Originally posted by drstrange169
View Post
"my aim is to be as short and succinct as possible"
You see, Dusty, I never wanted to write a thick book. I wanted to write a book that was as short as possible, while still including all the important aspects of my theory.
As an aside, I find that books that aim to establish something that can actually not be established since it has no true ground to stand on will more often than not pile on as much material as possible in an effort to veil their shortcomimgs in fog. That, of course is a general assessment only, and it does not relate to Steves book. It could never do so for the simple reason that I have not read it. You are welcome, though, to pick any one detail where Steve published information that I omitted to mention - and poiunt put how his choice makes the book a better source than mine. Perhaps it instead simply makes a different choice than mine, by naming details that he thinks point to innocence on Lechmereīs behalf whereas I donīt agree? You see, if I write that Lechmere gave a name he otherwise never used with the authorities becasue he wanted to conceal his true identity, others out here can write that he perhaps did so because:
-He wanted to honour his ded stepfather
-He actually called himself Cross at Pickfords
-He had been given the go ahead by the inquest, who wanted to protect him
-He wished not to sully the family name of Lechmere
-He liked the sound of Cross better than that of Lechmere
-He didnīt want to look as if he tried to sound posh
-He had forgotten what his real name was
-He had been adviced by a friend to try and stay out of the whole affair
...and so on and so on. This is the character of providing innocent alternative explanations - they can be produced in very large numbers.
For me, though, the one explanation that is in line with my theory is that he wanted to conceal his name. And that is what I suggest in my book. I donīt go into extreme detail about how the alternative innocent explanations would work, the way I beleive Steve may have done (although I have not read the book, as I said).
If you take this into account, you may understand how and why some books become thick, while others go in the other direction. It is never about the possibilities of much detail, therefore - it is about the relevance of the detail provided.
Leave a comment: