|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 **
Analysis of Diary Text
Casebook Message Boards: The Diary of Jack the Ripper: General Discussion:
Analysis of Diary Text
Author: Christopher T George
Friday, 06 July 2001 - 05:03 am |        | Hi, John:
You stated:
Thirteen years - an entire childhood - and no one has broken ranks or just been hit by a burst of hubris and gone to the tabloids and said "I helped and here's how we did it."
Well, you know, John, this is untrue! Mike Barrett, whether he was a party to the forgery or not, confessed to the press as well as in signed affidavits that he forged the Diary. Yes, I know there are questions about his statements, and many find him to be an unlikely forger, including Martin Fido who has met Barrett, yet Martin admits that Barrett might have been a different man before he began drinking heavily. One thing that keeps coming back to me is that Barrett's known bragging and self-aggrandizement as well as his statements acknowledging that the Diary is big and sensational fit with the constant refrain of how "clever" the speaker in the Diary thinks he is. Barrett might be a wannabe and might be just someone who wants to jump on the bandwagon or he might be our man.
All the best
Chris George |
Author: Paul Carpenter
Friday, 06 July 2001 - 06:31 am | | Firstly, thanks to all concerned for a riveting few weeks read. The exercise has definitely served to crystallise the vague feelings of dis-satisfaction I got whilst reading the diary.
Now that we have moved on to the motivations of a hoaxer as we try to build a 'profile' of our author, I will just stop to tell a lengthy, but possibly instructive tale.
So draw yourself up to the fire for a moment and lay down your satchels...
In 1948, in Clearwater, Fla, a couple walking on the beach found a trail of enormous bird-like footprints. Each footprint was some three feet in length, and the stride was quite inhuman - something like six feet. The trail came ashore, and ran along the beach for a fraction over two miles before returning to the sea again. A throng of curious locals gathered around the tracks, and it wasn't long before the press descended to report on this remarkable and inexplicable visitation from the sea. Scientific interest, too, was aroused and respected zoologist Ivan T. Sanderson flew in to investigate.
Meanwhile, sightings of a strange creature disporting itself in the local seas were made. Reports varied from a crocodile-like creature, to a huge flippered thing of a dirty yellow hue. A week or so after the first set of tracks were found, a second set appeared on the coast some miles from the originals. This track was half a mile in length and perfectly matched the first.
Sanderson, on the basis of the eyewitness statements and the size and configuration of the footprints came to a surprising conclusion - that a giant penguin, perhaps 8 feet tall, was the only thing that could fit all the evidence. Whilst his theory was astounding, others began to rationalise it. A recent change in the ocean currents might well have driven such a creature from its usual home, and the eyewitness accounts were very persuasive.
Eventually though, sightings died off, and the Clearwater Penguin entered the realm of budget 'paranormal mysteries' books, and a curious footnote in the annals of zoology.
And until 198something (I'm doing this from memory, so the details may be awry) so it remained. Then, a local man came forward to confess that he had created the prints. Incredibly, he had fashioned - on a whim - a pair of thirty pound (each!) concrete overshoes in the shape of giant bird's feet and then made the marks. He still possessed the shoes, and they matched the plastercasts taken exactly. He had travelled to the beach waded into the sea and donned his huge concrete feet. Then, in order to facilitate a gigantic stride, he had flung each leg in turn to make each stride with these massive weights some six feet in length. Remember that he had done this for a distance of over two miles. He had made no money from the hoax, nor was he motivated by a desire to discredit scientists or journalists. Indeed, his motivations were unclear even to himself - he'd just thought about doing it out of curiosity and gone out and done it, at great and tedious physical effort and for no practical gain.
Now, to me, ascribing motivations to our forger is a difficult game to play. People are mischievous without necessarily having a concrete (!) motive beyond idle curiousity. Science, in these situations, is notorious for falling on its fat arse. When the plastercasts of the footprints were reconsidered in light of the hoax admission, it was noted that the bottom of the feet were perfectly flat - whereas a living creature would, of course, leave inprints of a flexible structure.
Through a mixture of serendipity, luck and cunning (who would go to the trouble of faking a trail that went on for over two miles when a hundred yards would have been enough?), the hoaxer created a small storm and compromised the reputations of dozens of otherwise sensible and rational people. What of the eyewitnesses (including a US navy helicopter pilot) who claimed to have seen a creature? What of the scietists who actually named the genus of creature responsible for making the tracks? The journalists who soberly reported each new sighting and trail?
Anyway, only a tangential relationship to the point at hand, but maybe it will help us to question the notion that our hoaxer has necessarily had some kind of identifiable motive, and perhaps to tread carefully when we consider things like "why would a hoaxer use the Crashaw quote?"`
Cheers,
Carps |
Author: John Omlor
Friday, 06 July 2001 - 06:36 am | | Hi Chris,
You cite my lines about no one breaking ranks and then remind me of Mike's "confessions."
But the sentence in my post immediately prior to the one you cite -- in fact the one that prompted the one you cite -- the one right before it says:
"Thirteen years, and the only thing we have is a small set of attempted confessions that prove miserably contradictory and factually inadequate upon closer inspection even by the most objective of readers."
That would be Mike.
Thanks,
--John
PS: And as the sentence before that one points out, no matter how we slice it, Mike's confessions have been, so far, neither decisively incriminating, nor substantiated, nor revelatory. |
Author: John Omlor
Friday, 06 July 2001 - 06:53 am | | Hi Carps,
Great story. I'm sorry I didn't live here in St. Pete Beach back then. I would have loved to have seen the footprints. Of course, Python fans can tell you all about the dangerous ways of giant penguins on the beach. They've all seen Scott of the Antarctic, where Scott kills one and the blood streams out psssssssst, in slow motion.
Of course, not only is speculating about the "why" fascinating but necessarily tentative at best, so too is wondering about just what sort of person comes up with the idea and the desire one day to write a fake nineteenth century diary about James Maybrick and Jack the Ripper. What might the interests, mentality, daily life, and character of someone who would have specifically that sort of idea pop into his or her head be like?
As I confess above, I really don't know.
Thanks for the excellent fable of the Clearwater penguin though. 
--John |
Author: Graham Sheehan
Friday, 06 July 2001 - 07:36 am | | Hello everyone,
Many thanks to the board contributors for the continuing lively debate, which I've been following avidly for several months now. I would never have believed there were so many areas open to discussion in the Ripper case, nor that seemingly insignificant scraps could be worked at, researched and expanded to form such fascinating discourse.
