|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 14, 2001
Casebook Message Boards: General Discussion: General Topics:
Professional Standards:
Archive through May 14, 2001
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Thursday, 03 May 2001 - 09:17 am |        | Blimey, Martin, if everyone started kicking lovers out of bed because it turned out they had bits of 'foreigner' in 'em, the whole human race would become extinct in no time, wouldn't it? So I have a great deal of sympathy for your lack of forgiveness.
Love,
Caz (whose great great grandmother was French! Good God, I've done it now. Wonder how
many beds I can get myself kicked out of, now I've revealed my bit of frog.) |
Author: Alegria
Thursday, 03 May 2001 - 09:33 am | | Martin,
Surely you aren't postulating on my thought processes are you?
Fitzgerald's behavior is typical of his time. I tend not to like many 'classic' writers because of the biases that are always revealed in their writings one way or another. I used to retch when my English teachers would say.."But you have to understand the time they were writing in.." Yes..but you have to understand the time I am reading it in. That is why (although I appreciate his ability to turn a phrase), I loathe Shakespeare. |
Author: Martin Fido
Thursday, 03 May 2001 - 10:49 am | | First, Rick again: scrolling back to check on Alegria's comments I realize that a badly placed 'which' in my posting might easily lead you to think I meant it was your remarks rather than (as I intended) 'our generation which' younger women might find patriarchal and patronizing. Many apologies for the accidental ambiguity.
Hi Alegria,
Yes, there is a degree of speculative postulation - (though saying 'I doubt whether' is hardly committing myself strongly to knowing what you either do, or hypothetically would, think!) Need I separate out the two elements? I thoroughly approve of women who change their own wheels, and send men who are attracted by their short shorts off to do something useful. I was, you may recall, quoting with approval two women who found it impossible to take seriously the doctrinaire feminism of a third women who took a pride in not changing her own wheel, but using allure quite consciously and deliberatly to get some one else to do it. I'd be happy to think your posting contained no reproof of whatever you understood to be my position, but I thought it did. If I was wrong - apologies - and we are again faced with the difficulty that I really am so antiquated and wrong gender that I simply misunderstand things you say. (Cf Rosemary of the many anagrams, whom I admit to almost never understanding at all!)
Much as I'm unwilling to reopen an irritating old point, your question about my postulating other people's thought processes reminded me that when scrolling back a few days ago I noticed that in rushing to make pedantic remarks about the misuse of the word 'chastise', I forgot to answer your main question: am I not postulating someone else's thoughts in putting the interpretation I do on the notorious utterance, 'Ah, well!'? I'd have to say that I was in all courtesy bound to read something into it. The remark was made in a letter to me. The writer expected that I would put some interpretation on it. And the invitation has been open to everyone who reads the boards to offer any explanation of the words that reconciles them with an entirely innocent indication that Bruce Paley's claim to priority needed to be reconciled with the (wrongly) alleged prior publication of the Andrews novel, and the benign hope that his friends would clear this up. I still await any plausible interpretation that doesn't read them as a world-weary - (note, I didn't say cynical) - expression of regret at the ways of an American book dealer who took an idea from somebody else and then complained when a third party didn't acknowledge his own priority. As yet the invitation has been greeted with an overwhelming silence, accompanied by some continued criticism of me for daring to assume that when somebody writes something to me they expect me to put some interpretation on it!
But I'll be only too happy if you don't bother to respond to this and reopen an old squabble.
To happier matters. I agree that Fitzgerald's kind of racism was typical of his time: indeed, I have to note regretfully that racism is a permanent characteristic of humanity. I hope that we shall ultimately bring it into entire disrepute as we have done with chattel slavery, even though we shall find it even harder to eradicate. But I'm very unforgiving of it when I find it.
In fact, I find Shakespeare's breadth of vision in this respect (treatment of Aaron the Moor, Othello, and Shylock) one of the ways in which he both reflects and sometimes leaps beyond the normal limitations of his time. But in the end, for all the beauty of much of its poetry, I find 'The Merchant of Venice' very distasteful, and Marlowe's 'the Jew of Malta', for all its relative crudity, completely inoffensive by comparison (since Marlowe makes no bones about the fact that the Christians and Turks are just as cruel and self-interested as Barabas: they just aren't quite so clever or demon-kingishly self-aware).
That aside, and allowing for duff moments, I guess I have Shakespeare up on a pdestal like most other people, though when I was 17 and started reading other Elizabethan and Jacobean playwrights, it took me a little time to see what so strongly differentiated him from Marlowe, Webster and Greene.
With all good wishes,
Martin F |
Author: John Omlor
Thursday, 03 May 2001 - 10:58 am | | Dear Alegria,
If you start using people's character failings, biases and other despicable personal attitudes to determine how you feel about their artwork, you very quickly won't be reading very much literature at all, including contemporary literature, or listening to much music, or looking at very many paintings, etc. In fact, you will no doubt end up "loathing" everyone's work -- since they were nearly all bastards and often deluded bastards, of one sort or another. And Fitzgerald (whose struggles with Zelda would have broken almost any of us, I suspect) was a whipped little pussycat compared to almost all of his contemporaries and even almost all of our current "important" novelists. Besides, the ones who were well-behaved often wrote intolerably dull books.
