A Re-read of the JtR Literature

[Digalittledeeperwatson]

Hullo Jonathon H.

Which invention would that be? Thanks.

[Phil H]

I return to say this - if normal service were to be returned it will not be until there has been a braek to catch breath.

I am grateful for the support some of you have shown and sorry for this turn of events.

But I do not see the point of trying to look at a book, with an open mind and in some detail, if judgements on it are to be made at the outset. That surely colours people's judgement from the start. I do not question, deny or seek to forbid the expression of views on any JtR related issue, but when the leading factual authority on the subject intervenes with thunderous declamations of "hoax" and an insistence that a book is rubbish - what am I to do?

I do not have an expert's and publish author's standing - yet when I seek to inject a different view I am told I am childish and defensive. I cannot contribute under those circumstances not do I find it an encouraging background under which to continue. How am I going to tackle a writer like Knight, if this is what happens with McC?

I see no point in continuing at all, unless the discussion of each book is on its merits, without retrospective judgement, labelling or anachronistic views.

I am sorry Jonathan, but when you write: "Back at the start what was needed was a writer-researcher relatively free from commercial pressures, to take control of the subject in 1959-61," How was McC to know he was "at the start" of anything? Pre-1970 (and since outside enthusiasts like us) JtR means sensationalism. We don't criticise films like Study in Terror, JtR (1959), Murder by Decree etc even from Hell because they are inaccurate or invent things or fictionalise. So why the venom directed at McC - if there is criticism let it be from the book, arising from a study of it and not of the man (whom I for one did not know). I say again, it is not his responsibility if a book he wrote many years ago is now regarded as important.

Is Shakespeare to be abused because his play on Richard III shaped minds and opinions for generations and was long regarded as history? It is an issue. But first and foremost we should surely regard it as a PLAY.

So there you have it.

Once and for all I am no apologist for Donald McCormick, though I have a soft-spot for the book which was the first on JtR I ever bought. But I will not simply kow-tow to an authority who wishes to tell me the opinion I should have. If I do finish my review/critique I will set out my conclusions, but I refuse to judge until I have looked at the evidence.

Phil

[Phil Carter]

I just had to weigh in with my half penn-orth on this one!

Whatever the writing conventions of his day were, McCormick engaged in shameless invention, fantasy and fiction posing as fact. And his legacy is still with us today, as less well informed newcomers read his books and accept what he wrote as fact. He was still at it in the mid-1990s, so there is no real excuse that it was because of the age in which he wrote.

Unfortunately these literary hoaxes were not confined only to the Ripper case.

Hello Stewart,

Totally agree. McCormick's fairy tales of made up dialogue, poetry and story really top the list over things he invented for that book. Making up dialogue was a sure fire method of making the book look realistic, when in fact, it was swathed in fiction from start to finish. All the man was out to do was make money. Shamelessy avoiding serious historical research.
Even when his re-print and new edition came out some 11 years or so later, he left in the nonsense. No wonder when he was contacted by the BBC when making the Barlow and Watt drama series, he informed them that he had thrown away his papers and that it was so long ago he cannot remember clearly..or words to that effect. That says it all.

Sadly, as you say, it was a tradition carried on in parts by others, not only in this genre , but others as well.

Just an opinion.


Phil

[Phil Carter]

I return to say this - if normal service were to be returned it will not be until there has been a braek to catch breath.

I am grateful for the support some of you have shown and sorry for this turn of events.

But I do not see the point of trying to look at a book, with an open mind and in some detail, if judgements on it are to be made at the outset. That surely colours people's judgement from the start. I do not question, deny or seek to forbid the expression of views on any JtR related issue, but when the leading factual authority on the subject intervenes with thunderous declamations of "hoax" and an insistence that a book is rubbish - what am I to do?

I do not have an expert's and publish author's standing - yet when I seek to inject a different view I am told I am childish and defensive. I cannot contribute under those circumstances not do I find it an encouraging background under which to continue. How am I going to tackle a writer like Knight, if this is what happens with McC?