Having told myself repeatedly that I would never take an interest in the so-called Diary, I began to take an interest in the so-called Diary :-) I've read it every which way: from the start to the finish, from the finish to the start, and from the middle outwards on Walpurgis Night while listening to Black Sabbath records played backwards. Am I the only person struck by (what seems to me, anyway) the very obvious points that this document neither the handiwork of James Maybrick, nor a forgery? I certainly hope not. IMHO, the reason the 'forgers' have never been unmasked is for the very simple reason that they never existed in the first place, at least not in the context of most discussion here. I would be extremely surprised indeed were facts ever to emerge which showed that the 'Diary' had been constructed by a person or persons with the intention of making the world at large believe James Maybrick was Jack the Ripper.
Best regs,
Graham |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Friday, 06 July 2001 - 07:47 am | | Hi All,
Hi Mark,
I’m afraid the only diary I recall writing was one the teachers made us do over a fortnight’s school journey to Dawlish, Devon, when I was eleven. (I still have it, and it includes a list of every pupil on the trip – I found out recently that one of them is a fellow Cloak & Dagger regular! Must be something in the water.  ) I don’t think it can tell me anything about mood changes and stuff though – I was ecstatically happy for the entire two weeks, and obviously writing for an audience, hoping my teacher would read it out to the class and that they would all laugh at my funny little observations (yes, even then! ). I’ve never really felt the need to commit my private thoughts to paper, maybe because I have an excellent memory for how I was feeling at any given moment or event in my life, going back to very early childhood in fact. (Or perhaps I’m just afraid it’ll be found one day.  )
Hi John,
You wrote:
‘And the troubling question remains -- has its author resisted identification through luck or through strategy and skill?’
Funny, that’s the same question that comes up time and time again regarding JtR, isn’t it?
And the troubling question remains -- did the ripper resist identification through luck or through strategy and skill?
In the process of asking what sort of person has the idea of creating a diary of JtR, and imagining what their game plan might be, it was fairly inevitable that you would write: ‘(but I won't try and imitate Maybrick's handwriting)’.
I just don’t understand it. Had the forger(s) ever seen any example of Maybrick’s handiwork, I wonder, when they set about writing as him? If the whole purpose was to forge the diary of James Maybrick, and its creator(s) knew he left a will, even going to the trouble of giving it a mention (‘I have redressed the balance of my previous will’), why on earth wasn’t it tracked down (by someone using a pseudonym perhaps?), so at least some attempt could be made to copy the handwriting? (Also, Keith Skinner has observed that, if Ryan was used for the Maybrick info, there is a passage which refers to the will being written in James’s own hand.) It seems to me to be pretty fundamental to a forger’s craft, and would have been fairly straightforward to accomplish, wouldn’t it? If they had absolutely no clue what handwriting style to adopt, or about any peculiarities that may have been unique to Maybrick’s hand, why take a chance that handwriting analysis would not prove 100% definitive, in the predictable event that some researcher would take the trouble the forger(s) didn’t, and trace that will?
I don’t know what all this means, of course, but I’m tempted to compare it with someone faking a work of art.
Can you imagine anyone having a serious go at producing a painting, in the style of a little-known artist, without ever having seen any of his work, nor knowing anything of his style, yet being aware that at least one probably exists and could be tracked down and copied if he could be bothered, then signing the picture at the bottom and expecting to pass it off as genuine? Doesn’t even begin to make sense to me.
And then you wrote:
‘And there has been some money, but nothing like a fortune for anyone.’
This is what many people find hard to believe. (I read the chat log from Tuesday night.) Certainly, some people hoped they would make a lot of money at the start – only natural in the circumstances. Mike, for one, then the literary agency, writers and publishers, who found themselves faced with a mysterious document (and later a mysterious watch) and, gradually, all sorts of stuff that wasn't adding up, plus a whole lot of trouble from those who thought it all added up only too well. But in the event, the whole saga, spread over the last decade, has been extremely costly to many of those involved, professionally, personally, and financially. And I have no reason to doubt anyone’s honesty when they tell me that the idea of vast sums of diary cash being made by greedy individuals is just one more myth waiting to be exploded.
Now I really must go – Tim’s legs are warming up for me.
Love,
Caz
PS John, what the hell is “London Broil”? Never heard of it. Is “broil” American-speak for “grill”, in which case, do you mean “Mixed Grill”, which usually consists of lamb chops, gammon, sausages, eggs, bacon, tomatoes, mushrooms, fried potatoes?….God, I’m getting hungry.
PPS Your MS Word spell-check suggests “Czar” for “Caz”, huh? Not bad, considering I read recently, in a book on the meaning of names, under Caroline: ‘the power behind the throne; the hand that rocks the cradle and rules the world; the essence of femininity; the feminine of Charles, meaning ‘kingly’. (Thanks, mum and dad.  )
PPPS Chris, never in a million years will anyone persuade me that Mike could possibly be ‘our man’ – I would wager an awful lot that Melvin and Peter, and all the diary buffs put together, will never prove otherwise – sorry! |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Friday, 06 July 2001 - 07:52 am | | Hi Graham,
I composed my post before seeing yours - absolutely! I think our minds must have been working simultaneously with regard to deliberate forgery.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Christopher T George
Friday, 06 July 2001 - 07:58 am | | Hi, John:
Sorry I completely missed your reference to Mike's confession in the post to which I was reacting. Blame it on the fact that I posted it early this morning in the wee hours when after our electricity went out I rebooted the computer and decided to peruse the boards.
Hi Graham:
Nice to see you here. I am not certain what you are saying but we welcome your thoughts. Possibly others will be confused too.
Could you please explain your statement, "IMHO, the reason the 'forgers' have never been unmasked is for the very simple reason that they never existed in the first place, at least not in the context of most discussion here."
Someone put this document together. If there was no forger or forgers, who did it? Do you have a theory? You hint that it has to do with the perspective that we are using to look at the Diary, which I presume you mean to view as a forgery. I think you had better explain. Thanks in advance.
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: Graham Sheehan
Friday, 06 July 2001 - 08:50 am | | Hi Chris, Caz, all,
To clarify what I said in my previous post, I don't think the text of the 'Diary' was composed with the intention of it being passed off as genuine. It is far too crude and clumsy to fool anyone with a modicum of knowledge regarding the Ripper case. The writer of the document takes far too many risks, such as attributing letters which most people regard as little more than a prank to JtR alias James Maybrick. All those underlined 'ha has' are embarrassing to read. No intelligent person could possibly write poetry that bad unless by design. No way on this earth was that a real attempt at producing a journal which could feasibly have been penned by the infamous Jack the Knife. I don't believe that for a second.
I'm not one for theories, but if pushed I'd put this forward as a possible scenario: *someone* reads various factual crime books, including many on the subject of Jack around the time of the centenary (bearing in mind that these started to appear a couple of years prior to the actual date of 1988). This same someone notices several connections between James Maybrick, a victim of crime, so it is said, and Jack, perpetrator of it in its most hideous form, such as Maybrick's business dealings in Whitechapel and the assertion by the police of the day that there could have been a Liverpool connection. So someone's mind works overtime. But this person is intelligent enough to realise that Maybrick almost certainly wasn't the Ripper, and in any case would have no inclination to make factual a case against him, far less perpetrate a deliberate hoax. I think the 'Diary' text was composed (whether on to the pages upon which it now rests, or elsewhere) either an exercise in imagination, or as part of a proposed (and possibly completed) novel. I've always thought this saga would have made an excellent work of fiction, maybe with a certain Mr Sherlock Holmes in pursuit of the arsenic maddened Maybrick. At some stage after the completion of the 'Diary' in whatever form, it comes into the possession of one Michael Barrett. He does a little homework and comes to realise that *someone* has researched the 'Maybrick' text well enough for there not to be any glaring errors (to his inexpert eye). A lightbulb appears above his head, and he devises a cunning plan...:-) Just suppose this work was put forward as a genuine artefact, the real diary of Jack the Ripper.
I'm pretty sure something roughly along those lines happened. Whether Mike obtained the journal the pages of which are reproduced in Shirley Harrison's book, or whether he and his wife (for I feel certain no one else was involved beyond that point) put pen to paper working from, for example, the text in notebook form, is a matter for conjecture. As, let's be honest, is just about everything else :-))
Best regs,
Graham |
Author: Christopher George Ray
Saturday, 14 July 2001 - 03:22 pm | | | Hi - I'm a newcomer called Chris Ray. I've recently read the Diary and was most impressed. Rather than fake footprints on a beach (relatively easy to make and - let's face it - some people will believe anything) the Hitler Diaries are a better example. As an historian it was fairly obvious that that these diaries were obvious fakes - they were not internally consistent with what we know of Hitler's personality and his known movements. With the Ripper Diary this is not so easy, since we have a lot less information about Maybrick and his movements. However, am I right in supposing that there is no obvious conflict within the diaries with regards to what we do know about him? My only concern lies with the killing of Mary Kelly (see the board concerned with this) and wether she was a real Ripper victim. |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Sunday, 15 July 2001 - 01:54 am | | It is doubtful that Maybrick could have been in London on the dates of the Ripper murders. The Whitechapel murders took place during the height of the cotton brokerage season, and Maybrick worked six days a week, and we know he had weekly appointments with his doctors in Liverpool during the Autumn of 1888. Merely reasoning from the post marks on the "Dear Boss" letters and the date of the double event, Maybrick would have almost had to have been constantly in London at the end of September & the beginning of October. If you believe Paul Feldman's interpretations, Maybrick also posted letters from Scotland and Liverpool in this same time frame. [Maybrick got around].
Maybrick the diarist mistakes his own brother's occupation saying he "succeeded in rhyming verse", [Michael Maybrick was a composer, not a lyricist] he makes blunders about the murder scenes, and quotes a police list that wasn't published until 1987. His handwriting doesn't match the diary's, nor the 'Dear Boss' letter. Maybrick was, however, a connoiseur of Richard Crashaw and 17th Century metaphysical poetry, though he somewhat failed in imitating the style and complexity of his masters. He anticipated the name of the 'Muck Midden' by several decades, and proved to be a great influence on the writings of Donald McCormick. |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Sunday, 15 July 2001 - 05:24 am | | Hi RJ,
You don't make it very clear for our newcomer where the break comes in your post between sensible observation and downright sarcasm. For example, you say, quite rightly, that Maybrick's handwriting doesn't match the diary's, and in the next breath you state that Maybrick (not the diarist this time) was a connoiseur of Crashaw! Surely this is not the way to write to a newcomer, who, for all you know, may take you at your word, and go telling everyone that RJ Palmer has found a new piece of vital information!
And don't forget, the diarist does not claim that Michael Maybrick's occupation involves rhyming verse, but does also say that 'he writes a merry tune.'
Love,
Caz |
Author: Christopher George Ray
Sunday, 15 July 2001 - 08:19 am | | | Thanks for the responses. RJ, I was under the impression that a letter written by Maybrick while aboard a ship was very similar to one of the "Dear Boss" letters - is this a mistake on my part? Caz - are there no records of dealings on the Cotton Exchange for this period that might place Maybrick in Liverpool during any crucial period? Also, Maybrick makes references to killings in Manchester - is there any evidence that these actually took place? |
Author: John Omlor
Sunday, 15 July 2001 - 10:04 am | | Hi Christopher,
Welcome to the boards and the curious world of the diary.
The answers to your three questions above, as best I can tell from what I've read and heard, seem to be no, no, and no.
The known examples of Maybrick's handwriting, including some business correspondence discovered relatively recently, do not seem to match the "Dear Boss" letter.
There are no business or social or written records, or at least none have been found, that definitively place Maybrick in Liverpool or anywhere else on the dates in question. We have no idea where he was.
There is no record, or at least none has been found, of anything like either of the Manchester murders mentioned in the diary.
Hope that helps,
-- John |
Author: Christopher T George
Sunday, 15 July 2001 - 10:10 am | | Hi, Christopher, or might I call you CGR?
Yes you are quite correct that Feldman publishes a Dear Boss letter of 8 October 1888 side by side with a letter written by Maybrick on 4 March 1881 on RMS Baltic stationery (Feldman Virgin 1st edition hardback, pp. 276-277). The writing is similar in these two letters although not absolutely identical (e.g., capital "B" and the "D" in "Dear" are different). However, in my view, this Dear Boss letter was very craftily chosen by Feldman to find one with writing that matches Maybrick's letter. This 8 October 1888 letter (MEPO 3/142/149) is in handwriting that is distinctively different from that of the original 25 September Dear Boss letter or the Saucy Jacky postcard (MEPO 3/142/2). So, in other words, Feldy here is scoring a point by "moving the goalposts." Moreover, neither the writing in this Dear Boss letter nor the writing in this genuine 1881 Maybrick letter match the writing in the Diary!
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: John Omlor
Sunday, 15 July 2001 - 10:24 am | | Hi Chris,
Did you really think that the writing in the Maybrick letter looked much like the Dear Boss letter when Feldman put them side by side?