Then again, Martin, I'm probably not one who is likely to hold Scott's racism in any way against his work (and by the way in Gatsby he makes fun of racists and their silly pseudo-scientific arguments in a few lines about some book that the ridiculous Tom is reading). No, I'm not the one to criticize the man's work because of any despicable behavior on his part, since I've long been a great fan and a great admirer of the wonderful and horrifying novels of L.F. Celine, and he favored and actively campaigned for the brutal extermination of entire races of people and, finally, of most of mankind in general, and had a personal life and political views that make Hitler look like a rank amateur psychotic and a good samaritan. But he wrote Journey to the End of the Night and Death on the Installment Plan and the unforgettable Guignol's Band.
Besides, 120 Days of Sodom is a fascinating exercise in creative literary mathematics, despite the less than model behavior of its author. No, I wouldn't have wanted to spend even an evening being friends with Joyce or Pound or Eliot or Hemingway or Faulkner or Fitzgerald or Melville or Emerson or Miller or Kerouac or Capote or Mailer -- maybe Beckett, maybe -- or even my very favorite novelists of all, Kafka and Garcia Marquez; but this certainly does not affect my reading of what I think are some of the best and most beautiful and fascinating and magical words ever put to paper.
So I'm staying out of this debate hereafter, after urging Alegria not to give up on the brilliant and unsolvable dramas of the bard.
Caz,
On the first page of the novel, Nick says about himself, "I'm inclined to reserve all judgments." and “Reserving judgments is a matter of hope." He then spends three or four paragraphs casting judgments like crazy about everyone he's met.
Nick has more than a few blind spots about himself and his growing sickness (he treats Jordan as badly as she treats him) and Fitzgerald masterfully lets us see those bit by bit as Nick's narrative voice develops. It's a rather fascinating study of a psyche in self-denial at work -- unlike say, the alleged chronicling of James Maybrick's psyche we are reading elsewhere. 
Now I really must go,
--John |
Author: Martin Fido
Thursday, 03 May 2001 - 11:12 am | | That was a short round of golf, John! What have you got, a putting green in your back yard?
You are, of course, absolutely in the right to remind me that one shouldn't let biographical data about a writer interfere with one's critical assessment of his work. I just find that particular anecdote about Fitzgerald so extremely distasteful that it has, alas, coloured my attitude unfavourably. Fortunately I was no longer teaching literature by the time I learned of it.
100 Days of Sodom I found completely unreadable! (I agree that it could only interest a mathematician, since all I got from the distance I read of it would be, 'If x is the number of people in situ and y is the number of orifices possessed by each and z the number of members or artefacts that may be inserted in or applied to the orifices, what is the total number of sexual encounters that can be tediously described over 1000 pages?') But Justine I regard as an absolutely brilliant reductio ad absurdum of the proposition that virtue is its own reward.
All the best,
Martin |
Author: Tom Wescott
Thursday, 03 May 2001 - 11:17 am | | Hello,
With all this talk of any sort of bias being 'despicable' you would almost think none of you were. Almost.
Yours truly,
Tom Wescott |
Author: Paul Begg
Thursday, 03 May 2001 - 11:33 am | | Hi Martin. Not wanting to raise the old subject again either, I would like to just point out that the emphasis placed on "Ah, well!" should not be allowed to hide the juxtaposition of information that (a) the Barnett thesis was published in New York with (b) Paley is a New York-born US book importer. (b) is only relevant to (a) if interpreted as meaning that a US book importer could have imported the US book and thus been aware of the thesis. I can see no other interpretation. The "Ah, well!" was just icing on that particular cake. And the whole thing is irrelevant anyway because Melvin's reference to cryptomnesia is proof that he intended us to infer some form of 'plagiarism'.
I am somewhat disillusioned to think that among all the great writers there wasn't a single one who it would be pleasant to share a pint with. Are the bad writers nice guys? |
Author: Paul Carpenter
Thursday, 03 May 2001 - 11:59 am | | Paul (and indeed all writers here present)
Which you would rather be - a nice guy or a good writer (assuming for the sake of argument that the two are mutually exclusive)?
Carps |
Author: Martin Fido
Thursday, 03 May 2001 - 02:08 pm | | Keats was exceptionally nice by any standard.
Martin F |
Author: John Omlor
Thursday, 03 May 2001 - 07:59 pm | | Hi Paul,
As I mentioned, I would have liked to have shared a pint or two with Sam Beckett (or Keats, Martin, I agree). And Kafka could actually be a bunch of laughs for a short time according to his friends -- but only for a short time.
But eventually the same problem arises, even with painters and composers -- imagine being forced to hang with Beethoven for very long... and Picasso and Pollock could be extremely boorish, I hear.
Tom,
I'm as bad as any of them, no doubt. So you'll get no argument from me.
And I'm not sure how I answer your difficult question. It depends on when you ask me, I suppose.
Now its off to see who wins the money on Survivor.
Bye all,
--John |
Author: Paul Begg
Friday, 04 May 2001 - 04:16 am | | "Okay, dear, I won't be late. I'm just off down the pub for a pint and maybe to shoot some pool and exchange a laugh and a spot of merry badinage with Kafka."
