Doesn't anyone have an opinion on my Spiering Whittling?

ddnoe · Post by **ddnoe** » Mon Apr 23, 2007 7:15 pm

Well?

hyacinth · Post by **hyacinth** » Mon Apr 23, 2007 7:53 pm

I might if I had any idea what you were talking about.

doug65oh · Post by **doug65oh** » Mon Apr 23, 2007 9:10 pm

Denise is referring here to a piece she wrote for the most recent issue of The Hatchet. If you're not a subscriber to the magazine, Hyacinth you wouldn't necessarily know what she's talking about. It's fine - not to worry.

Nadzieja · Post by **Nadzieja** » Tue Apr 24, 2007 9:05 am

The article on Lizzie's church was great. I found it extremly interesting and very well written. I like articles where I learn something and I sure did, because most of the information I didn't know. I like your column hopefully you're in every issue. This was the first issue that I received because I just subscribed this year. Actually I have to say the whole magazine was really nicely done. I think on another thread you asked for suggestions for different ideas. I'd be interested in what their cures & medicines of that time period and also their every day living.

augusta · Post by **augusta** » Thu Apr 26, 2007 1:12 pm

I will when I receive my hardcover from Lulu. Yes, your article on the church last issue was excellent. It was probably the best thing I ever read on the subject. Well researched, as always. I look forward to your "Whittlings", Denise. I was leafing thru an older copy yesterday and saw your article on the two "Gaslight" movies. I remember how good that was. In your church article, you had everything in it - I plan to use it as a reference piece whenever I write on the church in the future. It's really a classic.

Spiering is no friend of mine. (I never met him, and he's deceased now.) But I was so angry to find out he took some things out of context to make his book 'sensational'. I was very happy when Kat wrote her article on Emma's last homes, and how Spiering lied to his readers. It's good to expose things in the Lizzie legend if we find out they are wrong. I do look forward to your Spiering piece, Denise. I am sure it's good without even reading it yet, based on your track record.

Haulover · Post by **Haulover** » Sun Apr 29, 2007 10:17 pm

i'll read it soon. i want to see if you're in agreement with me or not. apparently, you debunk him? well, good. so there's another down. and several to go.

i'll tell you this much. at gut level, spiering is crap. i'd rather submerge myself in victoria lincoln.

Nadzieja · Post by **Nadzieja** » Mon Apr 30, 2007 4:20 am

I'm waiting for my print copy to read the new article. As soon as I get it I'll let you know.

augusta · Post by **augusta** » Wed May 02, 2007 12:59 pm

Denise - As I expected, your article was lovely. You write very well and you write plainly, not striving to go over your readers' heads. I'm glad you wrote about this subject - this is the third article now from The Hatchet that debunks Spiering, and Eugene Hosey's makes the fourth. I wonder how Mr. Spiering would respond. Probably just ignore it.

You're right on the money about his talent. And his descriptions. I have always named Spiering's book as one of my favorites because of just that - when I read it in the summertime, I felt as if I was there. I don't think he stopped at just describing the hot weather, which as most agree it was most likely the high humidity and not the actual temp that made people in 1892 say the day was real hot. Yes, on page 8 of the paperback, he writes: "The three-foot-long Samuel Thaxter thermometer mounted outside the north-facing windows of the Globe Yarn Mill Company registered ninety-four degrees."

You mention how hot and sweating the people were that day, he says. I thought he had also written about it being over 100 degrees that day, but then again I haven't opened up Spiering since I wanted to check on something else wrong he got.

I think the truth about it only reaching 83 degrees that day came out first in the LBQ, which I think was published after Spiering's book. But it does not excuse him for making up this "ninety-four degrees". Fiction. Well, he might have seen the recorded temp of the Globe Yarn Mill, and by a quirk I suppose it possible for it to hit 94 in the sun on a hot surface, but something tells me he didn't make the effort.

His "purple prose" was right on target. As was your pointing out the other errors - and outright lies - he makes. It was entertaining to read the story of Lizzie & the Tilden-Thurber incident and how Spiering told it.

The supposedly gay letter you include is a well-chosen example of his imagination. It is a simple letter - and you're right, it's not specified if it's to a man or a woman (for some reason I had never considered it written to a man). There is nothing sexual about it, except for Spiering's intro paragraph to it.

I think you might have included how Spiering describes Emma as a nervous little man with a fake mustache on. That's hilarious, when you see how this man lies over and over again. And maybe also that Spiering says nobody checked on Emma's alibi. (I'm doing this from memory, and if I'm wrong on something, uh, make me read his book again.

)
I've read several times since that her alibi was checked by the FR police.

Your bringing up his work on the Polly Klaas book was not only highly interesting but was something entirely new to me, at least. That was good, and it supported your article strongly.

I thought your ending paragraph was perfect.

There are two other articles you can refer to if you choose, if you want to send this out again to another publisher. They are both articles in The
Htchet": "The True and Amazing Story of Lizzie's Gay Note" by myself; and Kat Koorey's "Finding Emma" I believe it's titled. My article, tho, it was found had a glitch in it, in that I did not look closely at the envelope. It was there, on the opposite page of the letter, but I didn't stop to think the envelope would matter. Michael Martins was showing me the letter and said who it was written to. Would it have mattered? How would we know the letter came from any certain envelope? Oops - also Eugene Hosey's article on Spiering in the current issue. You're probably aware of all of these. With Kat's you would have extra juice with Spiering's writing of Emma in her last days.

I look forward to your Whittlings in the next issue. I am a fan.[/i]

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Thu May 03, 2007 12:57 am

"Newmarket Lights" is the story of Spiering I wrote- it was a bio on the man. Nov/Dec 2006 Hatchet.

The article contained the *scoop* photo by Harry of the actual light panel Spiering found so suspicious.

I did refer to Spiering in "Looking For Emma" Hatchet, Feb/March 2006, pg. 26-27.
Thanks for alluding to it, Augusta.

augusta · Post by **augusta** » Thu May 03, 2007 11:40 am

Thanks for correcting me, Kat. I wouldn't want anyone to miss that. Both articles I think are historical classics.

stuartwsa · Post by **stuartwsa** » Thu May 03, 2007 10:23 pm

I second that, Augusta!

ddnoe · Post by **ddnoe** » Mon May 07, 2007 12:56 pm

Nadzieja @ Tue Apr 24, 2007 9:05 am wrote:The article on Lizzie's church was great. I found it extremly interesting and very well written. I like articles where I learn something and I sure did, because most of the information I didn't know. I like your column hopefully you're in every issue. This was the first issue that I received because I just subscribed this year. Actually I have to say the whole magazine was really nicely done. I think on another thread you asked for suggestions for different ideas. I'd be interested in what their cures & medicines of that time period and also their every day living.

(Denise) Thanks for the compliments to my Whittling on the Congregational Church. I haven't started it yet but I plan to write a Whittling on the topic suggested of medical and forensic science of the day.

ddnoe · Post by **ddnoe** » Mon May 07, 2007 1:04 pm

augusta @ Wed May 02, 2007 12:59 pm wrote:Denise - As I expected, your article was lovely.

(Denise) Thank you very much, Augusta.

<<You write very well and you write plainly, not striving to go over your readers' heads.>>

(Denise) I sometimes feel like I get something special out of reading a piece that sends me scampering to a dictionary -- I learned a new word! -- but it can also be distracting.

<< I'm glad you wrote about this subject - this is the third article now from The Hatchet that debunks Spiering, and Eugene Hosey's makes the fourth. I wonder how Mr. Spiering would respond. Probably just ignore it.

You're right on the money about his talent. And his descriptions.

(Denise) Thank you again!

I have always named Spiering's book as one of my favorites because of just that - when I read it in the summertime, I felt as if I was there. I don't think he stopped at just describing the hot weather, which as most agree it was most likely the high humidity and not the actual temp that made people in 1892 say the day was real hot. Yes, on page 8 of the paperback, he writes: "The three-foot-long Samuel Thaxter thermometer mounted outside the north-facing windows of the Globe Yarn Mill Company registered ninety-four degrees."

You mention how hot and sweating the people were that day, he says. I thought he had also written about it being over 100 degrees that day, but then again I haven't opened up Spiering since I wanted to check on something else wrong he got.

