Lord Orsam's Blog

[Gary Barnett]

THE ISLINGTON MURDER MYSTERY

‘Preface’

After quoting Charlotte Church, thereby hopefully demonstrating that he has outgrown his Spandex Bully phase, the author starts off gently, explaining how he stumbled across the Islington Murder in question. But even before he completes the first sentence, he has set his poor readers up for one of his characteristic orgies of verbose inconsequentiality. He describes the murder as ‘Edwardian, or rather Post-Edwardian* … ‘. Beware that * dear reader.

When the unsuspecting reader turns the page he’s confronted with an approximately 200-word footnote about what is the correct term to use about 1915 - which ‘period’ it sat in. Apparently ‘we are not allowed to call it the Georgian period’. Not allowed? Who issued that memo? Clearly quite a few didn’t receive it because the reigns of George V and VI were occasionally referred to as ‘Georgian’, especially in respect of a particular school of poets of the period. Numerous volumes of ‘Georgian Poetry’ were published between 1910 and 1922.

I won’t go into all the waffle he indulges in to explain that he doesn’t really know what ‘period’ the murder took place in. Who cares? JUST GET ON WITH THE MURDER MYSTERY!

It’s on the second page of the preface that the author refutes his divinity. He’s not god, he humbly submits (but you get the impression that he’s probably thinking to himself, ‘but then god isn’t a peer of the realm’.) Of course you’re not god, M’Lord, because if you were you’d be omniscient and you would have heard about the Georgian poets, Old Bailey, the equestrian use of one-off etc and you’d be familiar with your 12 and 20 times tables.

Don’t despair, prospective reader, things do get better.

[Gary Barnett]

Just for the record, Edward Thomas is one of my favourite poets and I’m familiar with the work of a number of his ‘Georgian’ contemporaries. I suppose, unless you are god, you know what you know and you don’t know what you don’t know.

Thomas did some of his army training just outside of Romford, he was in the Atrtists Rifles.

https://www.nam.ac.uk/whats-on/artists-artists-rifles

[Chris Phillips]

THE ISLINGTON MURDER MYSTERY

‘Preface’

After quoting Charlotte Church, thereby hopefully demonstrating that he has outgrown his Spandex Bully phase, the author starts off gently, explaining how he stumbled across the Islington Murder in question. But even before he completes the first sentence, he has set his poor readers up for one of his characteristic orgies of verbose inconsequentiality. He describes the murder as ‘Edwardian, or rather Post-Edwardian* … ‘. Beware that * dear reader.

When the unsuspecting reader turns the page he’s confronted with an approximately 200-word footnote about what is the correct term to use about 1915 - which ‘period’ it sat in. ...

Speaking as a bit of a pedant myself, I do think pedanticism has its place.

[Gary Barnett]

Speaking as a bit of a pedant myself, I do think pedanticism has its place.

So do I, but I thought it got in the way in this case. And, of course, if you insist on being a pedant, make sure you get your facts right. A proper pedant wouldn’t have said that we are ‘not allowed’ to refer to the reigns of George’s V and VI as ‘Georgian’, he’d have pointed out that although the term was used then or since, it was not universally employed because it led to confusion with the earlier Georgian period.

From memory, the first two proper chapters were enthralling, but in the third the uneccesary detail resurfaced and reduced the pace to that of an arthritic snail. Some of the Islington topographical stuff felt like it had been cut and pasted from a rather superficial online source. And who cares that ‘wild beasts, bears and bulls’ had once roamed where the murder occurred? (No mention of cows. And were the bulls and bears not beasts?)

I’ve started from the beginning again, and will persevere. I’ll perhaps skip the pedantry going forward and just follow the narrative. What I’m keenest of all to discover is what conclusion the author comes to in terms of whodunnit? I think I can guess ;-)

[Chris Phillips]

So do I, but I thought it got in the way in this case. And, of course, if you insist on being a pedant, make sure you get your facts right. A proper pedant wouldn’t have said that we are ‘not allowed’ to refer to the reigns of George’s V and VI as ‘Georgian’, he’d have pointed out that although the term was used then or since, it was not universally employed because it led to confusion with the earlier Georgian period.