I noticed the similarities in the upper case letter "I" that begins both, of course, but this was a fairly standard way to write the letter. But I was also struck by the complete and total difference between the upper case "J" in James's signature and the one in Jack's. Also, the Maybrick writing seems much more top-heavy and on much more of a slant, don't you think? Frankly, I was a bit surprised Feldman put them together.
And of course you're absolutely right that Feldman picks and chooses and moves the goal here, and even more importantly, that neither of these letters look anything like the diary writing. That's another reason I was surprised to see Feldman including a picture of both of them -- but then there's that darn crazed arsenic-addled handwriting theory.
All the best,
--John
PS: Thought you'd want to know that there was a big concert called "Ozzfest" down the street from me here in St. Pete last night. The two headlining acts were Ozzy Ozborne (back with Black Sabbath) and, yes, that's right, Marilyn Manson, who has apparently returned "From Hell." |
Author: Christopher George Ray
Sunday, 15 July 2001 - 12:25 pm | | Jon and Chris
Tahnk you for the responses. I must admit I was quite impressed with the "Dear Boss" letter and the Maybrick letter from the "Baltic", but was not aware that the letter chosen was so "iffy". I, like you, am a bit leary of the "drug-crazed Schizophrenic" explanantion for the handwriting. On the other hand, my daughter's handwriting changes constantly. She speaks both English and Italian, but her handwriting is entirely different when using one or the other.
As far as the diary being a forgery is concerned - my immediate reaction is that it must be. It's too good to be true. And, yet - it's so good! Who could have done it and when? Could not DNA analysis solve the question of whether the Maybricks, Grahams and Johnsons are related?
John - I didn't know Ozzie Ozborne was still alive and didn't know Marilyn Manson ever was! Do you think Jack, if born into the present era, would have formed a rock group? |
Author: John Omlor
Sunday, 15 July 2001 - 12:56 pm | | Hi Christopher,
I don't know if you've had the chance yet, but you might be interested to read this particular message board through from the beginning, starting back with a post of mine on Thursday, June 14, 2001 - 09:50 am (click on the "Archive through July 5, 2001" link way up on the top of this page and start reading the second messsage).
You'll find, from there to here, a slow, page by page, group reading of the diary which I think demonstrates many of the serious problems in it and why, in some ways, it's not really all that great of a document.
Your question about "who could have done it" is of course the million dollar one.
No one knows.
Lots of people have ideas but almost no one has any reliable, definitive, or even material evidence concerning who wrote this book.
It is a complete mystery. There is evidence as to when, some, but barely any as to who.
By the way, the Marilyn Manson thing first came up because he was apparently called in to help with the soundtrack and score for the new Ripper movie starring Johnny Depp, entitled "From Hell."
Jack I think might have loved to have been a star of some sort anyway.
All the best,
--John |
Author: Christopher George Ray
Tuesday, 17 July 2001 - 03:11 pm | | Jon
Well done! You caught me out. I did not do my homework by bothering to read what came before. I can only say that I was thinking "with one arm behind my back" to mix a metaphor. Comes, I'm afraid, from teaching undergraduates who can be difficult to engage. My usual technique in seminars was say outrageous things until someone picked me up on it. I must apologize for my clumsiness and my arrogant assumption that I would find only uncritical admirer's of the diary. I see that, in fact, I have stumbled on a group who do actually know what they are talking about. You should see some of the JFK sites!
My background is genuine and I have spent most of the last 20 years immersed in Victorian text, although in a different area. On reading the diary my first impression was that something was seriously wrong. The sentence construction, use of words and phrases etc. appear clumsy and give the impression of someone trying to write as he thinks a Victorian would. There is a marked lack of that elegance which I have come to expect from documentation during this period. Even in the most mundane documentation the turn of phrase often borders on the poetic. I might add that any assertion that Maybrick's American connections may have "roughened" his writing is also spurious, since American documentation of this period often displays the same poetic disposition. The punctuation, especially, I find worrying in the diary. It is, at times, almost non-existent and conveys the impression of someone trying to copy the style of the "Dear Boss" letters. Since these letters are usually now taken to be the work of a Victorian hoaxer, you can only marvel at the nerve of a modern hoaxer looking for corroboration from a previous hoax! Well done that man! However, given the evidence from the paper and ink that they may, indeed, be Victorian, has anyone considered that the Maybrick hoaxer and the "Dear Boss" hoaxer might be one and the same? All answers on a postcard please addressed "To Hell".
Chris Ray |
Author: andy mossack
Wednesday, 18 July 2001 - 03:01 pm | | Hi everyone,
As a dedicated ripper enthusiast for over 30 years, i have poured over the various characters put forward, and indeed for some time my money was on Druitt. However, the diary has gotten me firmly in its clutches, and after speaking to Shirley, visiting Maybricks' grave and Battlecrease, I am even more convinced. My point on the writing styles is quite simple. Anyone who may be mentally disturbed (and lets face it to murder serially you would need to be) or have split personalities or be under the influence of poison could have a marked difference in writing/prose style?
Andy |
Author: Christopher George Ray
Wednesday, 18 July 2001 - 04:48 pm | | Andy
I have no problem with the idea that Schizophrenics may exhibit changes in handwriting. Indeed, for some time I was willing to take this at face value. However, it still doesn't "feel" right somehow. I cannot see someone Maybrick's educational background writing with that lack of style. You point about the handwriting would apply to the "Dear Boss" author just as well. The problem then is that you have two madmen, one doing the killings and the other writing to the police and newspapers about it!
Chris Ray |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Thursday, 19 July 2001 - 03:44 am | | What do we actually know about Maybrick's educational background - anyone? Just wondering.
Love,
Caz |
Author: andy mossack
Thursday, 19 July 2001 - 09:43 am | | Chris,
My point entirely! You say it just doesnt 'feel' right, yet you use this a basis for denying that Schizophrenics will have different writing characteristics. 'Feel' doesnt come into it, it must be medical evidence surely. Schizophrenics are entirely different personalities, and as such will behave quite different from each other, without any of them knowing about the other necessarily. |
Author: Christopher T George
Thursday, 19 July 2001 - 12:27 pm | | Hi, Chris:
A quick point of order here. When I requested that you use the name "Chris Ray" I mean that you need to change your profile so that the name at the top of the post does not read Christopher George as if it is posted by me. Could you please do that for me? I would greatly appreciate it! I know some people. . . me included!!!  . . . are getting confused!!! Thanks in advance.