That's not something I'd have put money on hearing very often! |
Author: Warwick Parminter
Friday, 04 May 2001 - 04:16 am | | Martin,
say no more! I probably should say sorry to you, my post did seem quite hot under the collar, (reading it again), it wasn't meant to be,--
I should use more smiley faces,--but every one turns into a No74. I can see now we are of a same mind
Best regards Rick. |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Friday, 04 May 2001 - 04:19 am | | Hi John, All,
So I guess Nick was similar in a way to all those of us around here who say things like, "I dislike/hate/try to avoid getting involved in other people's heated arguments/fights/personal feuds/wars etc etc.....BUT", and then proceed to do exactly that.
I guess the most brilliant authors/poets/composers/musicians/artists are spending so much of their lives creating, or thinking about creating, that it may be inevitable that the time left to them simply to be nice to their fellow human beings will be rather limited. "Look, how can I spend time being nice to you, sunshine, when I'm trying to write another brilliant poem about being nice to you."
Have a great weekend all, and, in the words of the best ma-in-law in the world, "If you can't say anything nice about someone, don't say anything at all." (Wish I could always be like that.  ).
Love,
Caz |
Author: Warwick Parminter
Friday, 04 May 2001 - 04:58 am | | Yaz,
I knew American soldiers during W.W.2. When they came over in 42/43, it was the best thing that happened to England, in spite of the war, they opened ordinary English peoples eyes to a lot of things they were missing. Most of them were only teenagers and young men,--and the majority of them were very polite, they were, gentlemen. I and my family remember them with affection... You may have heard of British Tommies and Yanks not getting on sometimes, but my cousin who was a serving soldier from 1939, wrote to his mother saying, "Mom, if an American soldier comes to your door, have him in, and give him a cup of tea",-- my cousin was killed in the Battle for Caen in 1944. In 1975, my wife and myself visited America for the first time,--Wyoming and Montana,-- we weren't disapointed in any way! Americans aren't nosy, they take interest! they make you feel at home, America is the only country in the world "I" would want to visit over and over again,--and have done!!. It's the best.
Rick |
Author: Martin Fido
Friday, 04 May 2001 - 05:43 am | | Yup. It was American soldiers manning an ack-ack battery at Marazion who passed on a copy of 'Horton the Elephant' (see other boards!) to my kindergarten teacher at the time when I was staying with her and her husband while my brother was being born. Hence making me one of the very first English children to build lasting memories of Dr Seuss's style, and wonder what that marvellous book had been until 'The Cat in the Hat' was reissued in England c.1959, and the combination of drawing style and verse was instantly recognisable.
The same US soldiers let me ride on the revolving seat of their gun: my most exciting wartime experience until a torpedo boat came into the harbour and I was taken on board and thought (a) it was the cleanest, most beautiful and exciting environment I had ever seen, - (I'm a sucker for boats) - and (b) the radar screen which the captain explained to me showed him where things were outside and a long way off, was the most amazing miracle of modern science I could imagine.
All the best,
Martin |
Author: John Omlor
Friday, 04 May 2001 - 07:34 am | | Hi Paul,
Strangely enough, Kafka had a group of regular drinking buddies, who gathered almost nightly. This group included Kafka's best friend and editor, Max Brod, the writer Franz Werfel, the curious intellectual character Ernst Polak, and of course, Polack's young wife Milena (eventually the great but complex love of Kafka's life). When Franz was with the group he often joked and laughed and had a fairly active, though dark sense of humor (what else would one expect from a man who spent all day in an office chronicling and detailing the effects of industrial machine accidents on claimant's bodies for an Insurance company?). Also, whenever he read his own work in public he would laugh out loud as he read -- and on several occasions could not get through public readings of "Metamorphosis" because parts would crack him up.
Of course, all the rest of his days and nights he suffered in intense states of personal depression, anxiety, and misery and if you were a family member or, later, a fiancée, or lover, you apparently suffered with him.
Caroline,
Oh yeah, one other thought. For a really fine and subtle and fascinating chronicle of the first-person narrative mind of a murderer as it starts to disintegrate before us, check out Nabokov's strange little book Despair or the visually stunning film version of the same title by Fassbinder, starring Dirk Bogarde of all people. It makes the Diary look like child's play.
All the best to everyone for a fine weekend,
--John |
Author: Paul Begg
Friday, 04 May 2001 - 08:06 am | | Well, you live and learn. What bits of "Metamorphosis" did he find funny? Are they really thigh-slappingly good?
|
Author: John Omlor
Friday, 04 May 2001 - 09:22 am | | Paul,
I think he found the whole premise and the way the family behaved both painful to him and hilarious at the same time.
But I don't know if I can account for this.
Still, his stuff is darkly comic and there is a fine line between the horror of Joseph K.'s situation in The Trial and the hilarity of the scenes with the little girls nipping at his heels or his sex with the "deformed" maid or the goofiness of the painter or the routines with the lawyer and his client, etc.
Kafka brilliantly interrogates that disappearing and reappearing razor's edge between the nightmarish and the strangely comical. This is only one of the tightropes he so adroitly walks.
