | Thanks, Tom. Your remarks are extremely welcome and reassuring.
Martin |
Author: Tom Wescott
Thursday, 26 April 2001 - 10:19 pm | | Martin,
Since the squabbling with Melvin is hopefully over, would you be open to the idea of starting a thread where you, Paul, and any other authors on the board such as Bob and Ivor could offer advice and assistance to other author-hopefuls? That would be awesome. It's a shame that Stewart felt compelled to leave the boards, although I can hardly blame him. I think it would be neat to hear stories from you and the other authors about what it was like researching and writing your books...How you approached it, how you organized, etc. And perhaps for contrast we could get Melvyn Fairclough in to do a thread on how NOT to write a book. Just a thought.
Yours truly,
Tom Wescott |
Author: Paul Begg
Friday, 27 April 2001 - 01:59 am | | Hi Tom
Actually, I have a very soft spot for Melvyn's book, which I thought was very well written and extremely readable, and I suspect that working with Joseph wasn't the easiest thing in the world!
Cheers
Paul |
Author: Martin Fido
Friday, 27 April 2001 - 05:32 am | | Tom - I don't think it would be awesome: I think it would be the polite and proper thing for us to do. (I don't think any of us would claim great literary or historical importance for our efforts, and real writers who could really make such claims and could be quite testy in certain social circumtances, have usually been willing to give up time to offer advice and encouragement when requested by neophytes, which has oftewn been useful. I have Evelyn Waugh in particular in mind).
There would probably be times, too, when the scholarly expertise of some one like John Omlor would be very useful. And the very practical business of magazine editing means that Christopher George and Jules have types of literary expertise that I don't.
I should certainly be only too happy to answer any question you cared to pose on such a board, as I'm sure would Paul. I'm sorry to hear that Stewart has left the boards. But RJP points out that Melvin Harris has always responded kindly and helpfully when he has approached him, and if I'm not mentioning him, I don't imagine that my presence in the background would inhibit him from being useful. Moreover, some of us can approach some other writers who don't post on other posters' behalf: I did so a little while back by getting confirmation of something from Richard Whittington-Egan for someone.
Go ahead. Open the board. Place the questions. The worst you could suffer is silence.
All the best,
Martin |
Author: Tom Wescott
Friday, 27 April 2001 - 02:19 pm | | Paul,
Perhaps you are right about Melvyn's book. I do not wish to denigrate his ability as a writer, only as a researcher. I encourage everyone to re-read his essay in 'The Mammoth Book of JTR'. I did so yesterday and was flabbergasted. He put down virtually every student of the case, even singling out Stewart Evans and yourself. He rags on the magazines, the clubs, and therefore this website which he is obviously ignorant of because he persistently claims that all the Ripper experts refuse to comment on the Diary!!! If he participated in the field he chooses to write on perhaps he'd be aware of the fallacy of his statements. To this day the Diary happens to be the most discussed subject (although not by me). He slams the experts for not commenting thoroughly on the cross allegedly seen with the Diary that he believes was stolen from Mary Kelly's room. Perhaps no one has commented because no one can validate that it ever existed! He then goes on to state there's no reason to believe the Sept. 17th letter is a hoax (see thread I started about that). He does take a moment to make a very strange departure into the discussion of Eddowes' murder, other than that he's pretty much knocking all of us and continuing to spread mistruths. He excuses himself for his fraudulent book, blames Sickert for his own plaguerism of Sheldon's work, admits his belief that the Abberline Diary (which had Abberline's first and middle initial swapped in the signature!) was indeed a hoax, but continues to put faith in Sickert's words! As I have said, I have no doubt that Fairclough is a great guy, but I'm a bit confused as to his place in Ripperology. I should also mention that he blames the hierarchy of Ripperology for his not having been invited to a Ripper convention some time ago and claims that only 6 people knew of the existence of the Sept. 17th letter prior to the Diary's emergence and makes the allegation that if the Diary is a forgery than one or more of those 6 would be the culprit. I'm curious as to who those 6 are and how they feel about this. Anyway, I suppose I take issue with the fact that he didn't check so much of his work before putting a cover and a price tag on it. A phone call to you, Martin, Donald, etc. would have cleared a lot of this up. Of course, not having gone through the process of writing and publishing a book, perhaps I'm over my head on these claims. Did you get a chance to view the Abberline Diary before his book was printed? I'm curious. Also, is the 'son of George Hutchinson' interviewed in his book actually the son of THE George Hutchinson? I would like to get your and Martin's opinions of this.
Martin,
You are absolutely right regarding John Omlor's assistance. I must admit I am not too familiar with the work of Jules. I have learned much already from having submitted my work to Paul and Chris George for publication in their magazines. Although I've written numerous screenplays I am rather new to the world of non-fiction writing and have much to learn. Not to scapegoat my environment, but growing up in Midwest America there was never an emphasis on literary culture or even on education. I've done my own amatuer studies over the years which have included asking numerous people, most between the ages of 16-25 the following question..."Who won the Civil War, America or the Spanish?" Of course, I don't have to tell you the answer to that, but the majority (that's right, the MAJORITY) of the responses I got were either that the Spanish won, America won, or they didn't know. Our newspapers are written at a 6th grade level and the average person spells 'you're' as 'your'. While I am apparently above average in my own environment in terms of my reading and writing level, I feel very inadequate at times when reading the works of many of the people on this board in their online dissertations or in their articles in the magazines, or even their own books. Even though I have for some time been aware of the old writer's adage that 'less is more' it was really brought to my attention recently when I submitted my 'Tom Bulling' article to Paul for 'Ripperologist'. I am essentially interested in any advice from anybody in terms of how their writing process works. I would like to know how you do your research, how you compile your notes, how you organize these notes into a text and how you go about making this text entertaining as well as informative. Essentially, I'm curious as to what your process was when beginning work on your Ripper books (or articles/essays, as the case may be for some). These are rather broad questions, I know. But I imagine the specifics will come later as other beginning writers join the discussion. I'm sure I speak for the others on the board when I say the assistance of all experienced writers on these boards is greatly appreciated and never taken for granted.
Yours truly,
Tom Wescott
P.S. Was I TOO harsh on ol' Melvyn BearClaw? |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Friday, 27 April 2001 - 03:01 pm | | Tom, I did interview Reg, the son of George Hutchinson.
At no time was I shown conclusive proof to show he was Georges son.I only have his word and that of his wifes.Sue Iremonger stated the signature on George's wedding certificate is not the same as the signature on the statement he made to the police.However if many years had elapsed between the two documents this could be a valid reason why they are not the same.My signature today is not the same as it was 10 years ago.However I did think it odd that George was getting on in years when Reg was born.I have never seen any concrete evidence to show Reg was, or was not Georges son. What I may have a gut feeling about is not evidence. |
Author: Martin Fido
Friday, 27 April 2001 - 04:01 pm | | Tom
First, yes, I think you were too hard on Melvyn Fairclough. Obviously I think he was barmy to believe stuff purveyed by Joe Sickert, and I think it was Don Rumbelow who pointed out to me that reading carefully between the lines of 'The Ripper and the Royals' 2nd edn, with the Duke of Clarence firmly ensconced in Glamis Castle and outliving George V, gives Joe, as his only claimant surviving son, the right to claim that he should be King Joseph of England, replacing the usurping Elizabeth II!
But his attacks on us other writers are fairly and squarely aimed at our theories with arguments to support his cases, whether we accept them or not. And he says of us, 'I am compelled to agree wholeheartedly with... Paul Begg that all the Ripper authors he'd met are thoroughly decent and likeable people with a genuine historical interest.'
And his complaints that neither he nor Feldy were invited to the 1998 Ripper convention seem to imply that they would have attended if they'd been notified. (Feldy did actually turn up around midnight at one point). So the organisers' oversight might well lead him to complain.
And a word in favour of the mid-west. When I taught for a year at Michigan State U it was quite capable of laughing at itself as a gigantic cow college, and my colleagues included a lot of very intelligent and sensitive scholars; my students included many who could match students I've taught anywhere else, including Oxford, and in addition a lot who would never have been admitted to univesities in England, but who were clearly gaining from and enjoying a few years' exposure to intellectual discussion of cultural matters.
Your direct questions to me about how I set about writing and researching the Ripper demands a litle more careful thought than a rapid response to something I've just read, so I'll accept notice of the question an prepare a careful answer.
All the best,
Martin |
Author: Stewart P Evans
Saturday, 28 April 2001 - 04:50 am | | Dear Martin,
This posting does not signal my return to the boards. My attention has been drawn to your post above alluding to the 1998 Ripper conference. You obviously have no knowledge of the organisation of this conference but you have made comment in relation to Melvyn Fairclough's piece in The Mammoth Book of Jack the Ripper. As you lack the requisite knowledge to make comment on this I was surprised to see that you had written the following -
"And his complaints that neither he nor Feldy were invited to the 1998 Ripper convention seem to imply that they would have attended if they'd been notified. (Feldy did actually turn up around midnight at one point). So the organisers' oversight might well lead him to complain."
Unfortunately this is totally incorrect and needs to be addressed before it becomes yet another myth. Even more unfortunate is the fact that this becomes a slur against Rosemarie Howell who was the sole organiser of this conference, I merely assisted with the making up of the delegate packs etc. Rosie was very surprised at Melvyn Fairclough's allegations which were the subject of a complaint lodged with the publishers of The Mammoth Book of Jack the Ripper. So your comments have had the effect, as it were, of opening old wounds. Rosie's response to these unfounded allegations will follow, it is the only time she has ever placed anything on these boards. But the record must be put straight.
The following post is from Rosemarie, and includes the response made in 1999 in reply to the publication of Melvyn Fairclough's piece. |
Author: Stewart P Evans
Saturday, 28 April 2001 - 05:36 am | | From Rosemarie Howell
I feel it most unfortunate that I am drawn in to making a post on these boards because as anyone who knows me is aware that I don't actually take much of an interest in Jack the Ripper, I have usually enjoyed the social aspect of meeting people.
The following is an extract from The Mammoth Book of Jack the Ripper, edited by Maxim Jakubowski and Nathan Braund, London, Robinson Publishing 1999.
'In Quest of Jack the Ripper' by Melvyn Fairclough. Pp. 160-161:-
"Although I was invited to the Ripper convention in 1997 [sic] held near Ipswich, I wasn't invited to the one in 1998 and I only heard about it after the event. Paul Feldman was only told about it a few days before the event. I gather from others who did go to the convention that his book, Jack the Ripper: The Final Chapter, one of the latest books on the subject to be published, was barely spoken about privately by delegates and not discussed publicly from the platform at all.
The organisers of the convention know that I helped Paul with his book and that I shall continue to believe the diary is genuine until someone can prove otherwise by finding the forger and explaining how a hoax was made. A tall order. Why did we not get invited to the convention? Are other Ripperologists fazed by Paul's book? Is it so difficult for them to answer the questions he specifically asked them in his book that they decided not to invite him? Or do they think that if they pretend the diary doesn't exist and that Paul's book was not written, perhaps they will go away?"
My reply points to the above, which were actually sent to Robinson Publishing, are as follows:-
The first Ripper conference was in 1996 (not 1997).
No-one is ever 'specifically invited or specifically not invited' it is by advertisement and word of mouth only.
1996 - Fairclough nominated (invited!) to attend by Feldman as a group of 4 people (others Carol Emmas and Martine Rooney).
1998 - All previous delegates for whom I had addresses (i.e. Feldman) were sent a letter giving them advance notification. all letters were sent to addresses I had on file from 1996. Therefore not sent to Fairclough - no address originally given and sent to Duocrave for Feldman as previously. When I spoke to Feldman on the Saturday evening of the '98 conference he indicated he had moved address a number of times over the last two years - unless I am notified I can only use the information to hand. I also indicated that he was welcome to attend the 'open forum' that was being held the next day (Sunday morning) - we already had two or three speakers who wanted to make a particular point but didn't want to make a full presentation. He didn't appear.
As usual, the Conference was well advertised in Ripperana, Ripperologist, Camille Wolff's catalogue (Grey House Books), the Internet and after having announced the Conference at one of the Cloak and Dagger Club Meetings it was apparently spoken about at length at a number of other meetings. "Ripperologists" who are that interested in the subject and wish to keep up to date usually ensure they have access to one or more of the above.
The organiser (not organisers) being myself, doesn't invite anyone apart from the guest speaker and, as an organiser with a very impartial view (no interest in the subject), it is open to anyone.
What the delegates discuss privately is entirely up to them and discussion groups naturally form in 'free' time. No book is publicly discussed from the platform, in fact I go to great lengths to ensure that the speakers topics are general interest on the subject and do not advertise any one publication. If a speaker chooses to mention a number of books to validate a point or indicate a source that is their prerogative.
I wouldn't know whether or not Ripperologists are fazed by Feldman's book or what the questions are that Feldman puts to Ripperologists - I have never read his book(s) but not because I am slighting him - I have never read any of the books!!! (and don't intend to).
None of the comments that were made should be related to the Conference whatsoever - it is a completely impartial, social event for people with a like interest to spend a couple of days together if they so choose!
I consider the comments made to be damaging to the whole concept of the Conferences that have been held and indeed any future conferences that might be organised.
The above is the content of the complaint that I lodged with the publishers.
Martin, your comments endorsing Melvyn Fairclough's complaint, which as you may now realise was totally unfounded, have been made without first checking with me for the facts relating to this issue. I find this a very unfortunate situation and ordinarily would not wish to become embroiled in any debate on these boards.
To reiterate, details of how to attend the forthcoming 1998 Conference were sent out to all the 1996 delegates for whom I had an address (valid or otherwise), months before the date of the Conference. There was certainly no oversight on my part and the Conference was well advertised in all 'Ripper-related' circles.
Regards,
Rosie |
Author: Stewart P Evans
Saturday, 28 April 2001 - 06:08 am | | Martin,
Further to my last, I have now been able to check my mailing lists for both the 1996 and 1998 Conferences and I had an address in London for Paul Feldman, but nothing for Melvyn Fairclough (who was in the Feldman party in 1996). This means that in my above post it should read the literature for the 1998 Conference was, in fact, sent to a private London address for Feldman and not to the offices of Duocrave as previously stated. Had I, in the first place (1996), been given individual addresses for the members of the Feldman party, then they also would have received the 1998 literature.
Rosie |
Author: Martin Fido
Saturday, 28 April 2001 - 06:30 am | | Dear Stewart and Rosie,
Many thanks for the above. I'm sorry you felt I was repeating a slur on your organisation, but I don't regret having made my observations, since there will probably be numerous readers like me who were not following the boards at the time Rosie's original posting was placed; who will have been jogged by Tom into re-reading Melvyn's piece in Jakubowski & Braund, and who will therefore value the repetition of the explanation which, evidently, leaves the ball in Feldy's court to offer any explanation for his having received the notice late. Without a comment to bring you out of silence again, Melvyn's complaint would surely have been believed by many more people in addition to myself, and some might even have shared his implicit suspicion that there was some 'conspiracy' to suppress the Feldman party rather than accepting the obvious (though once again erroneous) explanation of oversight.
I am sure you will not imagine I intended any slur on your characters, or, indeed, the conference itself, which was a well deserved success and a tribute to you both. (Well, Rosie, I know Stewart says you did all the work - but would you have done it if he thought Ripper historians were a lot of morbid bores?)
Stewart, I hope you certainly will be returning to the boards if and when ever there is such factual data to correct.
With all good wishes,
Martin |
Author: Stewart P Evans
Saturday, 28 April 2001 - 07:54 am | | Dear Martin,
Thank you for the response. Rosie's sole reason for all the work she put into both conferences was her support for me and my interest. She has no personal interest in the subject whatsoever. It naturally follows that I will not tolerate this unjustified criticism relating to a conference which she organised on my behalf. Both conferences were totally without bias and free from any sort of favouritism whatsoever. Subject matter for conversations was never subjected to any sort of censorship.
In view of what you have just put in your response I must point out that this is the first time that this subject has ever been raised on these boards, contrary to what you indicate above. What Rosie has made plain here is that she reproduces above her response to the publisher at the time of the appearance of The Mammoth Book of Jack the Ripper. It was never made public and the reason for contacting the publisher was in order for the offensive remarks to be removed from future editions. The only reason Rosie has appeared here was as a result of the fact that you chose to support Fairclough's comments without first establishing the facts.
There is no 'ball in any court' as the whole scenario is given above. The 1998 conference literature was sent to Feldman, as well as to all others who had attended the first conference and whom we had an address for, months before the event. As I understand it he never received this literature as he had moved fom the address to which it was sent, which was the only address Rosie had for him.
As far as I am concerned this whole sad issue was at an end ages ago, but, as is the nature of things printed in books as fact, it raises its ugly head again. In view of the damaging nature of these comments I shall be pleased to see the back of it.
Rosie wishes it to be made known that she considers the matter closed as indeed she thought it was some time ago. I would greatly appreciate it if you could internalise this information and make no further comment.
To sum up, Rosie was totally blameless in this matter and I do not wish to hear any more of these scurrilous insinuations. If I sound furious it is because I am.
Stewart |
Author: Martin Fido
Saturday, 28 April 2001 - 08:00 am | | Hi Stewart,
Sorry to have misread previous postings as suggesting that the explanation had appeared on the boards. Sorry to have caused you fury. Delighted that the truth is now here for all to see.