Best regards
Christopher T. George |
Author: Christopher T George
Thursday, 19 July 2001 - 12:35 pm | | Hi, Chris:
I also have examined a lot of period documents and the Diary comes across to me like a modern fake not a document from 1888-1889. As you say, the style of writing and the punctuation are all wrong. I greatly resist the notion that the genuine (if period hoax!) Dear Boss letters could have been written by the same individual who wrote the Diary. It just did not happen and it is absurd to even entertain the idea. In this sense, I am sure you will find no serious discussion of the Maybrick Diary in the upcoming book on the JtR letters by Skinner and Evans. (Stewart and Keith, I am trying to earn my "commission" by plugging your excellent and much anticipated book on these boards. )
Best regards
Chris |
Author: Madeleine Murphy
Friday, 20 July 2001 - 09:13 am | | Hi Andy,
When you say "schizophrenia," I think you mean multiple personality disorder, an extremely rare, and still controversial diagnosis. I think we can't really make confident inferences yet about the way handwriting is or is not affected by the condition. Nor should we assume that because someone suffers from a pathology--even an extreme one like serial killing--that means that all cultural baggage is discarded. It doesn't. Even a serial killer is also an Englishman, or an American, or a carpet-fitter, or whatever else he is.
Hello Chris Ray! -- I completely agree about the "feel," and I think it can be fairly easily described:
1. No Victorian slang or turns of phrase, not one, that are not still in current use;
2. Self-conscious overuse of certain "Victorian-ish" turns of speech--using "for" instead of "because," rhetorical questions ("does he not say I am the gentlest of men"), and not using contractions to suggest propriety (Victorians were very keen on contractions: it was the Edwardians who dropped them.)
3. Simple syntax. Ordinary Victorian prose, as you say, reveals a much greater acquaintance with the flourishes of writing. But the diarist uses few embedded phrases, clauses or parallel structures, preferring relatively simple sentences. It's much more like modern prose in that respect.
madeleine |
Author: John Omlor
Friday, 20 July 2001 - 09:57 am | | Hi Madeleine,
Welcome back. Don't know if you got a chance to follow our little page by page reading of the diary last month, but the posts are all still here, starting at the beginning of this board (we separated it from the Diary board and collected the whole discussion here). It took a few weeks, but I think we managed to see a few interesting things, including some detailed thoughts about the syntax. Have a read, if you get a chance, starting with the second post on this board (found at the beginning of the Archive through July 5th, above).
Good to see you again,
--John |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Friday, 20 July 2001 - 10:21 am | | Hi John, Madeleine,
I should have thought John's analysis was pretty much required reading, for anyone running, or having run a college course on the diary.
So welcome back, Madeleine, and fill your boots. Where have you been all this time? You've missed such a lot, including the entire citizen Kane and his samples mystery, if I'm not mistaken!
Love,
Caz |
Author: Joseph
Friday, 20 July 2001 - 06:25 pm | | | J |
Author: Madeleine Murphy
Friday, 20 July 2001 - 07:12 pm | | Hello John & Caroline!
I've been lurking! I kept complaining that I was working soooo hard, getting in at 7 a.m. and staying till late, getting a stiff neck, and yet the work continued to pile up. Then one day I realized it was because I actually did no work but spent hours reading & replying to casebook emails. Ooops. Hence the strict casebook diet.
I'm about to catch up with some important casebook reading, especially the page-by-page interpretation. I have indeed missed many controversies--such is the active life of the boards: turn your back for ten minutes and fireworks break out! Meanwhile I'm taking advantage of a holiday in London to catch up with Irving's account of the Maybrick trial, the life of James F. Stephen, and other fun stuff.
madeleine |
Author: Madeleine Murphy
Friday, 20 July 2001 - 08:12 pm | | Oh hell. I knew this would happen if I started reading....
Just skimmed through the textual analysis, John & Chris, and it's wonderful. Naturally I can't resist pitching in with some observations even though it's all been said:
1. The absence of detail is astounding. No one is mentioned by name except for "clue" people. One tiny example: The writer mentions contritely that he has "Jewish friends" but doesnt name anyone. Wouldn't you think that such a confession would read more like "I felt bad when I think of my friend Jo." Actually Maybrick did have Jewish friends--Morland mentions a Mr. Levi who testified during the trial that he'd paid a visit, and finding the Maybricks out, sat in the living room writing a note. When he'd done he turned round to see that Nosey Yapp was reading over his shoulder; he was so angry he slapped her. (!) No mention of him though. Your point that there are no details of the crimes is crucial: Douglas, the FBI profiler, pointed out that loonies who write this kind of thing do so precisely to dwell on the details of their deeds.
2. The date of May 3 is indeed highly convenient. I haven't got the book before me, but it seems to me that you can reconstruct JM's last days from Edwin's testimony at trial. I think on May 3 JM went to the office; or maybe it was the day that he started to drink some kind of juice then poured it away. In any case, he wasn't exactly lying on his bed dying. Yet.
3. I agree with RJ that it wouldn't take too much research, or indeed too much luck, for the Maybrick alibi not to be busted. The diarist provides no dates, so when he says "went to the club today" we don't know *exactly* which day. This ties one hand behind the researcher's back. Meanwhile, *all* we know about JtheR's movements is that he was definitely in Whitechapel on five occasions (or maybe four!) True, a newspaper account might have turned up describing JM giving a speech at his club on the night Mary Kelly was killed, or something. But what are the odds of that? It's not very surprising that this utterly anonymous person should not have left an easily discoverable record of his movements on four or five random nights.
4. Right, I'll shut up now. Sorry for chiming in after the fact!
madeleine |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Saturday, 21 July 2001 - 05:17 am | | Madeleine--Bravo, well done. You hit the nail on the head. Dates are important in any diary, but here all the dates are left out--so no alibi can be ever traced with any certainty, at least in reference to Maybrick's personal life in Liverpool. On the London end, we can reason that Maybrick would have had to have been there on four specific days [the murder dates] but these all occur on week-ends, and Maybrick did travel to London occasionally on the week-end. "It was all too easy", as someone once said. It's doubtful that the writer of the diary would have known that the post marks of the Dear Boss letters still survive, which spreads the net a little wider.
You're also right about the 3rd of May. I have never seen anyone else allude to this except Shirley Harrison. I'm positive that this wasn't chosen randomly, and even think I know precisely where it came from. It is actually a pretty good indication of what the writer of the diary was thinking in regards to the provenance...but then the provenance was never used. Which is odd. And tantalizing. And possibily only a coincidence...
May 3rd was the last day Maybrick spent at work in the Knowsley Buildings. [As you say, one can figure this out from Edwin's testimony at the trial--but it is also mentioned blatantly in one source]. From the diary's references to Smith & Lowry --especially the scene where Lowry is meddling-- it seems plain that the writer wants us to think that Maybrick is keeping this journal at his office. And this fits, because on May 3 Maybrick returned briefly to his office for the last time. Afterwards he goes home sick & is constantly surrounded by Florie, nurses, servants, & doctors. He has no chance to write unobserved. So the early researchers who were thinking this thing came from electricians in Battlecrease were wrong--they hadn't noticed that the diary was meant to have been linked to the Knowsley Buildings on Tithbarne Street.
The plot thickens.
Interestingly enough, Mike Barrett always told Feldman that he felt the diary came from the Knowsley Buidings. How Mike would have guessed this without being a little more up on research, is anyone's guess. But even in his early research notes, Mike is wondering about the location of the Knowsley Buildings...
Then, a real oddity. Mike calls Feldman up late one night with a clue. "Look to the Knowsley Buildings", he tells him. Feldman does some research and finds out that Anne Graham worked at Silk House Court..the site of the Knowlsley Buildings on Tithbarne Street. But the building had been torn down in the late 1960s. But this clue from Mike starts the ball rolling, and Feldman ends up thinking that Anne is connected to the diary...
It's all pretty odd, because the text of the diary suggests a provenance that is linked with Anne [if she was even aware of it, and it wasn't just a coincidence] but this provenance was never used. Except, through a late-night hint by Mike Barrett. Strange, no? RP |
Author: John Omlor
Saturday, 21 July 2001 - 08:35 am | | Hi Madeleine,
Thanks for the fine and provocative readings. Yes, I think one can't help but notice, over and over, as we all have when reading the diary, the astounding lack of specific or significant details. It's funny, but I found myself in almost every post during the reading saying something along these lines at least once about one paragraph or another. One thing I feel sure about, this book doesn't read like a diary at all. Not anyone's. And there are clearly times when it certainly seems to me to have been written for a public audience of whom the writer seems extremely aware.
That being said, if we are right in assuming that this is a modern forgery, then James Maybrick would not have been a completely anonymous character. By the 1980's, of course, he was at least something of a historical figure, semi-famous as the alleged victim of a celebrated, alleged murder and one which was fairly well-chronicled. So some research on Jim had already been done, and if I were writing a diary claiming Jim was the Ripper, I'd at least want to make sure that no one had already chronicled Jim's business travels or social engagements and that the local papers of his own day hadn't posted an announcement one autumn weekend that Jim and Florie were at such and such an event -- because, hell, there goes my whole project, it immediately becomes a total waste of time. Even the skeptical Mr. Birchwood has suggested that contemporary newspapers might very well have been checked at the local library by our would-be diarists. I think, if I had been writing the diary, I'd have taken at least this step just to cover my butt. But then again, the writer might not have checked into such a thing at all and might have ended up just giving himself over to probability and his own good fortune. There are many ways, I think, that this book has either been a strangely well-created (though horribly written) document or has been very, very lucky (the contradictory results of all the science for instance and the lack of simple linguistic anachronisms for another). But it is also sloppy, at the same time, with no apparent concern for its handwriting and no real concern for the historical accuracy of its writing style. That's one of the things, I think, that continues to make it intriguing as an anonymous text whose author we are seeking to identify.
And you make a set of excellent points about the May 3rd date. I remember seeing Shirley saying something about this as well. And RJ's story about the Knowsley building is a potentially crucial one. I remember reading Paul Feldman's account of Mike's call, I think, in Paul's book. Of course, I'm never sure what to believe and what not to believe in that book, since Paul offers so many convenient stories and so little reliable material evidence or logical argument.
I'm certainly not at all sure whether Mike's mention of the building to Paul was a deliberate attempt to link the diary to Anne's family or not. It might have been or it might not have been. I have no way of knowing, of course. But, according to Keith, Mike doesn't seem to have reacted well at all when Feldman actually does go on to link the diary to Anne's family or when Anne goes along with it and snuggles up to Feldman's idea about the family provenance -- which he might very well have cooked up completely out of thin air. And this result of his checking out the Knowsley building and learning about Silk Court and creating the family story in his own imagination might also have been a horribly unfortunate side effect of Mike thinking he was being clever with his "research." Feldman, it seems to me, is certainly not above grasping at whatever straws he can in that book, so I guess there's no real way of knowing for sure one way or the other.
But these are all fascinating details and fascinating little narratives within narratives. The diary is certainly not a very complex book. I agree. But the history of its reading and reception... That's another matter entirely.
Anyway, it's British Open weekend and time to go back to Lytham and St Anne's. A big chunk of my weekend is being spent in Lancashire, it seems.
Glad you are enjoying reading over the page by page trip we took last month. Oddly, I'm afraid it turned out to be a bit more detailed that the book it was reading. But it was fun.
Have a wonderful weekend,
--John |
Author: Christopher T George
Saturday, 21 July 2001 - 09:06 am | | Hi, RJ:
I believe you are incorrect about the site of Maybrick's office in Tithebarn Street, Liverpool being close to the Saddle pub where Barrett and Devereaux downed pints together. There is a Saddle Inn in Hackins Hey in central Liverpool not far from Tithebarn Street but it is not the same Saddle pub where Barrett met Devereaux. Rather, the Saddle where the two met is the one at 86 Fountains Road, Bootle, some four to five miles north of the Liverpool city center. We can be sure of this because it is on Barrett's route to pick up his daughter Caroline in Kirkdale which is also up in that direction.
The downtown Saddle Inn which is not the right one can be seen at http://www.liv.ac.uk/manufacturing/images/offsite/hackinshey.html. I have been unable to find an image of the correct public house, Bootle's Saddle Inn, on the net.
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Saturday, 21 July 2001 - 10:42 am | | | Chris--You're right. I've got the wrong Saddle, I think. My map of Liverpool is dismal. For the sake of accuracy, I'll go back and delete that misinformation. I think I got the other points correct, though. Many thanks. RP |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Saturday, 21 July 2001 - 10:56 am | | Chris--By the way, I read that 'Battlecrease' was a corruption of 'Bootle', crease being from 'creast', Middle English form of 'crest' or 'ridge'. [This was in Nigel Morland] So, at least according to Morland, there might originally have been a place-name along the lines of 'Bootle crest'.
In a note to John's remarks, at least according to my reading of Feldman [p 155] it appears that Mike was pointing him in the direction of the diary coming from AG. Which I admit is strange.
RP |
Author: John Omlor
Saturday, 21 July 2001 - 12:53 pm | | Hi RJ, Chris, and all,
I think we have to be a little careful here reading Paul Feldman's prose, and pages 155 and 156 are a good example of why.
If you read them carefully, you'll see that it's Paul himself who concludes that Mike is sincerely pointing the finger at Anne -- but there are no citations that allow us to conclude this, really.
All Paul says in the beginning is "March 1994. Another day, another phone call from Mike Barrett, another clue. This time I learnt that Anne was employed by a firm of stockbrokers called Rensburg. Their office address was Silk House Court, Tithebarn Street. My memory recalled the address of Maybrick's offices, Knowsley Buildings ... Tithebarn Street. Investigations continued."
Now if you continue to read the next two pages you'll see that Paul leaps to the conclusion that Mike’s mentioning to him that Anne worked for Rensburg was a deliberate hint that Anne had a Maybrick connection and that the diary might have come from her family.
But Mike never actually says this, at least not in Paul's book. The paragraphs slip and slide until it becomes an assumed conclusion. But a careful reading shows that it is Paul's memory that recalls the Maybrick address and that it's Paul's mind that comes up with the interpretation of Mike's mention of Anne's employers and that it's Paul's own love of insinuation through rhetorical question that makes the leap for the reader, not Mike or anything Mike said.
It's Paul who suddenly begins asking:
"Had Anne discovered the diary here? Had she removed it without permission. Is this why Mike was frightened of losing ownership and why he did not want his family involved?"
But these questions are fanciful and purely speculative at best and the book never offers even one reason to suspect they imply some truth or that Mike was implying any of them. It's Paul, hoping.
And even he admits this on the very next page, when further investigation into the history of the furniture proves this all to be "another red herring."
But now comes Paul's biggest leap. He assumes that Mike's mention, during that "another phone call," of Anne's previous employer was a deliberate and subtle ruse designed to send Paul off on this goose chase. He assumes that Mike is actively and doggedly trying to find a connection between Anne's past and the diary. It is clear that Mike is sending Paul out on fishing trips, mentioning the so-called "illegitimates," suggesting that Anne's grandfather was a prison warder,and finally allegedly shouting at Paul, "Find Anne and ask her to swear on Caroline's life that she is not a Maybrick." Paul assumes that this is all a legitimate attempt on Mike's part to link the diary to Anne's family because Mike honestly does not know where it came from and he sincerely believes that it is an old document linked to the Grahams.
But this is only an assumption and Paul never gives us any reason to believe it or adopt it as the only possible way to account for Mike's behavior (it's not, of course). Paul notices that Mike has had two chances to offer up a believable provenance for the book and hasn't taken either -- the electricians story and this one about the office building. But Mike might simply have not known what the hell to do with these stories or what exactly he was dealing with and he might have just been stumbling along with Feldman's imagination, just like we do as readers. And then again, Mike might simply have not wanted to tell these two particular stories. That is not a reason to conclude that Mike really did want Paul to prove that Anne's family had owned the diary for a long time.
But Paul does finally conclude something. That is, that Mike is "guessing." But not even this conclusion is logically established. It's a simple inference.
Watch this work:
"Two clues, and both had led to nothing. Mike's suggestions had indicated that he knew the diary had come from Anne, but I now realized he did not know how or why. Mike was guessing."
Maybe.
But that is not an inevitable conclusion to the scenarios that Paul describes. Mike might have been misdirecting Feldman on purpose because Mike knew that he himself had written the diary and wanted to keep Feldman busy, far away from the truth, with Anne's family history. Mike may simply not have known who wrote the diary and was just saying anything he could think of that might be useful to Feldman. Mike may have been having a good deal of evil fun with Paul and still not have known himself who wrote this thing. And there are a bunch of other possibilities, some where Mike is guessing, and some where he is not. But Paul's conclusion, couched in the rhetoric of obvious truth, is certainly not the only one nor a definitive or necessary one.
It's the one that fits his own larger conclusion about the diary's history, though. And that's what's important for him.
This is why we have to be careful when we read Paul's prose describing events -- because he never does just describe them, he fills them with his own peculiar and self-interested interpretations as he goes along, and sometimes it's very difficult or even impossible to completely sort out the events from the interpretations.
So I don't know. I don't know if Mike ever really was trying to establish a link between Anne's past and the diary. I don't know if he wasn't just playing with Paul. I don't know if he was guessing because he did not know where the diary came from. I don't know if he was misdirecting Paul because he wrote the diary. I don't know any of this from Paul's book. And neither, I believe, does Paul, really.
Just a bit of a warning about some slippery prose.
All the best, fellow readers,
--John |
Author: Christopher T George
Saturday, 21 July 2001 - 03:57 pm | | Hi, RJ:
You wrote:
Chris--By the way, I read that 'Battlecrease' was a corruption of 'Bootle', crease being from 'creast', Middle English form of 'crest' or 'ridge'. [This was in Nigel Morland] So, at least according to Morland, there might originally have been a place-name along the lines of 'Bootle crest'.
Well, this is entirely new information to me. What's the implication? I don't have Moreland's book, The Friendless Lady and wonder if he could be right. Battlecrease is nowhere near Bootle. Bootle is at the north end of Liverpool and is a town separate to Liverpool, while Aigburth where Battlecrease House is located is in the south Liverpool suburbs.
Was the place named Battlecrease before the Maybricks went to live there in February 1888? Possibly so, because James Maybrick only rented the place, which was the west half of a house on Riversdale Road. Trevor L. Christie in Etched in Arsenic, p. 41, makes the point, "In an age dedicated to the worship of property and material things it is significant that Maybrick, despite his high position in the world of trade, never owned a home throughout his married life. . . . How it [the house] ever got such a martial-sounding name is an etymological mystery."
Incidentally, is there a slip-up by the penman in the Diary that there is no mention that the Maybricks were new to the house in 1888? Richard Whittington-Egan in his essay on the Maybrick Case in Murder, Mystery, and Mayhem, p. 52, incorrectly states that "For a couple of years they [the Maybricks] lived at Norfolk, Virginia, returning to England in 1884 to take up residence at Battlecrease House, in Aigburth's Riversdale Road." RWE did not seem to know that the couple lived in another rented house called Beechville, 7 South Road, Grassendale Park, a mile or so southeast of Battlecrease, between the time they returned from Virginia and signed the 5-year lease on Battlecrease House at 7 Riversdale Road in February 1888. What is the significance of the number seven???? Moreover they possibly did not take up residence in their new home until the following month, March, which has to be close to the time the Diary is alleged to have been begun. Anyway, one would think that if the Diarist knew that Maybrick was brand new to Battlecrease House he/she might make some mention of that fact. Something tells me that there is something in the Diary about the house weighing heavily on Maybrick, and perhaps John Omlor from his study of the Diary text remembers the passage. But, certainly, Maybrick could have written (but did not), "I hate this place. We should not have moved in here. We should have stayed in our cozy home, Beechville, where I was so happy."--or similar.
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: Judith Stock
Saturday, 21 July 2001 - 11:25 pm | | Good evening, all,
I've tried to avoid getting involved in the Diary controversy for several reasons--first, and most significant, believing in the Diary seems to me to be like believing in God: one either DOES or DOES NOT believe, and no force on Earth can alter that belief. Second, it appears that most who post on the Diary have decided what they believe, and will argue that belief until the Earth does, indeed, go flat. That being said, I have a small observation to make.
I'm certain that if this is NOT the appropriate place, I will be directed to the proper board AND that someone will be able to fill in the gaps in my memory, but here goes nothing.....
I seem to remember that when the Diary first came out and its' authenticity was under scrutiny, that a psychologist, or somesuch, stated that it could only have been written by Jack the Ripper, because only a serial killer could think and write in those terms, and that only one who had done those type deeds could imagine doing them. I remember thinking at the time that this person could NEVER have read much fiction, and certainly had never read AMERICAN PSYCHO or BY REASON OF INSANITY, and be able to make that remark. As far as I know, neither Brett Easton Ellis nor Shane Stevens is, or ever has been, a serial killer....but then, I've been wrong before......
It's statements like these that make the "authenticators" of the Diary look rather foolish; such pronouncements of certainty from so-called experts put one in mind of Mark Fuhrman saying "NEVER." They simply leave the speaker in jeopardy of being quite easily impeached.
Please, someone tell me I'm in the right neighborhood, and haven't well and truly landed on the wrong message board!!!
Cheers to all,
Judy |
Author: Christopher T George
Sunday, 22 July 2001 - 01:04 am | | Hi Judy:
Nice to see you here. Perhaps someone can turf up the name of the psychologist you are thinking of but certainly British profiler David Canter has lent his weight to the idea that the Diary gives a pretty good representation of the thoughts of a serial killer. He has been quoted as saying, "This was either produced by a very skilled author or someone with detailed knowledge of the Ripper history, or someone with enormous insight into carrying out these crimes and the person most likely to have that is the person who did carry out those crimes." See http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/uk/newsid_172000/172290.stm
Chris George |
Author: John Omlor
Sunday, 22 July 2001 - 08:00 am | | Hi Chris,
You write:
"Something tells me that there is something in the Diary about the house weighing heavily on Maybrick, and perhaps John Omlor from his study of the Diary text remembers the passage."
Indeed.
I believe you are recalling that line that also names a TV show whose own writing was unfortunately worthy of the diary prose.
"I am convinced a dark shadow lays over the house. It is evil."
And this line does, in fact, appear in the second entry, right at the beginning of the book, and Battlecrease is named in the third.
However, the line itself seems also to be a reaction to young Gladys being sick again.
Shirley, in her book, also mentions the move to the house around the time the diary starts.
Hope that was the line you were thinking of.
And yes, Judy, the history of the diary reception, especially by the early psychological "experts" does seem to reveal a shocking lack of self-consciousness about the nature of fiction and narrative and drama and melodrama and film. The diary is full of clichés from both horror fiction and film and from traditional melodrama. I'm not suggesting that this alone makes it more or less likely to be authentic (since many of us simply write in clichés from fiction and film and melodrama in any case) but it might have been noticed by the so-called psychological experts before they pronounced our author either a "very skilled author" or a serial killer. That was sort of goofy.
Welcome to the discussion.
Now it's off for the final round of the Open,
--John |
Author: Christopher T George
Sunday, 22 July 2001 - 11:52 pm | | Hi, John:
Thanks for confirming the line in the Diary in which the speaker expresses his feeling about the house. Indeed, the line appears very near the beginning, and it reads: "I am convinced a dark shadow lays over the house. It is evil."
I would submit that this line was probably written by someone who thought the Maybricks had lived in Battlecrease House for years by the time this line was by inference supposedly written--Spring 1888--when in fact they had only just moved into the house. Again, I am making the assumption that Richard Whittington-Egan's information on the Maybrick Case in the pamphlet Murder, Mystery, and Mayhem was used to write the Diary. As I noted in my last post, RWE makes the clear mistake of saying the family had lived in Battlecrease since 1884.
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: John Omlor
Monday, 23 July 2001 - 08:14 am | | Hi Chris,
Of course, another possible reading, if one was so inclined, would be that Maybrick is prompted to comment on the "evil" nature of the house early in the diary precisely because he's just moved in recently and is struck by the bad luck that seems to have come with the house.
You know, like, "Oh great, we just move in here and Gladys gets sick and I start getting all these evil feelings and desires and the whole world starts falling apart... it must be the house."
Thus, as early as the second entry in the diary he is prompted to remark that his new house seems evil. And the fact that he mentions his feelings about the house might be a sign that it is, in fact, something new in his life.
This would therefore suggest that the diarist knew something not in the RWE pamphlet.
That would be an alternative reading.
Oh yeah, here's another -- it's simply a touch of Stephen King (who has used evil houses, himself) or Amityville Horror or The Haunting or any number of old horror films that have "evil houses." Or, to be fair, Poe and the entire Gothic tradition.
Or our diarist was once a Dark Shadows fan, even, and this is a little hint.
But I'm not sure that "I am convinced a dark shadow lays over the house. It is evil." appearing so early in the diary indicates someone for whom the house is relatively new and he is struck by what's happened in the short time he has lived there or suggests someone who has already lived in the house for some time (because the diary had read RWE and was therefore under a mistaken impression).
Ah, the joys of reading,
--John |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Tuesday, 21 August 2001 - 01:50 pm | | Hi All,
I was reading Stephen Fry's autobiography, 'Moab is my Washpot' (well, it covers his first twenty years anyway - I'm hoping for the next twenty soon - what a marvellous book), while lazing in the Spanish sunshine sipping sangria, when I was struck by the following paragraph, which reminded me fondly (though I'm not entirely sure why) of the weeks some of us spent together, trying to analyse the diary, and possibly the diarist(s) too:
'What I believed I was looking for I cannot say. I can only assert that, as in a novel, the locations with which this story climaxes are the same as the locations with which it begins. Life is sometimes novel-shaped, mocking the efforts of those authors who, in an effort to make their novels life-shaped, spurn the easy symmetry and cheap resonance of reality.'
Can anyone explain to me why this might have brought me back to diaryland temporarily, when I really should have been so many miles away?
Love,
Caz |
|
|
|
|