At least that's how I see it this morning,
--John |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Saturday, 05 May 2001 - 11:12 am | | Hi John,
I just don't believe all these coincidences lately - Dirk Bogarde of all people? I used to live next door to his brother, back in the late 1960s, and did a bit of babysitting for the two younguns.
I'll try my best to avoid despair, while looking out for Despair - thanks for the tip.
Enjoy the rest of your weekend.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Peter R.A. Birchwood
Tuesday, 08 May 2001 - 12:10 pm | | TWISTERS AT WORK AGAIN
MELVIN HARRIS
Strange indeed are the words of the wild posters. I have logged 17 misrepresentations of my writings in the past few weeks. And I now learn that I "...went to the A-Z publishers with some form of threats if they published the A-Z." Really? I made no threats; I do not even hold with making threats. And my approach to the publishers was well AFTER the A-Z smears had appeared. The people who HAVE resorted to threats are: Robert Smith, to Begg and others; Begg to Nick Warren; Feldman to me. Chisholm and others; plus Mrs. Harrisons's hint that if she had the money she would threaten me with a legal action. Her threat however vanished when I asked her to prove grounds for such an action.
Fair-minded people will also recognise that Fido's "Ripperana" allegations have now been dropped (no apologies, of course) and are now replaced by equally vague and untrue claims relating to "Ripperologist." Unhappily for Fido there was only one article of mine, just a technical analysis of the "Maybrick Will." It was accompanied by complete copies of all the documents mentioned in the articles text. It was an exemplary way of presenting evidence. And its date? December 1996. AFTER the new and foul lines had appeared in the revised A-Z.
Out of all this blather, something usefull has emerged. Readers can now see just how contrived and spurious were the reasons for the Fido/Begg actions. Dr. Alan Gauld rightly identified their detailed excuses as "a pretty desperate flailing around and pompous and condescending to boot."And readers have now had a chance to see both Fido and Begg dropping their facades. Their treatment of the two ladies who challenged their standards, shows just how basically unpleasant they can be. They make me seem angelic by comparison.
And you can all now see that Fido will repeat and repeat yarns that are false and have been repudiated more than once. The yarn about the lady seducer was scotched by me years ago when my diary showed that I had been in London just twice at that time, each time with my wife and each time at the Public Record Office at Kew! The alleged LBC Radio conversation is simply beyond belief. I had never even heard of the programme until recently. It covered a field that does not interest me. AND I HAVE NEVER TELEPHONED, OR WRITTEN TO AND LBC PRODUCER OR OFFICIAL IN MY LIFE. Thus to keep insisting that such an event took place is bordering on madness.
Among other distortions, I note that my views on Mrs. Harrison are being given the twist. My real view of that lady is that she is way out of her depth when it comes to presenting technical reports and muddled and misleading when it comes to assessing and presenting evidence. As a result, she has uttered many false statements including some involving me and my work.
A good example of this lies in her treatment of my posting "A Guide Through the Labyrinth." In that posting I wrote about the idea that the Ripper left a capital "M" at the murder sites. This idea featured in Michael Dibdin's Baker Street novel of 1978 which became a popular paperback in 1989 and was reissued in 1990. In the 1990's it was often seen around. But Mrs. Harrison chose to ignore those facts. Insteda, she commented on the internet: "It is facile for him to claim that all the forgers information was culled from a number of books - one of which, a novel by Michael Dibdin, "The Last Sherlock Holmes Story" is obscure and not easy to locate. This in itself would have called for considerable preknowledge and even erudition, such as his own. Such a feat might well seem easy to Mr. Harris." I replied to her on the net and once more pointed out that we were dealing with an easily discovered, and very popular work, thus her ideas were totally wrong. Now, just one phone call to Faber and Faber would have confirmed my statement. But no! She remained blind to reason and on pp 321-2 of her Blake pb she REPEATED the very words of hers that I have just quoted. And she circulated a copy of her internet text. Now one of the people who received a copy of that text was Paul Begg, who should have spotted at once that the lady was at loggerheads with the reality of the situation. But did he correct her and urge her to withdraw?
Further duplicity is found on page 363 of her Blake Edn. There she quoted from a letter of mine to Reed Hayes and distorts its meaning completely. She cuts out the words which show that the lies I wrote about involved the charge that the ink samples were contaminated by me. Now she must have known what she was up to, but her readers will not. But let me leave her other absurd references to me for the moment. She lacks credibility when she deals with other people as well.
I have no time for the liar and wife-beater Mike Barrett but his words have to be examined with fairness. Mrs. Harrison chooses otherwise. In dealing with Mike Barrett's claims, she slaps down his statement that the "Punvh" Ripper cartoon was by "PW Wenn" by writing: "It is by Tenniel. The name PW Wenn does not appear." Now that is a deceptive reply since it is the name TENNIEL that does not appear. All we have is two ornate interlocked letters which only a knowledgeable viewer will recognise as Tenniel's device. In fact the only name at the base of this cartoon reads "SWAIN" This is just the name of the block-engraving firm but it could be easily taken for the name of the artist by someone with scanty understanding of these things and easily misremembered as WENN. So why did the lady fail to make this plain?