Martin |
Author: Tom Wescott
Saturday, 28 April 2001 - 11:03 am | | Stewart, Martin, and Rosie,
I must apologize as I am the one who brought this point up. Of course, I had no idea this was a sore subject. If I had I would have left it very much alone. In fact, it was only one small point in my discussion of Fairclough's article. This is the one downside to conversing on a message board...since there is such a lapse in time between responses it allows negative feelings to grow and fester. If the four of us had been setting down together when I made my statement regarding Fairclough's essay and his comments on the convention, Martin would have made the brief response he did, Stewart and Rosie would have politely corrected him, and we would have moved on to discuss something else, leaving this totally forgotten. I suggest that's what we do now. Once again, I'm sorry to have opened old wounds. There appears to be a lot of them and between many parties.
Yours truly,
Tom Wescott |
Author: Martin Fido
Saturday, 28 April 2001 - 11:49 am | | Dear Tom,
Many thanks for the 'acceptance of responsibility' above, with which I heartily agree. Like you, I had no idea that Melvyn's words (to which I had paid no attention when Jakobowski & Braund came out) had given such deep and understandable offence.
I have created a new board called 'Writers' Approaches' under General/Miscelaneous/Philosophy and Research issues to hold my long answer to your earlier question about how I worked and what I might recommend as tips.
All the best,
Martin |
Author: David M. Radka
Saturday, 28 April 2001 - 09:24 pm | | After looking through the boards, and to summarize:
1. Ivor Q.U. Estion
2. Chas. Gilbert
3. anon
4. John
5. Alan
6. Robert
David |
Author: Tom Wescott
Saturday, 28 April 2001 - 10:59 pm | | | Shouldn't there have been a number 7 before the name 'David'? |
Author: Tom Wescott
Saturday, 28 April 2001 - 11:04 pm | | Martin,
Perhaps I should take into consideration that since 'Ripper authors' are such a small group and so intertwined that to make a comment on one may cause disturbance with another. I suppose Frank Spiering and Dr. Abrahamsen are fair game, but I'll try to watch myself on the others.
Yours truly,
Tom Wescott |
Author: David M. Radka
Sunday, 29 April 2001 - 12:33 pm | | Tom,
Are you Jewish?
David |
Author: Tom Wescott
Sunday, 29 April 2001 - 08:53 pm | | David,
No, I'm not. Perhaps if I was I'd be a famous director now instead of hoping to one day get a very low budget shot-on-digital movie off the ground. I probably shouldn't ask this, but what makes you think that? It sure as hell wasn't my name.
Yours truly,
Tom Wescottstein |
Author: David M. Radka
Sunday, 29 April 2001 - 11:40 pm | | I feel I owe Mr. Edwards an apology. Thinking the matter over, it seems that I was overhasty in my desire to advance the cause of free speech on the boards in ascribing multiple-alias posts to him. I would regret any inconvenience to him, or any reduction in the free expression we enjoy here.
David Radka |
Author: Martin Fido
Monday, 30 April 2001 - 05:07 am | | Thank you, David.
Martin F |
Author: Peter R.A. Birchwood
Monday, 30 April 2001 - 10:50 am | | Martin: re the following pieces lifted from a piece of yours on, I believe the 25th April:
"Karoline,
I wish I could say the same for you. But I really cannot say whether it is mere stupidity, incompetent searching, or intellectual dishonesty which makes you claim that after scouring the boards you have failed to discover Paul Begg's citation ...etc"
"I am weary of answering your questions while you cavalierly disregard mine. Your silence over my invitation that you consider how you would feel if your work were described slightingly as 'your theory' in quotes, with the implication that you had lifted it unacknowledged from come one else; and how you would feel if this were supported with a reference to your research methods and a cynical 'Ah, well!' inevitably leads me to suspect that intllectual dishonesty rather than stupidity lies behind your postings. I can imagine no writer on earth who would not be outraged to think of such things being said behind his back - let alone being included in a list of things for possible publication. If you are going to pretend that the Harris passage is mere innocent presentation of facts which responsible editors might want to consider, and there is no underhandedness about pushing them toward the public domain in that way, then I respectfully suggest that you are making me wonder how you ever managed to write a publishable book about Lewis Carroll."
I can't find any message from Karoline Leach which would provoke such a stream of rudeness. It's of course possible that I've missed something; the email system is not perfect as I found out by missing Keith's "hypocrisy" post aimed at me. If there was something so apalling that would warrant your reaction I wish that you would point it out.
If your words are, as I suspect a total overreaction then I suggest that an apology is in order. |
Author: Martin Fido
Monday, 30 April 2001 - 01:10 pm | | If you've missed them, you've missed them, Peter. In a recent posting she called me 'disingenuous' for suggesting that there could be many explanations proposed for Mike's having the diary to take to Doreen. The misuse of that euphemism for lying caused a breach between Keith Skinner and Nick Warren that lasted several years. There has been no apology from her since I posted the four different explanations given by Mike and Anne themselves at various times, and a few more that I invented.
Forgive me if I say that this intervention of yours seems more like mischief-making than a serious contribution to the happy running of the boards.
Martin F |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Monday, 30 April 2001 - 05:19 pm | | | David,I except your apology.Making such a mistake is one thing admitting that you made it is quite another.Best wishes. |
Author: Tom Wescott
Monday, 30 April 2001 - 09:33 pm | | David,
That was really awesome of you. A lesser man would have apologized via email, or not at all. Rock on!
Peter,
When a person continuously drops little (or not so little) snide remarks liberally over a period of time it can have a much more disquieting effect than a single slam-fest post. That's why you might not have noticed a 'single' post of Karoline's that you felt warranted that response from Martin, but read her last 300 posts to him in sequence and then see what you think. Don't get me wrong, Peter, I've read your stuff a lot and think you're awesome, but Karoline (to my knowledge) isn't paying you to be her bodyguard, nor is Melvin paying her to be his. Telling Martin that you think what he said was uncool is one thing but publicly ordering somebody to apologize to somebody else over a situation you are not fully aware of is equally uncool. This whole Melvin thing is really played out, anyways. I'd love to hear what Melvin has to say about the case, but not about this crap. How about we stay out of each other's Kool-Aid, throw down the swords, and just be brothers. Sound cool?
Ivor,
Any new info on your book?
Yours truly,
Tom Wescott |
Author: Karoline L
Tuesday, 01 May 2001 - 04:04 am | | Martin and all -
The only purpose that Alegria and I had in conducting the enquiry here was to try and establish if Martin Fido and Paul Begg were justified in making the serious allegations they had been making against Harris here on these boards intermittently over the past two years or so.
All I did was ask these gentlemen to show some evidence for their accusations - and point out when these accusations seemed to conflict with the known facts (as with Fido's claim that Harris had written derogatory articles for Ripperana, when in truth the man had never written for Ripperana at all!).
The response was a crescendo of personal epithets and abuse from Fido - culminating in the tirade Peter has quoted above, in which he claimed I was either "dishonest" or "stupid" and that he found it impossible to understand how I ever managed to write a book.
The fact that he tries to justify this rude and intemperate behaviour by quoting a single word comment (disingenuous), I made about some argument of his on another board about a week after this avalanche of rudeness appeared will tell everyone all they need to know about the level of his commitment to fair representation and evenhandedness.
Martin, when asked to give some evidence to support your allegations against Harris, you replied that being in Cape Cod and away from all your files, prevented you from doing so.
I accepted your explanation, though I admit I found it curious (surely even in Cape Cod it is possible to remember the name of the publisher who called Harris a liar?)
However, this restriction doesn't apply to the present situation does it? You have all the archives of the boards right here.
So, would you mind going through this discussion, copying and pasting all (or just some - or even one) of the comments that I have made to you that, in your opinion, warrrant that attack you have made on my character and professional abilities?
Let's list them all right here, yes?
Then we can let everyone here see exactly what truth there is in this new round of vague character-assassination you see fit to begin.
Do you agree to that?
Or will you plead lack of time? or refuse to discuss the matter any more? Or just tell me what a stupid dishonest tart I am all over again?
For this seems to be the pattern doesn't it, Martin?
Make your allegations, pour your vituperation out here in public - against Harris, or even poor Rosie, or me, or anyone - and when you are asked to justify it - you lose your appetite for the conversation.
I wll be curious to see if this happens again.
Karoline |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Tuesday, 01 May 2001 - 06:27 am | | Karoline,
Please forgive me if I'm wrong here, but you do seem to be a tad more sensitive than most when you feel anyone has treated you or your words even slightly unfairly. Since you appear to be so wounded, can you not put yourself, for just one moment in your life, in the position of someone who has been at the mercy of the treatment you yourself dish out? Or is it only published authors (either living or long-dead) that are allowed to possess this hyper-sensitivity, and require defending at all costs?
In other words, if a small handful of living, breathing fellow scouser nobodies happens to be your target for the day, even if one or more of them might be totally innocent, that's absolutely fine by you, because they don't deserve the fair play to which you think you are automatically entitled, whatever you choose to write about people?
It's true what they say - a fart has no nose. |
|
|
|
|
