Historical accuracy of articles and books

[HelenaWojtczak]

Hi Helena. It's more the writing style than the facts that make for exciting reading, unless you're nerds like us who get off on the minutia and all.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Tom,

Can you describe the kind of writing style that makes for exciting reading? Do you meant amusing, breathless, stylish, descriptive, literary, racy or what?

Thank you

Helena

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Helena. It's more the writing style than the facts that make for exciting reading, unless you're nerds like us who get off on the minutia and all.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[HelenaWojtczak]

All books/articles are written with bias - its impossible to avoid (even if one is so inclined). I suppose what makes the difference is the degree of bias and to what extent each reader empathises with that bias.

Hi Sally

Well, of course, bias is the stamp each author puts on a subject. But that can be done without making up a pack of lies or inventing things that simply did not happen.

It's the lies that bother me. Some of the stuff I've read in the last few months has left me distrusting everything I read (or have read in the past).

And it's left me realising how very trusting we all are. People are forever telling me that they read a really interesting book about someone or something, and they will often tell me a few choice facts they learned from that book. They believe it, because it's in a book. They'd be sceptical about a website though. It's almost as though people think that all books have to be read by some kind of Ministry of Truth before they are put before the public, so trustfully do they quote from books. I've done exactly the same thing myself -- I can remember demolishing arguments at school by announcing, triumphantly, that I'd "read it in a book."

Makes things rather difficult for the likes of me who intend to write a factual history. I fear that my narrative will seem rather dull now that I have stripped off all the sensationalistic nonsense that other people attached to my subject's life story. And how can I convince people that my version is correct? You mentioned references, so I hope my 694 footnotes will go some way towards that.


In one book I read that George Chapman had beheaded his first wife. Complete nonsense, of course, but the author just wrote it, and the publisher printed it, and readers read it and presumbably assumed he knew what he was talking about. And I haven't seen anyone challenge him (posthumously) on it. Amazing.

Like Bridewell, I've nothing against speculation so long as it's clearly flagged up as such.

The thing that gets my goat is when an author claims to know what someone was thinking, or planning, based on no evidence whatever.

Helena

[Sally]

Sometimes you just don't have access to an author's credentials and you have to take it on trust from the title, the blurb etc. Why, I bought a book only two days ago about Abberline, in the title was a promise to dispel the myths and give the facts. Turned out to be a load of cod's. And yes, I have left an appropriate review!

Helena

Hi Helena

I'd immediately mistrust anything with a promise to 'dispel the myths'!

All books/articles are written with bias - its impossible to avoid (even if one is so inclined). I suppose what makes the difference is the degree of bias and to what extent each reader empathises with that bias.

[HelenaWojtczak]

The only way to put an end to it is to actually discover the identity of the Ripper.

Brilliant!

As to solutions for the disgruntled reader - selective reading. If one only wants to read respectable, historically accurate books and articles, then choose authors with care.

Sometimes you just don't have access to an author's credentials and you have to take it on trust from the title, the blurb etc. Why, I bought a book only two days ago about Abberline, in the title was a promise to dispel the myths and give the facts. Turned out to be a load of cod's. And yes, I have left an appropriate review!

Helena

[Rubyretro]

I think a degree of speculation is acceptable and, to some extent, inevitable. It only becomes unacceptable when presented as something other that what it is. I don't personally have a problem with speculative theory. I can't because I engage in it myself. It is a problem when the speculator presents theory as fact.

Regards, Bridewell.

I agree entirely with you Bridewell.

Even when the speculation agrees with how I would interpret things myself, I can see that other people may not interpret things in the same way, and they might be right and the author (and Me !) wrong.

It's particularly hard when it comes to biography -( I enjoy reading biographies ). I'm sure that authors can feel very close to their personal interpretation of the sentiments and motivations of their subject, but infact this may be coloured by undisclosed events in the author's own life, and their own personalities.

How could they possibly 'know' their subject ( at a distance ) intimately ?

I like to read the letters, quotes, doings, of the subject of a biography, and then if the author wants to say " X was broken hearted and abused", that's fine, as long as the author says "X sounds so broken hearted in that letter to Y ...and I think myself that she was genuine because (....) , but other people (quote...) have suggested that she was somebody very manipulative and quite shallow ...(because)...but I don't agree...". That's fine.

To recapitulate - speculation is great, but an Author should be honest and present the whole picture (which is what you said, more or less, Bridewell ), otherwise people just read a book and take the Author's interpretation as a 'truth', and it might be anything but a truth... Exactly the same goes for JTR books.

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi all. When it comes to non-fiction books, I would rather read a thoroughly well-researched piece by someone who's a mediocre writer, then a poorly researched piece by someone who is a good writer.

But let's keep in mind that some of the books with bad research in them is the result of just sloppy research, as opposed to an author who has intentionally presented false info to bolster a theory. Also, there's those authors (and there's more than a few of them!) who are so completely blinded by their confidence in their own theory, and their perspective is so askew, that they misinterpret evidence or convince themselves that exculpatory evidence has no value, and therefore their conclusions would mislead a novice reader.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Sally]

Not everyone has the time or inclination to write a history of their own, which is why people rely onbuying books and reading articles etc in the first place.

I accept that. At the end of the day, which books/articles a person chooses to engage with is down to personal choice. Given the subject matter in this case, however, sensationalist, highly speculative affairs are inevitable and to be expected - As I say, there's nothing to be done about it. It is quite obvious from some of the current threads on this forum alone that there are those who consider Jack the Ripper to be a viable moneyspinner and are quite prepared to take their shot at it, no matter how the facts of the matter are presented to them.