And WHY did she further write: "Michael consistently failed to honour his contractual share of research expenses despite receiving regular invoices." ? When she wrote that she knew that expenses claimed by Mrs. Harrison's firm "The Word Team" were in fact DEDUCTED from Mike's royalties by the Crew agency. At one point they took £2,105.77. (This in addition to an extra deduction of £1,000 which went to Albert Johnson and £24,223.27 for Robert Smith's legal expenses.) Mark this; these are just the deductions I have proof of, but I am told there were others.
In the matter of important documents I find that Mrs. Harrison never supplies the full texts but uses sections that seem to support her case. Caveats and significant sections that negate her case are never shown or mentioned. I have put on screen the missing evidence from Dr. Wild's watch report; from Dr. Easthaugh's ink tests; from the Maybrick Will; from the Crashaw Poem; from Robert Smith's ink-bronzing letter to Nick Warren. Now all this could be attributed to a profound misunderstanding on her part of the relavance of the passages she leaves out. On the other hand, since every omission is in her favour, it could be taken as a determined attempt to make a futile case seem healthy.
In addition I find that she is still repeating the absurd claims that any forger would have to visit remote archives in England and the USA and "...pore over hundreds of hundreds of pages of microfilm of national and local press in London and Liverpool; to read and understand obscure medical literature, to locate the Grand National Archives as well as read the massive literature on the Ripper and mountains of indigestible Maybrick trial material." Now these claims were exploded long ago. I have shown that no archives were involved, since all the diary material was incredibly easy to come by. AND YET SHE WROTE THAT UTTER RUBBISH AFTER READING MY INTERNET PIECE WHICH DEMOLISHED THE CLAIMS. Mrs Harrison has, therefore never once faced up to these facts.Has never accepted that her research scenario was sheer fantasy.
In short, I find that her Maybrick writings cannot be regarded as a fair and reliable account of the Diary investigation and later ramifications.
And the issue of reliability brings us back to the manufactured Bruce Paley issue. Did I think that he drew his inspiration from the 1977 novel by Mark Andrews? Well, nothing in Paley's original article (or in his letter to "The Book Collector") spoke of his theory being generated prior to 1977. Therefore, bothe Camille Wolff and myself felt that he might well have drawn his inspiration from that novel. But it was never an issue of much importance. After all, it is how and idea is developed and documented that counts. But priority of publication still lies with Andrews.
And now, out of the blue I see that Fido is citing Melvyn Fairclough's false words. This is one character who would be wise to keep his head down. He is responsible for one of the black blots on Ripperology. in 1991 he foisted new Sickert fantasies on a publisher and the public, based on faked Abberline diaries. He claimed that: "...the handwriting in the diaries is the same as that in the reminiscenses known definitely to be written by him." But the handwriting in these diaries is a pretty obvious and crude attempt to copy Abberline's hand. His publisher, Colin Haycraft, saw that, as soon as he examined the range of authentic handwriting that I sent him. Without those faked diaries, no publisher would have given him the time of day. |
Author: Paul Begg
Tuesday, 08 May 2001 - 12:22 pm | | Well, I guess that’s as near as we’re ever going to get to an admission from Melvin that the A to Z authors correctly inferred that he meant ‘plagiarism’, whether or not he ever regarded that as a matter of importance.
And did Colin Haycraft at Duckworth request the information sent by Melvin or was Melvin’s contact unsolicited by any chance? |
Author: John Omlor
Tuesday, 08 May 2001 - 01:50 pm | | <to be spoken with a dreamy, wistful look>
Someday my name will appear in a Melvin Harris post, and then I'll know that I am somebody.
Then I'll know I'm a Ripper scholar.
Someday...
Oh! But if only that day would come soon!
<Sigh>
--J. |
Author: Martin Fido
Tuesday, 08 May 2001 - 03:27 pm | | Dear Peter,
Many thanks for posting the above from Melvin. As you will have seen from my earlier postings, I do not propose to respond in any way. Indeed, like others on other boards, I skim and skip long postings unless something interesting attracts my attention. And having quickly identified the characteristic screaming 'HEADLINE' and checked the signature, I didn't bother to read this one. But I'm sure others will be enjoying the possibility of some more self-parody.
With all good wishes,
Martin |
Author: John Omlor
Tuesday, 08 May 2001 - 03:34 pm | | Ah, but Martin,
You must read at least the fourth paragraph of this one -- to your "Who was that lady I saw you with last night," he reassures us, "that was no lady, that was my wife."
--John |
Author: Yazoo
Tuesday, 08 May 2001 - 04:30 pm | | Okay, Melvin, I'm a sap, I'll take the bait:
You wrote: "And my approach to the [A-Z's] publishers was well AFTER the A-Z smears had appeared."
So why did you "approach the [A-Z's] publishers" and what did you discuss?
Did it perhaps concern future printings or editions of the A-Z, since books do tend to have the impertinence of being published in multiple printings and editions?
And thanks for emphasizing that your little visit occurred "...AFTER [your emphasis] the A-Z smears had appeared." I had never supposed otherwise, just as I cannot offer any supposition as to why you would want or need to visit the A-Z's publishers either before or after the A-Z was published. Your disagreement, after all, was and is with the authors of your personal entry and not with the publishers, correct?
Yaz |
Author: Karoline L
Tuesday, 08 May 2001 - 06:09 pm | | I think Harris's approach to the A-Z publishers was in the form of a request to have the offensive entry removed. I don't think there is any evidence that he ever threatened anyone.
Paul, is there any such evidence?
K |
Author: Yazoo
Tuesday, 08 May 2001 - 11:20 pm | | Hello, Karoline:
The claim is mine, not Paul's or anyone else's.
I think Melvin is perfectly capable of answering a post addressed to him that asks for information only he and the A-Z's publishers would know.
Yaz |
Author: Karoline L
Wednesday, 09 May 2001 - 02:45 am | | Okay Yazoo, the claim is yours.
But surely you aren't just inventing it off the top of your head? You have some reason for saying it, right?
As was recently made clear to Martin and Paul, it's not responsible to make allegations without some evidence to back them up.
So, is there any evidence to show Harris threatened the A-Z publishers as you claim?
K |
Author: Paul Begg
Wednesday, 09 May 2001 - 03:06 am | | Hi Yaz
It's early and I am busy, so please forgive me for being lazy, but could you please direct me to where you stated that Melvin threatened the publishers of the A to Z? Ta.
Paul |
Author: Yazoo
Wednesday, 09 May 2001 - 04:04 am | | Regarding Melvin's message posted on Tuesday, May 08, 2001 - 12:10 pm. I better make a few things clear before Melvin or one of his defenders piles any more dirt over the hole he's already dug for himself.
If there is any difference in the laws or the practice of law between America and England, I suppose we'll soon find out how and where they differ. Until that difference is made known I'll present a little history of American law and its practice.
Litigation against book publishers over the kind of issues Melvin and others raise against Melvin's entry in the A-Z is far more rare than the usual slander/libel/defamation suits brought against the various news media (newspapers, television, etc.). But no matter what the media, there are a few practices that apply to all; that further the litigant's case in the eyes of the law, the judge, the jury:
1) It may be unreasonable to assume in all cases that a publisher has the requisite knowledge to be considered an authority in every topic covered by the books they publish.
2) It may be unreasonable to assume that a publisher would be aware of any particular or specific issues raised about a specific person printed in one of their publications.
3) Therefore, before a litigant brings suit against a publisher, the litigant should, but in some cases need not (i.e., in cases where the publisher disseminated false, injurious material that does not require specialized or privileged knowledge, such as claiming that George W. Bush and Charles Manson are identical twins -- in mind as well as body), perform the following:
a) Ensure the publisher is aware that an actionable offense has been committed by the publisher, whether the publisher could be shown to have prior knowledge of the actionable offense or not.
b) Request a suitable remedy from the publisher for the offense; usually in the form of a retraction or public apology if the material that caused offense cannot be withdrawn from the public domain.
4) If the litigant has made the publisher aware of his grievance and the publisher refuses to acknowledge the grievance and offer suitable remedy to the litigant...
Guess what?
The litigant can still decide not to pursue the matter further for reasons of their own. For example, citing Melvin: "...plus Mrs. Harrisons's hint that if she had the money she would threaten me with a legal action. Her threat however vanished when I asked her to prove grounds for such an action."
Melvin interprets the failure of Mrs. Harrison to bring suit against him -- this Mrs. Harrison whom Melvin hears say to him (and he remembers well enough to repeat her statement in his post), "...if she had the money she would threaten me with a legal action" -- as some demonstration that Mrs. Harrison had insufficient grounds -- rather than an insufficient amount of money -- with which to sue him.
Obviously, we can see an alternative explanation for Mrs. Harrison's failure to bring suit against Melvin.
IMHO, Melvin would be foolish to think that Mrs. Harrison will never sue him, but that's his business if he ignores the warning. If she ever finds sufficient money she may sue him. She may win. One thing is certain, Melvin can't say Mrs. Harrison didn't warn him!
But to return to the publisher case: the litigant can bring suit against the publisher and, since the litigant previously notified the publisher of the offensive material and requested a remedy, the publisher cannot argue they are ignorant and therefore innocent of having knowingly published (or are continuing to publish) the objectionable material.
-----------------
In plain language, the minute Melvin "approached the publishers" of the A-Z and voiced his objection to the published entry concerning him, Melvin -- whether he knew it or not; whether he "intended" it or not; whether he chooses to see it that way or not -- was establishing the publisher's liability (responsibility) for the entry Melvin found (and still finds) so offensive.
Unless all this rigamarole about the A-Z entry (e.g., "the A-Z smears;" "the new and foul lines...in the revised A-Z") has nothing to do with Melvin's "approach" to the A-Z publishers, any potential lawsuit could and should include both the writers of the entry and the publishers.
Now if Melvin writes back and says he "approached the publishers" of the A-Z to ask them how they were feeling that day, or how was the weather in their part of town, his claim that he made no form of legal threat would be valid.
But if Melvin said anything that notified the publishers of his objections to the entry (or worse for Melvin's claim: if he actually asked them to do anything about the entry), the publishers would be justified and correct in perceiving the threat of a lawsuit.
If I hear Melvin state that he found his A-Z entry offensive, and then I hear from Melvin himself that he "approached the publishers" about the entry, I would be justified and correct in perceiving the threat of a lawsuit.