From memory, the first two proper chapters were enthralling, but in the third the uneccesary detail resurfaced and reduced the pace to that of an arthritic snail. Some of the Islington topographical stuff felt like it had been cut and pasted from a rather superficial online source. And who cares that ‘wild beasts, bears and bulls’ had once roamed where the murder occurred? (No mention of cows. And were the bulls and bears not beasts?)

I’ve started from the beginning again, and will persevere. I’ll perhaps skip the pedantry going forward and just follow the narrative. What I’m keenest of all to discover is what conclusion the author comes to in terms of whodunnit? I think I can guess ;-)

You were meant to say "I think you'll find the word is pedantry".

[Gary Barnett]

You were meant to say "I think you'll find the word is pedantry".

Oh god. How did I miss that?

I’m always telling people not to be pedintic and when they respond with, ‘Don’t you mean ‘pedantic’, I say, ‘There you go again.’ Boom! Boom!

[Caroline Brown]

I still haven’t finished The Islington Murder Mystery. I got as far as the first page of the New Bailey chapter and collapsed in hysterics. (Only a slight exaggeration).

It’s starts off rather pleasantly, the author describing a certain Mr Pratt walking along Fleet Street on a ‘warm and sunny day’ (‘the hottest of the year so far’ we are reliably informed) en route to the Old Bailey. Then comes the punch line: ‘Old is a misnomer because it was a new building…’ .

I’m glad I wasn’t drinking hot coffee when I read that.

When authors add this kind of background detail they are presumably hoping their readers will be impressed by the depth of their knowledge. What this author seems not to know, though, is that the Central Criminal Court is popularly known as the Old Bailey, not because of its age, but because that’s the name of the street where it is located. And the street was given that name because it was where an ancient outwork (bailey) in front of the London city wall was sited. The street was being referred to as la Ballie as early as 1287. The earliest reference to the ‘Old’ Bailey is from 1444-5 and it is thought by some that the ‘Old’ element may have been added to distinguish it from a later ‘Little’ Bailey. As early as 1554-5 there was a reference to le Justice Hall in Le Olde Bailie.

So, no misnomer. Just a failed attempt to impress.

Incidentally, I didn’t Google any of this, I looked it up in an Old Bookie that I have: Street-Names of the City of London by Eilert Ekwall (Oxford/Clarendon Press, 1954)

https://www.oldbaileyonline.org/stat...old-bailey.jsp

Hi Gary,

My better half sighs and rolls his eyes whenever a tv drama refers to the Central Criminal Court as the Old Bailey. It drives him potty.

Love,

Caz
X

[Gary Barnett]

Hi Gary,

My better half sighs and rolls his eyes whenever a tv drama refers to the Central Criminal Court as the Old Bailey. It drives him potty.

Love,

Caz
X

So, he’s not a Rumpole fan then?

I had you pegged as ‘She who must be obeyed.’ :-)

[Chris Phillips]

Hi Gary,

My better half sighs and rolls his eyes whenever a tv drama refers to the Central Criminal Court as the Old Bailey. It drives him potty.

Love,

Caz
X

I think he must be a fairly extreme pedanticist.

[Gary Barnett]

I think he must be a fairly extreme pedanticist.

Don’t you mean pedintry?

[Chris Phillips]

Don’t you mean pedintry?

I almost suspect that you may be trying to lure me into correcting an error there. But I am not a pedantista.

[Gary Barnett]

I will post more of my reflections on the Islington book, but not until I’ve finished it. Most of what I’ve read so far is excellent, and I imagine my overall assessment will be a positive one.

[Caroline Brown]

So, he’s not a Rumpole fan then?

I had you pegged as ‘She who must be obeyed.’ :-)

Actually Gary, he loves Rumpole - just not the Old Bailey references.

And it's more a case of 'He who must be obeyed', as I must have obediently sat through each episode with him at least three times since we got together in 2011.

Love,

Caz
X

[Caroline Brown]

I think he must be a fairly extreme pedanticist.

Au contraire, Chris. He hasn't been on his exercise bike in ages.

Love,

Caz
X

[Steve Blomer]

Just an update, David Orsam's web site as changed, still the same name, but new software and the old articles are not currently available.

https://www.orsam.co.uk/