And what it comes down to is this - for as long as the general reading public would prefer a salacious Penny Dreadful to an accurate and considered examination of the facts there will be more than enough writers willing to provide it. Much as it pains me to say it, most would much rather the Ripper was Van Gogh (or insert famous person here) than a faceless nobody.

The only way to put an end to it is to actually discover the identity of the Ripper. However mundane that might turn out to be, if it could be proven then there would no longer be a lucrative breeding ground for Jack-fantasy. And the only way to have any hope of doing that is for genuinely interested people to get out there and do the research themselves.

As to solutions for the disgruntled reader - selective reading. If one only wants to read respectable, historically accurate books and articles, then choose authors with care.

[Bridewell]

I think a degree of speculation is acceptable and, to some extent, inevitable. It only becomes unacceptable when presented as something other that what it is. I don't personally have a problem with speculative theory. I can't because I engage in it myself. It is a problem when the speculator presents theory as fact.

Regards, Bridewell.

[HelenaWojtczak]

I agree with Paul, and I was (in my head) including the kind of thing he cites in my general question. R.M. Gordon is an excellent example. He is determined not to let the facts get in the way of his trying to convince the world that Chapman was not only the ripper but responsible for muders in America, the torso murders, etc.

Sally, I have collected several examples of an author inventing things and I have, where they are still living and contactable, written to three of them, quoting the dodgy claims they have made, and asking them to support them by citing the source. One admitted it and apologised, one told me to go away and one has replied in a friendly tone but won't address my questions.

Not everyone has the time or inclination to write a history of their own, which is why people rely onbuying books and reading articles etc in the first place.

I look forward to more replies.

Helena

[Sally]

I am also annoyed by the growing number of authors who think that it is acceptable to alter, ignore, or invent historical evidence solely to suit their own theories or beliefs. The publication of such works hinders the search for truth and creates misleading impressions that are difficult to correct.

I'm generally happy to read new material about the Ripper case but prefer not to purchase books where the author is known to have deliberately lied.

Hi Paul

I think that's a bit simplistic - not least because what you say assumes that everybody should be aiming for historical accuracy. Well, maybe in an ideal world; but realistically, there will always be those who are in it for the money. Nothing to be done about that, it's a fact of life.

The only real weapon in that battle is for others with a genuine interest in the facts to produce those historically accurate books etc. themselves.

The other thing here is that the Ripper mystery (like many others) is sufficiently unanswered to allow a broad spectrum of interpretation - witness this very forum - so it would be quite difficult to demonstrate that an author had 'deliberately lied' unless there was indisputable misrepresentation of established facts.

Otherwise, you'll normally find a disclaimer somewhere to the effect that the author's views are there own - in which case they may look like facts, but in fact are being presented as the author's opinion.

Perhaps the answer is to read selectively. Any hint of sensationalism and its out.

[PaulWilliams]

I am also annoyed by the growing number of authors who think that it is acceptable to alter, ignore, or invent historical evidence solely to suit their own theories or beliefs. The publication of such works hinders the search for truth and creates misleading impressions that are difficult to correct.

I'm generally happy to read new material about the Ripper case but prefer not to purchase books where the author is known to have deliberately lied.

[Sally]

Ah yes, historical accuracy.

I know plenty of people who take great exception to 'historical' representation that they consider to be misleading - and fair enough, it very often is misleading.

However, to my mind, there's very little point in feeling aggrieved by this sort of thing. Many people who write books about the Ripper mystery are doing it for purely financial reasons (you could substitute any historical mystery and get the same result). A coffee table book is going to be sensational. It may well contain elements of fact; it may well contain the author's speculations dressed up as fact. It would be unwise to place any great reliance on a coffee table book (or any other media doing effectively the same thing)

These people are not historians; they are in it for profit alone. It is unrealistic in my view to expect accuracy from this type of product.

In other fields, there is a simple rule. If it isn't referenced, take it with a pinch of salt. It ought really to be the same for Ripper studies.

[HelenaWojtczak]

This has been on my mind for a while and today I thought I'd come and air it here.

I'm always appalled when I discover that something that has been presented in an article or book as a true account of an historical event turns out to be full of inventions or embellishments. It annoys me because if I seek out the story of a criminal or anything else for that matter, I sort of expect the author to abide by the unwritten code of trust - ie we trust them not to lie and they try to live up to that trust.

My attitude seems to come across as rather quaint to some people: I've been told several times now that has long been accepted practice that in relating "true crime" tales, it's de rigeur to spice them up with all kinds of stuff to make them more exciting and even sensationalistic.

To my mind, any kind of writing sshould "do as it says on the tin". If it is a fictionalised account, then that is absolutely FINE, so long as it is presented, labelled and categorised as such so people know what they are getting. Isn't this just being fair to readers? Isn't this just an extension of the Trades Descriptions laws that we now take for granted. (We don't expect to buy a toaster then get home, open the box and find a kettle, do we?)

How do you feel about historical accuracy? Are you happy to read a new Ripper book or article or website in which the author just makes up a pack of lies (and offers no sources). Is it OK so long as it's entertaining? Or do you throw it in the trash and upload a critique to Amazon?

I'm kind of trying to gauge here how many people want sensation and embellishment and how many expect historical accuracy.

Helena