New Ideas and New Research on the Diary

[rjpalmer]

I'll be interested in hearing the episode "The Mind of Mike," though I'm skeptical of it.

"IIn [sic] this episode, the panel delves into the psyche of Mike Barrett, the enigmatic figure behind the diary's emergence. Through meticulous analysis, they attempt to unravel the mysteries surrounding Barrett's erratic behavior."

For over 25 years I've seen many people try to unravel Barrett, and I have no faith in their conclusions. I think those who spent time with Barrett understand him least of all. With someone like Barrett, there is a great deal to be said for complete clinical detachment.

Calling him a pathological liar, while true, only grazes the surface. He was not a liar in the sense of someone who wants to deceive you. That sounds bizarre, but that's the mistake people make. In reality, Mike doesn't care if you believe him. At times, he is overjoyed that you know he's lying. His aim is less than that, and it's more than that. He's not clever, but he is a mental terrorist. His aim is to exasperate and to sow doubt. If you walk away convinced that he knows nothing at all (which is what many have concluded, wrongly), he's fine with that, too. Indeed, he loves that conclusion. If he was the hoaxer, why wouldn't he be?

RP

[Herlock Sholmes]

I haven't ignored your bigger question - it requires some thought and I'm working (i.e., employed) right now (and Newcastle are live tonight); but I just wanted to quickly reply to this one because you are promoting a presupposition based upon your belief that 'one off instance' means 'one-off instance' and also that 'one-off instance' was not a concept anyone made in 1888 nor could make in 1888. You are attempting to use inductive reasoning from this premise but you cannot say for certain that the premise is correct so your strident conclusion is a logical fallacy.

You may be right about your conclusion but your certainty right now is not a fact, it is an opinion. You are welcome to have your own opinions but you are not welcome to have your own facts [thank you, Ricky Gervais]. You cannot state 'Someone forged it' and present it as a fact because the premise you are using to draw your conclusion is unproven. It may never be proven because the spoken record from 1888 is long gone and the written record from 1888 is largely gone.

Just please be careful with your opinions and try not to confuse them with agreed facts.

At least you presented a fact when you stated that 'Someone owned up to it'. Obviously, that's a fact which tells us absolutely nothing about what happened before 'someone owned up to it'.

Well diary discussion has just hit a new low. I've been criticised for "presupposing" that "'one off instance' means 'one-off instance'". Has anything crazier ever been written?

Ike, as I've already said but you ignored, the dictionary itself originally had an entry for "one off" not "one-off". The hyphen was (and remains) optional. They mean exactly the same thing, with or without a hyphen. There is no doubt about it.

How long ago did David come up with his ‘one off instance’ point Ike? I’m guessing at around 10 years? So 10 years of searching and not one point that has even come close to refuting it. When you originally asked for your ‘irrefutable proof’ did anyone realise that you had an unwritten caveat - that if a point was made then you would have unlimited time to refute it?

[Iconoclast]

I just don’t know why there’s such a resistance to the suggestion John. Someone forged it. Someone owned up to it.

I haven't ignored your bigger question - it requires some thought and I'm working (i.e., employed) right now (and Newcastle are live tonight); but I just wanted to quickly reply to this one because you are promoting a presupposition based upon your belief that 'one off instance' means 'one-off instance' and also that 'one-off instance' was not a concept anyone made in 1888 nor could make in 1888. You are attempting to use inductive reasoning from this premise but you cannot say for certain that the premise is correct so your strident conclusion is a logical fallacy.

You may be right about your conclusion but your certainty right now is not a fact, it is an opinion. You are welcome to have your own opinions but you are not welcome to have your own facts [thank you, Ricky Gervais]. You cannot state 'Someone forged it' and present it as a fact because the premise you are using to draw your conclusion is unproven. It may never be proven because the spoken record from 1888 is long gone and the written record from 1888 is largely gone.

Just please be careful with your opinions and try not to confuse them with agreed facts.

At least you presented a fact when you stated that 'Someone owned up to it'. Obviously, that's a fact which tells us absolutely nothing about what happened before 'someone owned up to it'.

[rjpalmer]

Second email:

In 1873, while ill in bed, he [Michael Maybrick] wrote the words and the music to his first big song, A Warrior Bold, and within a few years had earned well over a £1000 in royalties (Chris Jones citing the Edinburgh Evening News, 17th December 1877 as his source.)

Hi Ike,

It doesn't help us and I'm more than happy to drop the matter, but FYI you might ask your correspondent if a mistake has been made.

Out of curiosity I checked the source mentioned--the Edinburgh Evening News for 17 December 1877---and I'm not finding this anecdote.

All I'm finding is this:





As far as I can tell, the only accounts of Michael Maybrick having written the words to 'A Warrior Bold' date to 1913.

The bad news for you is that even if it can be shown than Mike Maybrick wrote enough lyrics to his songs to warrant the impression left by the diarist, this does not indicate obscure knowledge by the author, as the same thing was reported (rightly or wrongly) by Ryan (and, going from memory, either Christie or Morland).

Regards.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I doubt you'll get a straight answer Herlock because there is no reason why the Barretts couldn't have created the diary jointly. In fact the smart money is on the Barretts having created the diary between them.

Cheers John

I just don’t know why there’s such a resistance to the suggestion John. Someone forged it. Someone owned up to it.

[John Wheat]

Sorry Ike, when did I ask if it was theoretically possible for the Barretts to have written the diary? Why do people always want to answer different questions to the ones I've asked them?

My question, in a nutshell was "Why could the Barretts not have jointly created the diary?"

So there are two possible answers:

1. The Barretts could not have jointly created the diary because.....[state reason]

2. I know of no reason why the Barretts could not have created the diary (or, if you prefer: The Barretts could have jointly created the diary).

I'm really interested to see if you are prepared to answer my question directly, without ambiguity or caveat, without changing any of the wording, in a form that I could, if I so desired, quote you on.

Just to give you an example of how it's done. To the hypothetical question, "Why could James Maybrick not have created the diary?", my unambiguous answer is:

James Maybrick could not have created the diary because the expression "a one off instance" is a modern, 20th century expression, which didn't exist in the 1880s.

And you can quote me on that!

I doubt you'll get a straight answer Herlock because there is no reason why the Barretts couldn't have created the diary jointly. In fact the smart money is on the Barretts having created the diary between them.

Cheers John

[Herlock Sholmes]

Lord, awesomely bad memory by one of us. Did I not acknowledge recently that your desperately unevidenced theory is at least theoretically possible? I’m sure I did but maybe I dreamed it.

While we’re on the subject of Spandau Ballet, I’ve often wondered if Barrett wasn’t a closet fan too - after all, did he not steal the following line for his literary masterpiece?

With a thrill in my head and a pill on my tongue …

Sorry Ike, when did I ask if it was theoretically possible for the Barretts to have written the diary? Why do people always want to answer different questions to the ones I've asked them?

My question, in a nutshell was "Why could the Barretts not have jointly created the diary?"

So there are two possible answers:

1. The Barretts could not have jointly created the diary because.....[state reason]

2. I know of no reason why the Barretts could not have created the diary (or, if you prefer: The Barretts could have jointly created the diary).

I'm really interested to see if you are prepared to answer my question directly, without ambiguity or caveat, without changing any of the wording, in a form that I could, if I so desired, quote you on.

Just to give you an example of how it's done. To the hypothetical question, "Why could James Maybrick not have created the diary?", my unambiguous answer is:

James Maybrick could not have created the diary because the expression "a one off instance" is a modern, 20th century expression, which didn't exist in the 1880s.

And you can quote me on that!

[rjpalmer]

Some two decades after publication of Harrison’s first book, Casebook: Jack the Ripper contributor Lydia Trivia unearthed examples of songs – mostly older than Maybrick’s more established works – where he alone had written both music and lyrics.
—ISLE OF WIGHT COUNTY PRESS / SATURDAY AUGUST 30th 1913 - DEATH OF MR. MICHAEL MAYBRICK. His first song was “A Warrior Bold,” which remains one of the most popular of its class. He wrote it while lying ill in bed, and accepted 5s for it plus a royalty.)

Hi Ike,

No offense intended, but I'm afraid I have to challenge the information supplied by your first correspondent, especially his (or her) use of the word "songs" (plural).

I await further clarification on this point, because this appears to be a flaw of memory.

The contributor was not "Lydia Trivia" -- her name on this forum was simply Livia. (She went by 'Livia Trivia' on JTR Forums).

In both of her posts on the subject, she only identified one song with lyrics by Michael Maybrick---the same singular song mentioned by me and your other two correspondents: A Warrior Bold.


So where does 'songs' come from? What is the source for multiple songs with lyrics by Michael Maybrick? (And trust me, old boy, obituaries and Wikipedia entries aren't always reliable.)

The way I read it, this was...er....dare I say...a one-off by Stephen Adams while sick in bed.

Please note that in her post to JTR Forums (see below) Livia Trivia referred to 'Edwin Thomas' as a one-hit wonder. Which implies she couldn't find any other lyrics written by him if indeed her research was, as you say, "excellent." Nor does she insist Thomas was a pseudonym for 'Stephen Adams' but she might be implying it.

An open question, I'd say!!

RP

[Iconoclast]

But it really brings me back to my central question which I've been asking over and over without any sensible reply. Why could the Barretts not have jointly created that relatively short 63 page error strewn, historically inaccurate, grammatically poor, badly spelt, document? After all, it's noliterary masterpiece, is it?

Lord, awesomely bad memory by one of us. Did I not acknowledge recently that your desperately unevidenced theory is at least theoretically possible? I’m sure I did but maybe I dreamed it.

While we’re on the subject of Spandau Ballet, I’ve often wondered if Barrett wasn’t a closet fan too - after all, did he not steal the following line for his literary masterpiece?

With a thrill in my head and a pill on my tongue …

[Herlock Sholmes]

So true, Herlock.

Do you have some kind of Orsam obsession, Ike?

I wouldn't mind but it was simplicity itself to find those "literary masterpiece" quotes by entering the word "masterpiece" in the CB search function for Maybrick threads. I found them all in about two minutes. The idea that I needed Orsam, or anyone else who likes Spandau Ballet, to send me those quotes to my inbox, which appears to be the suggestion from you and Caz, is both insulting and crazy.

I do wonder, however, if you found it as amusing as I did that even though Mike Barrett never apparently once used the expression "literary masterpiece" to describe the diary, Caz decides to attribute it to him because she assumes that's what he must have thought of it, and this explains why she referred to it herself at least twice as a literary masterpiece. Then she's puzzled as to why John feels the need to say that the diary is no literary masterpiece. Hilarious.

But it really brings me back to my central question which I've been asking over and over without any sensible reply. Why could the Barretts not have jointly created that relatively short 63 page error strewn, historically inaccurate, grammatically poor, badly spelt, document? After all, it's noliterary masterpiece, is it?

[Iconoclast]

What is the accusation, Ike?
That's what I was asking.

So true, Herlock.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Is that an accusation you'd like to deny at all Herlock?

What is the accusation, Ike?

That's what I was asking.

[Iconoclast]

Is that an accusation that you would like to state more openly Caz?

Is that an accusation you'd like to deny at all Herlock?

[Iconoclast]

Livia Trivia, whose source was Michael Maybrick's obituary, identified one song with the lyrics supposedly written by Maybrick. She wrote that the lyricist's name was Edwin Thomas, adding that it was 'coincidentally' the name of Maybrick's brothers. Whether this is the correct explanation, I do not know. This was supposedly one of Maybrick's earliest tunes, if not his earliest, penned in the early 1870s, but not published until after he became well-known. The song was 'A Warrior Bold,' and you can judge for yourself the quality of the verse and decide why he might have employed a lyricist moving forward, if this was indeed his work.

Crikey, my Inbox was full of comments regarding your comments, above!

First email:

— Pall Mall Gazette on Michael Maybrick's death :…When he wrote his first song, "A Warrior Bold," he was living in chambers. He had a bad cold and was unable to sing at Wolverhampton, where he had an engagement. While in bed he wrote the words and music of that song and took it to Mr. Arthur Chappell, or Chappell and Co….)
No-one claims it anymore, however. Some two decades after publication of Harrison’s first book, Casebook: Jack the Ripper contributor Lydia Trivia unearthed examples of songs – mostly older than Maybrick’s more established works – where he alone had written both music and lyrics.
—ISLE OF WIGHT COUNTY PRESS / SATURDAY AUGUST 30th 1913 - DEATH OF MR. MICHAEL MAYBRICK. His first song was “A Warrior Bold,” which remains one of the most popular of its class. He wrote it while lying ill in bed, and accepted 5s for it plus a royalty.)

Second email:

In 1873, while ill in bed, he [Michael Maybrick] wrote the words and the music to his first big song, A Warrior Bold, and within a few years had earned well over a £1000 in royalties (Chris Jones citing the Edinburgh Evening News, 17th December 1877 as his source.)

Third email:

Michael Maybrick, writing under the pseudonym Stephen Adams, composed the song “A Warrior Bold” with lyrics by Edwin Thomas. The song was first published in 1871 by Chappell in London. This piece marked the beginning of Maybrick’s career performing his own compositions in the early 1870s, a period during which he gained popularity for his songs, often collaborating with lyricist Frederic E. Weatherly. (Source: ChatGPT / Wikipedia)

---------------------

Now, my reading of all this is that 'A Warrior Bold' was entirely written by Michael Maybrick in 1870 or 1871 and that Lydia Trivia had 'unearthed examples of songs – mostly older than Maybrick’s more established works – where he alone had written both music and lyrics'. This implies to me that there was more than sufficient evidence that James Maybrick would have learned from his brother directly that the latter wrote lyrics as well as music. Certainly, I would say that it is somewhat more likely than that a hoaxer inferred this from Ryan's brief comment that Michael was a composer and author of songs.

"Michael has never enjoyed renown or reputation as a writer of verse, either in the past or now. In fact, the comprehensive collection of his works held by the British Library does not list a single composition of his that has lyrics written by him." (Melvin Harris)

Does that include those written in the name of Stephen Adams and Edwin Thomas?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Nice bit of sarcasm there, Herlock, except that in my own examples which you quoted above, I was going by what Mike Barrett evidently thought of the diary, when he was claiming to have authored it himself. He wouldn't have taken the 'credit' if he had considered it to be more 'shabby hoax' than 'literary masterpiece', would he? He wanted the world to think he was a great writer of fiction.

That's why I asked John Wheat who else, besides Mike, thought of the diary in that way.

I'm sorry if you were confused, but the context should have explained what I meant, if you found and read the relevant posts yourself, and didn't just find the isolated quotes in your inbox.

Love,

Caz
X

Is that an accusation that you would like to state more openly Caz?