Melvin says: "And I now learn that I '...went to the A-Z publishers with some form of threats [emphasis, this time, is mine] if they published the A-Z.'"
I say: Melvin, if you didn't know what you were doing before you "approached the publishers" of the A-Z, you know it now.
Yaz |
Author: Yazoo
Wednesday, 09 May 2001 - 04:14 am | | Hey Paul:
I assumed that if Melvin said it, it must therefore be so!
You mean I went through all that legal stuff fer nuttin'? (It was fun even if I did waste my time; I love the Law.)
By the way, I'm sorry for not picking up on Karoline's question to you sooner (I've been away from some of the old Casebook habits for too long), but maybe all my legalese will answer her question since she can't seem to wait for what Melvin actually said to the publishers.
Now it's late (for me -- insomnia is a curse, I tell ya) so, see ya all later.
Yaz |
Author: Paul Begg
Wednesday, 09 May 2001 - 04:49 am | | Hi Yaz
Ah. You see I couldn't find where you had said that Melvin had threatened my publishers or where the words "threat" or "threatened" had been used in posts other than Melvin's and Karoline's, so when Karoline addressed to you the question: "So, is there any evidence to show Harris threatened the A-Z publishers as you claim?" I thought that somewhere you must actually have claimed that Melvin threatened my publishers. Silly me. |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Wednesday, 09 May 2001 - 05:19 am | | Hi Yaz,
So you are saying that, if Karoline's statement of opinion is correct: I think Harris's approach to the A-Z publishers was in the form of a request to have the offensive entry removed, Melvin is rather stuck, because, whether he likes it or not, the publishers are entitled to interpret his 'request' as a 'threat'?
I see. Thanks. How ironic, if the publishers can indulge in postulation of Melvin's thought processes without let or hindrance!
Love,
Caz |
Author: Paul Begg
Wednesday, 09 May 2001 - 07:14 am | | Hi Caz
If Melvin simply wrote to register a protest then there would have been no threat. Had the publisher interpreted the protest as a threat then they would have been postulating Melvin’s thought processes (i.e., he’s not just registering a protest but is thinking about legal action). But if, as Karoline speculates, Melvin wrote to 'request' that the entry be removed, the publishers might infer from this - and more particularly from the phaseology Melvin may have employed - an unstated 'or else' and thus deemed the correspondence as a threat. This would have been inferring a meaning from what was written, not assuming a meaning by investing Melvin with thoughts he may not have had. As it is, the publisher, with the agreement of the A to Z authors, assured Melvin that the offending entry would not appear in any future editions, thus resolving any potential legal issues.The only outstanding question seems to be whether the offending material was justified. The A to Z authors obviously think it was, Melvin thinks it wasn't. Others can read the reasons given on the Boards and check Melvin's posts and decide for themselves.
The sort of thing investing someone with thought processess they don't have, though far from a good example, is to be founf in Melvin's post above where he writes "Now one of the people who received a copy of that text was Paul Begg, who should have spotted at once that the lady was at loggerheads with the reality of the situation."
The "situation" being the extent to which Michael Dibden's paperback of The Last Sherlock Holmes Story was available in the early 1990s. He offers no evidence to support his opinion of what I should know. No evidence that I had so much as ever heard of the book. So why does he think I should have been able to immediately spot that Shirley's disagreement with him was wrong?
Let's not get bogged down in Melvin's claim that Shirley ‘chose to ignore’ his opinion about the availability of the book (since he quotes her response, I’m not sure how he can say she ignored him, purposefully or otherwise), and just say that Shirley disagreed with his contention that the book was widely available and easy to find. This disagreement is, says Melvin, one of Shirley’s “many false statements” and is evidence of her duplicity. And he adds, for some inexplicable reason, that I “should have spotted" this at once and called upon her to withdraw her statement. Why the hell should I know how widespread Dibden’s book was in the early 1990s? And what proof beyond his word did Melvin offer to support his claim?
Furthermore, he seems to imagine that his words would be quickly proved correct by a swift phone call to Faber and Faber. Really. They'd have the combined print run of the paperback and the extent of the book's distribution in Liverpool at their fingertips would they? And they'd know that Mike Barrett had an interest in Sherlock Holmes and might have read the book would they? Maybe they would. Maybe Melvin 'phoned them.
What I do know that the 1978 Cape hardback is very rare, some copies commanding up to £300, and that of the 219 copies of the book currently available through ABE, only 9 of them are the Faber and Faber paperback. And whilst I can’t say that I scour second-hand bookshops looking for it, I have only seen one copy of the Faber paperback outside of a collection and I really have no idea whether it was a widespread and commonly available paperback in its day.
If this is evidence of duplicity by Shirley Harrison or myself, then so be it. I don’t know what you think it is! But, you know, somewhere along the line I think Melvin is attributing without evidence a thought process I don't have, namely a knowledge of the availability of the Dibden book and an ability to immediately spot the error of Shirley's statement. And there are some mean minded folk around who might even be so rash as to think that the question Melvin posed about me was intended to suggest that I was wrong not to have spoken up and corrected Shirley. |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Wednesday, 09 May 2001 - 08:15 am | | Hi Paul,
You wrote:
But if, as Karoline speculates, Melvin wrote to 'request' that the entry be removed, the publishers might infer from this - and more particularly from the phraseology Melvin may have employed - an unstated 'or else' and thus deemed the correspondence as a threat. This would have been inferring a meaning from what was written, not assuming a meaning by investing Melvin with thoughts he may not have had.
Yeah, quite. I just thought there was a delicious irony in the comparison between Melvin's mind-reading skills - and what he is not entitled to infer as a result (which seem to be the root cause of all his problems) - and the 'threat' that the A-Z publishers would be entitled to infer, from Melvin's 'request', if he made it.
Talking of mind-reading skills and delicious ironies, I really would have thought that Melvin, of all people, would be extremely sceptical about anyone claiming to possess the sort of psychic ability he so often tries his hand at. Perhaps he ought to steer well clear of writing any articles debunking psychic skills, lest he becomes a victim of his own debunking! 
Love,
Caz |
Author: Tom Wescott
Wednesday, 09 May 2001 - 10:07 pm | | Melvin,
Hey buddy, it's good to see you're still around. Let's try something new, shall we? How about for every bad thing we say about somebody we follow it up with something good. Allow me to provide some examples...
"Yazoo (***insult deleted***)." Followed by - "Yazoo commits to these boards posts with such amazing clarity and freshness of perspective that there can be no doubt that he provides the very backbone of these message boards and is perhaps the finest mind at work on this case today."
Or....
"Stephen Ryder (***insult deleted***)". Followed by - "Stephen Ryder's dedication to this website and it's cause is the single most significant contribution to the Ripper mystery in the last decade and may in the future, through the communication it provides to all those studying the case, prove him to be the most important individual ever to take on the mantle of 'Ripperologist'.
See how easy it is Melvin? It's pretty fun, too. Anyway, I just think it will make your posts easier to read and will help make it sound like you have less of a grudge than you do, thereby putting off less people and allowing them to take what you have to say more into consideration. Also, you might want to try posting these things yourself instead of through a lackey. It would make you seem less stand-offish. These are just my thoughts, though. Pay no attention.
Yours truly,
Tom Wescott |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Thursday, 10 May 2001 - 04:54 am | | Hi Tom,
Do one for me! Do one for me! Please!! I'm sure I'd love it!
(I might then do one for you too.)
Love,
Caz |
Author: Tom Wescott
Thursday, 10 May 2001 - 10:55 am | | Caz,
Can you believe they deleted my insults? That's not cool. All I said was that Yazoo (***insult deleted***) and that Stephen Ryder (***insult deleted***). Now, that's not so bad, is it? I'd do one for you Caz but I'm worried I might give the censors brain rot. I keep them rather busy as it is. Ha ha. So let me just say that 'Caz is cool'. Fair enough?
Yours truly,
Tom Wescott |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Friday, 11 May 2001 - 08:51 am | | Hi Tom,
Oh poo! I would have liked the chance to see for myself the public insults you got planned for me. Seems like someone else gets to decide whether I'd be offended or not. Oh well.
Cool is fair and fair is cool.
Have a great weekend all.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Peter R.A. Birchwood
Monday, 14 May 2001 - 12:41 pm | | ANOTHER LIE NAILED by Melvin Harris
In his role as mischief-maker and event-inventor Fido never produces evidence. Just a paper parade of faceless characters coupled with "you know who I mean" evasions. But in the case of the editor who is supposed to have called me a liar, I do know who he means. He is pointing to Rod Green, Ex-Virgin Publishers. But I doubt if Rod will thank him for his false claim, which conflicts with the account given by Begg! The fact is that I phoned Rod Green after Feldman issued threats to Alex Chisholm. Those threats involved the "Legal Department of Virgin Publishing" who, according to Feldman, were prepared to bring a costly action against Chisholm. When I revealed this to Rod Green he was taken aback and wondered if I had got my facts right. Then explained that this was typical Feldman behaviour, and that I too had been threatened, but had sent the threats back to Feldman's dustbin. In explaining what had happened, as a matter of course the ink-test libels were mentioned, so were other twisted pieces used against me. Rod Green then asked me to put my charges in writing. I was more than happy to oblige. And my covering letter of 10th October 1996 to Rod Green confirms that I sent him material that expanded on our phone talk AND WAS REQUESTED BY HIM.
Here are the important segments of that covering letter:
"Here is the material I promised to send. It is essential that you study it, for it is now quite impossible to discuss such things with Feldman...I now list some of the libels he has issued in my case: this will give you a chance to make sure that they do not appear in book form. Also, as promised, I include evidence that Feldman is knowingly using documents and quotations that are corrupt or misleading and quite unacceptable to anyone seeking to get at the truth.
I have spoken to Alex Chisholm and assured him that the threats made by Feldman, using the name of Virgin Publishing, were not authorised by your company and do not represent your company's views or intentions. I have repeated to him your words that Virgin is only concerned with protecting the copyrights of their authors. A copy of Chisholm's piece is included.
As you will see, we are not dealing with a spirited difference of views between various writers, but with something gross and ugly and totally out of place in the field of civilised discussions."
And THAT dispose of yet another attempt by Fido to create a false history based on his poor memory and his conceit. |
|
|
|
|
