17th September to Diary handwriting comparisons

[caz]

The photo album that was used for it is an early 20th C. specimen; I've seen loads of them. (That detail irks me; why the heck didn't they use a real journal or diary to write it? Grrr...)

No offence, Archy, but do you seriously think we would even be having this conversation if the 'typical' Victorian guardbook (which could date from the 1870s), examined up close by numerous specialists, bookbinders and so on, was in fact 'an early 20th C. specimen'? You may have seen loads of later examples resembling the diary because styles didn't change overnight.

I never get the argument that a Victorian serial killer would have been conventional and used a 'real' diary for recording his day-to-day thoughts in between murders. "Ah, what have we here? The diary of my husband/boss/business colleague/son-in-law for 1888, and another for 1889. Wonder what the old bugger has written about me?" Why would he not have used something that was less obviously a personal journal, and less likely to attract prying eyes? The only way a deliberate hoaxer screwed up by not using a conventional diary was in not anticipating that this would actually be held up as a bad mark against it.

I agree, the style is atrocious. It's an excruciating read, and for all the wrong reasons... If "fingers-on-the-blackboard" could be termed a literary style, this is it.

But how do you know that wasn't the point of the exercise? Whether it was the ripper, or Maybrick, old or modern hoax, it was never meant to read like Dickens, was it? If you wanted to poke fun at a lower middle class brute of an arsenic-eating womaniser, whose wife had very nearly hanged for his dubious double life, might you not also choose to produce something 'excruciating' and 'nails-down-the-blackboard'?

Love,

Caz
X

[Archaic]

Hello Bunny. Agreed.

By the way, I wrote the book on "old." (heh-heh)

Cheers.
LC

Oh no, Lynn; I have to disagree!


Cave paintings don't count.

Archaic

[Archaic]

I usually lay down to be corrected...it's far more fun!

Dave

Archaic

[Cogidubnus]

I usually lay down to be corrected...it's far more fun!

Dave

[spyglass]

Hi Lynn,
To tell you the truth I really cant remember the details at all at this late hour. All I can just about remember was that they were in no doubt in their view that it was from the right period, but I stand to be corrected ( I often am )

regards

[lynn cates]

hand

Hello Spyglass. Are you thinking of the handwriting style perhaps?

Cheers.
LC

[spyglass]

Hi Lynn,
you are certainly more qualified then me, and I bow to your superior knowledge...but wait am I correct in saying that a famous London antiquarian book shopwho were experts in this field and studied it claimed there was no doubt about it coming from the victorian era. (as usual I dont have the facts at hand)

Regards

[lynn cates]

old

Hello Bunny. Agreed.

By the way, I wrote the book on "old." (heh-heh)

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

vernacular

Hello Spyglass.

"I have always tended to lean towards it being written at the time it purports...if it was a hoax."

That's a good idea. One thing that might strengthen this notion would be to find correspondence from people of that social class who spoke in that manner.

I am fairly used to seeing correspondence/diaries of that era, and from different social classes. The diary is an ill fit.

Cheers.
LC

[Archaic]

Hello Bunny. If it's C, the style would have kept it from being a best seller in its day.

What about:

D. An old hoax? (Better: B.1)

Cheers.
LC

Hi Lynn.

Yeah, that's a possibility too. But of course it depends on your definition of "old". I believe it's a 20th Century creation.

The photo album that was used for it is an early 20th C. specimen; I've seen loads of them. (That detail irks me; why the heck didn't they use a real journal or diary to write it? Grrr...)

I agree, the style is atrocious. It's an excruciating read, and for all the wrong reasons... If "fingers-on-the-blackboard" could be termed a literary style, this is it.

That's just my personal opinion, and of course I respect the differing opinions of my friends. (Hear me, Soothie old pal?? )

Best regards,
Archaic

[spyglass]

I myself have always kept an open mind, and as stated on other threads, until I see 100percent fact that its a hoax, then I will always support those who support it. Soothsayer always makes valid and strong arguments in its favour.

I have always tended to lean towards it being written at the time it purports...if it was a hoax.

Regards.

[lynn cates]

D

Hello Bunny. If it's C, the style would have kept it from being a best seller in its day.

What about:

D. An old hoax? (Better: B.1)

Cheers.
LC

[Archaic]

Hi Spyglass.

In addition to those who think the diary is either:

a.) a genuine document written by James Maybrick

and

b.) those who believe the diary was created as a deliberate hoax,

there are also

c.) those who feel that the diary might originally have been written as a creative work of fiction- something that was never intended to pass for a factual document, and so was not created as a deliberate "hoax" - but which was at some later point presented by others as if it were a factual document from 1888.

Personally I'm torn between b and c.

Best regards,
Archaic

[Bridewell]

Hi Tempus,

Thanks for posting. I can see some similarity in the two versions of "about" but not in the others. If you seriously believe the two documents are by the same hand, think about getting a qualified document examiner to give an opinion. You'd probably need to get access to the originals of both though, which might be tricky. Most people have strong views one way or the other where the diary is concerned, so you'll need to develop a thick skin if you haven't already got one!

Regards, Bridewell.

[spyglass]

Err!
There are those who think the diary is genuine...and there are those who think the diary a hoax. However NOT all of the latter think it a modern hoax.

Regards.