I think the truth about it only reaching 83 degrees that day came out first in the LBQ, which I think was published after Spiering's book. But it does not excuse him for making up this "ninety-four degrees". Fiction. Well, he might have seen the recorded temp of the Globe Yarn Mill, and by a quirk I suppose it possible for it to hit 94 in the sun on a hot surface, but something tells me he didn't make the effort.

His "purple prose" was right on target. As was your pointing out the other errors - and outright lies - he makes. It was entertaining to read the story of Lizzie & the Tilden-Thurber incident and how Spiering told it.

The supposedly gay letter you include is a well-chosen example of his imagination. It is a simple letter - and you're right, it's not specified if it's to a man or a woman (for some reason I had never considered it written to a man). There is nothing sexual about it, except for Spiering's intro paragraph to it.

(Denise) The letter is vague. It COULD refer to a sexual dream but it's also quite possible that it does not. My criticism of Spiering is that he doesn't put a sexual connotaion forth as a possibility but as a definite truth.

<<I think you might have included how Spiering describes Emma as a nervous little man with a fake mustache on.

(Denise) I wasn't aware that he had done this! Please explain!

<< That's hilarious, when you see how this man lies over and over again. And maybe also that Spiering says nobody checked on Emma's alibi. (I'm doing this from memory, and if I'm wrong on something, uh, make me read his book again. )
I've read several times since that her alibi was checked by the FR police.

Your bringing up his work on the Polly Klaas book was not only highly interesting but was something entirely new to me, at least. That was good, and it supported your article strongly.

I thought your ending paragraph was perfect.

There are two other articles you can refer to if you choose, if you want to send this out again to another publisher. They are both articles in The
Htchet": "The True and Amazing Story of Lizzie's Gay Note" by myself; and Kat Koorey's "Finding Emma" I believe it's titled. My article, tho, it was found had a glitch in it, in that I did not look closely at the envelope. It was there, on the opposite page of the letter, but I didn't stop to think the envelope would matter. Michael Martins was showing me the letter and said who it was written to. Would it have mattered? How would we know the letter came from any certain envelope? Oops - also Eugene Hosey's article on Spiering in the current issue. You're probably aware of all of these. With Kat's you would have extra juice with Spiering's writing of Emma in her last days.

I look forward to your Whittlings in the next issue. I am a fan.[/i]

(Denise) Thank you once again. I love to have fans!

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Tue May 08, 2007 11:15 am

I really liked your personal style in this piece this issue. I think your own voice has evolved and developed with confidence.

Michael · Post by **Michael** » Thu May 10, 2007 8:24 am

Denise, just a quick note. I read all your articles for The Hatchett, and I find them to be continually insightful and educational. Your Spiering article is no exception.

augusta · Post by **augusta** » Thu May 10, 2007 12:19 pm

You should have fans, Denise! I enjoyed your pieces in the LBQ, too. I always made sure I read them and "Lizbits" by Neilson Caplain. Your writing was great then, and it's great now.

Emma as a man with a mustache is Spiering's theory as to how Emma snuck back to Fall River unobserved to whack A & A. He chose one of the persons that someone really did see that morning, a nervous acting guy, that Spiering said was very pale. I'm not sure if he used "Mike the Soldier" (Dr. Handy's Wild Eyed Man) or one of the lesser known characters who were purportedly seen in front of 92 Second Street that morning.

Your new subject sounds great! I have not read an article yet you've written that I have not really liked.

ddnoe · Post by **ddnoe** » Thu May 10, 2007 7:34 pm

Kat @ Tue May 08, 2007 11:15 am wrote:I really liked your personal style in this piece this issue. I think your own voice has evolved and developed with confidence.

(Denise) Thank you very much, Kat.

ddnoe · Post by **ddnoe** » Sat May 12, 2007 5:39 am

Michael @ Thu May 10, 2007 8:24 am wrote:Denise, just a quick note. I read all your articles for The Hatchett, and I find them to be continually insightful and educational. Your Spiering article is no exception.

(Denise) Wonderful! Knowing you like my work really makes me feel good.