I see no point in continuing at all, unless the discussion of each book is on its merits, without retrospective judgement, labelling or anachronistic views.

I am sorry Jonathan, but when you write: "Back at the start what was needed was a writer-researcher relatively free from commercial pressures, to take control of the subject in 1959-61," How was McC to know he was "at the start" of anything? Pre-1970 (and since outside enthusiasts like us) JtR means sensationalism. We don't criticise films like Study in Terror, JtR (1959), Murder by Decree etc even from Hell because they are inaccurate or invent things or fictionalise. So why the venom directed at McC - if there is criticism let it be from the book, arising from a study of it and not of the man (whom I for one did not know). I say again, it is not his responsibility if a book he wrote many years ago is now regarded as important.

Is Shakespeare to be abused because his play on Richard III shaped minds and opinions for generations and was long regarded as history? It is an issue. But first and foremost we should surely regard it as a PLAY.

So there you have it.

Once and for all I am no apologist for Donald McCormick, though I have a soft-spot for the book which was the first on JtR I ever bought. But I will not simply kow-tow to an authority who wishes to tell me the opinion I should have. If I do finish my review/critique I will set out my conclusions, but I refuse to judge until I have looked at the evidence.

Phil

Hello Phil,

That's fine and all very well, but how to look at a book from 1959 and not look retrospectively is hard. McCormicks book was the 2nd book I read, after Farson, then Cullen's and then Odell's. Of the 4 books which encapture the era of writing, I can state without a touch of malice that in my opinion, McCormick's book was the worst of the lot... albeit closely followed by Farson and then Cullen and then the better example of the 4 from Robin Odell.

And I didn't have a favourite book (still don't infact). I tried to read each book objectively. McCormick had a list of books to his name. The reactions of others to his other books were much of the same type, pointing out falsities and unprovabilities, and even made up statements. (From what I have read)

The involvement of using something from a McCormick book in the Diary tells me all I needed to know about that little piece of prose too.

Just an opinion. Not personal towards you or the thread in any way. I will read on with interest.



Phil

[Phil H]

Thank you Phil - your interventions (last two posts) have made up my mind.

What I aimed to do in this thread you and Stewart and indeed Jonathan have made me see clearly - is impossible. There is too much prejudice (I use the word consciously) against certain authors. Your conclusions are already reached.

Readers (especially ones who are newish to the subject) of the thread are bound to be coloured when people of standing in the field fulminate as they do.

I give up. I will not re-start my review of the books. If anyone else wishes to pick up the matle - please feel free to do so - and good luck.

Phil

[Phil Carter]

Hello Phil,

The choice is as one sees it....one may choose what one wishes to do... I am not preventing anyone from doing anything...far from it, infact!

One can hardly expect a person of over 44 years of interest in this field, having read and/or owned at one time or another well over 100 (if not 100's of) books on the subject, NOT to have conclusions about the quality of the work? That is me and how I look at the plethora of books on the subject.

Stewart Evans, whom you name above, has been in this longer than most, going back to the early 60's I believe, and he is also likely to have "made up his mind" on certain books by now. It is unreasonable to think he would not have!

New readers to the subject must surely be given guidance of sorts? The more outlandish books reproduced are there for their choosing anyway.

Have a look at the reviews on this forum from the creators and see what they have to say about the many books around. I don't happen to agree with them all. I'm sure many probably don't. But there is nothing stopping anyone trying to show the newcomer the books we have been presented with... but surely they should be pre-warned against blatant falsities and made up dialogue purporting to be real?

That is being totally objective. Without fear nor favour, as it were.



I was looking forward to your reviews actually. As someone who has (gratefully, with the various author's permission) done exactly that, I can see where the intention is coming from. I encourage you to continue.



Phil

[Chris]

What I aimed to do in this thread you and Stewart and indeed Jonathan have made me see clearly - is impossible. There is too much prejudice (I use the word consciously) against certain authors. Your conclusions are already reached.

McCormick's book has been very thoroughly discussed over the years, and there has been ample time for people to digest the evidence and to draw considered conclusions. They have as much right to those conclusions as you have to yours - or to suspend judgment if you wish to. Their conclusions would amount to 'prejudice' only if they had been reached before examining the evidence. What right do you have to make that presumption?

[Phil H]

My right - is as a reader and student.

Historians (and scholars in other fields) usually have a clear practice (as I understand it) - to read primary sources first, then secondary sources, in the order published. The idea being that one thus remains relatively untainted by previous interpretations and arrives at one's one conclusions.

That is clearly not possible here.

At no point have I said that other's are not entitled to their views of McC and his works, but it is unhelpful to have those views paraded before the work has been analysed.

I have acknowledged the over-riding view - including that of our leading expert - that my approach is unwelcome here. I have abandoned my intent. Full stop. Period. End of story.

I decline to express my views of all of you.

Phil

[Chris]

At no point have I said that other's are not entitled to their views of McC and his works, but it is unhelpful to have those views paraded before the work has been analysed.

Yes, I can see that if you started the thread with the idea of presenting your thoughts in a certain order you would find it unhelpful if people intervened with comments and opinions that didn't fit in with how you had planned that presentation.

But you can't dismiss someone else's view as 'prejudice' just because it's expressed before you have had time to present all the evidence. And I'm afraid it's in the nature of a discussion board that people are going to express their views.

[Monty]

"But (sic) there is nothing stopping anyone trying to show the newcomer the books we have been presented with... but surely they should be pre-warned against blatant falsities and made up dialogue purporting to be real?"

Unless that person is Mark Ripper, in which case its a Witch hunt.

Monty

[Stewart P Evans]

Witch?

Mark a witch? Surely not.

[Monty]

Indeed Stewart,

More of a big old cuddy teddy bear.

Monty

[Albert]

Could you elaborate please?

McCormick's other unintended legacy was that a bit of his hoax material infected--and discredited--the DNA of the 'Diary' decades later.

Hi Jonathan H.
Could you be more specific about this please - another thread is asking for the 'One Incontrovertible Fact that will disprove the Diary' and this McCormick hoax you mention, could possibly be it, do you reckon?
Cheers
Albert

[Jonathan H]

It's an essay on this site

Sorry, I missed your request:

http://www.casebook.org/dissertations/maybrick_diary/mb-mc.html

[andy1867]

Sad end to an interesting thread in my opinion.
I suppose a lot of us were brought into the question of "Who was Jack the Ripper" by lies and distortions in the first place, I'm not condoning it , but I understand how it happens.
First your interest is piqued, by the extraordinary, maybe by books that carry more fiction than fact, or by films, that do the same.
I remember the old Barlow and Watt documentary, The Michael Caine film, full of errors to the "Expert" Ripperologist...full of interest to the rest of us, So you read on, you mature, you filter fact from fiction..(thats alliteration that is).
Its like telling your kids Father Christmas exists...all lies...but you sort it sooner or later.
Folk like me rely on folk like Stewart, Phil and the rest on here to finish our education on the subject, I don't post much, because I know little, and some do not have the time or finances to follow the subject as we would like, and there is sometimes a guilty feeling of hanging onto the coattails of the experts, but they choose to post, its meant to be read, so you take what you can get.
This website, as well as being extremely informative, can be very intimidating, luckily I'm of the persuasion that I hardly give a flyer what folk who do not know me, think about me, its the internet and leaves hardly any bruises.
Some of the Egos on here are quite frankly laughable, they seem to treat the subject as their own private property and hackles are raised as they are gainsaid, or questioned...its not your subject, you did all the research and such, which we all appreciate, simply because you wanted to, you share it because you want to, but the subject is still an open question to all, its British history, that belongs to ALL of us...anyroad up rant over...see you in a year or so
Andy