Saving Undershaw, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s Surrey Home
The story of Undershaw, the 1897 house which was designed by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, and where he wrote The Hound of the Baskervilles, among other things, has been dragging on for years. In 2006 the Daily Telegraph reported that plans were afoot to convert it into separate dwellings, and that there was a risk that Conan Doyle-specific fixtures and fittings, including stained glass windows, would be lost. Since then, the house has lain empty and neglected. Developer Fossway was served with a repair order in 2008, but according to The Guardian, the house is continuing to decline. John Gibson has been running a campaign since 2004 to save Undershaw, and now he is appealing to the High Court to overturn planning permission to divide it up:
A leading expert on Sir Arthur Conan Doyle is pursuing a high court review to overturn planning permission for a developer to carve up the author’s house into separate homes.
John Gibson is using his own money to fight the case to save Undershaw in Hindhead, Surrey, one of few houses in Britain so intimately connected with a major literary figure. The house was designed by Conan Doyle, who oversaw its construction in the 1890s. It was there that he wrote Sherlock Holmes novels including The Hound of the Baskervilles. Several stories and letters refer to the house.
…
It was bought in 2004 by a developer, Fossway, but Gibson says it has since fallen into decay: “Water was running through it like waterfalls. They put in no security, and heraldic stained-glass windows were partially broken.”
In 2008, Waverley council served a repair notice on Fossway. Gibson accuses the council of failing to serve a compulsory purchase order, as it remains derelict.
Here’s a link to the Guardian article, and another to the Save Undershaw campaign website.
Back in 2007 I rounded up writers’ homes at risk for The Reader Online. It is a terrible shame that Conan Doyle’s house should still be on the list, given its significance.
A Message from Steve Hodel on the Black Dahlia Case
Back in March I wrote a piece for this blog titled The Pitfalls of the True Crime Genre. I argued that many true crime books are inherently flawed by their need to conform to novel- style narratives and clear resolutions which may be suited to fiction, but do not necessarily lend themselves well to factual reconstructions of historical cases. I had read several of the books and theories regarding the unsolved murder of Elizabeth Short, a.k.a the Black Dahlia, and used these as examples. There have been many books written about the Black Dahlia, some of them too ludicrous to be worth mentioning, but two Dahlia theorists in particular interested me: LA Times journalist Larry Harnisch and retired LAPD homicide detective Steve Hodel. Through his research on the case, Harnisch identified a Dr Walter Bayley as a plausible suspect in the murder of Elizabeth Short. After an extensive reinvestigation chronicled in his book Black Dahlia Avenger, Hodel named his own father Dr George Hodel as Elizabeth Short’s killer. What is unique about Harnisch and Hodel’s theories is that they both received endorsements from crime novelist and author of The Black Dahlia (1987), James Ellroy. Ellroy endorsed Harnisch’s theory in the documentary Feast of Death (2001), but he later changed his mind and endorsed Hodel’s theory and wrote the foreword to the 2004 paperback edition of Black Dahlia Avenger.
When I first published the post, I received an instant and somewhat critical response from Harnisch in the comments section. Then, just last week Steve Hodel contacted me. He gave me his response to some of the issues I raised regarding his theory and also an update as to what he has recently discovered in his continuing research into the case (also his thoughts on Ellroy’s various endorsements). Mr. Hodel has very kindly allowed me to post his response on this blog– you can read it below. Before reading it, however, it may be helpful for the sake of clarifying Harnisch and Hodel’s differing theories to read my original post, including the comments section. Here’s the link.
Dear Steve:
Greetings from Los Angeles.
I chanced upon your blog tonight and thought I’d pass on a couple of thoughts to keep the record accurate.
First off since your doctorate is focused on James Ellroy, I thought you and your readers might enjoy a fairly recent email letter I sent in response to a reader’s conversation with James Ellroy in France. In his email to me, Stephane Boulan passed on James’ response to his question related to his [Ellroy’s] current (2010) position on my book and the Dahlia investigation.
See my letter (here’s the link) to Stephane, which accurately lays out all of the facts surrounding Ellroy’s original contact with me and his offer to write the Foreword to the HarperCollins 2004 ed. of Black Dahlia Avenger, and the subsequent chronology of events that followed in 2004-2006.
As far as the L.A. Times copyeditor, Larry Harnisch’s vitriolic comments I will continue to ignore them as I have since my book was originally published in 2003. As most readers know, Mr. Harnisch has been “writing his own Black Dahlia book since 1997.” For the past seven years, I have tried to limit my responses to my critics with fact based follow-up investigation. In fact, for the most part, I have them to thank for pushing me on to discover additional linkage through either new witnesses, DA documents and hard physical evidence.
There has been a massive amount of “new evidence” since my original publication. Two new chapters in the paperback editions have been added and some of the most compelling new findings have come in just the past two-years. I refer only to the new evidence in my Black Dahlia investigation, not the sequel, MOST EVIL, which is a separate issue. (As those who have read it know, I make no claim that the ZODIAC case is solved, only that I believe that George Hodel needs to go to “the top of the list” of possible suspects and that DNA may well support and confirm what I believe to be a strong circumstantial case pointing to him as the likely suspect.)
For those interested in discovering all of the new Black Dahlia information and evidence I would suggest they review my extensive FAQs and “Squad Room Blogs” at my website. Too much to attempt to summarize here. One of the most dramatic new links are the 50 lb paper sacks used to carry Elizabeth Short’s body from a residence to the crime-scene, which are circumstantially linked to cement sacks documented to be at our “Franklin House” residence just three days before the body was discovered. (LAPD at the original Coroner’s Inquest testified that the large paper sacks found and photographed near the body, were used to carry the bisected parts to the crime scene.)See Frank Lloyd Wright /Cement Sack link at my Squad Room Blog:
Another interesting fact that many readers were/are unaware of was that Mrs. Betty Bersinger, the original Black Dahlia witness after discovering the bisected body on the vacant lot, then ran south with her daughter and telephoned the police from a neighbor’s residence. She made the call from the home of DR. & MRS. WALTER BAYLEY. (Unfortunately for Dr. Bayley, who died one year after the murder, some modern day self professed “experts”, discovering that the good samaritan’s husband was a surgeon, would attempt to turn Dr. Bayley into “a prime suspect.”
Another interesting fact is that in 2006 I was able to identify, locate and personally interview one of the women in the two pictures originally found in my father’s album. It turns out she was a friend of my father and the photo was taken at the Franklin House circa 1946. After obtaining a detailed in-person interview of her recollections of all the events, including her incriminating statements in support of Tamar being a victim of incest and child molestation, I then personally and publicly eliminated her photo as “not being Elizabeth Short”. This was done nearly four years ago, in November 2006, on CNN NEWS Anderson-Cooper 360. For those interested in the full story, just enter the key word “Maganda” at my website. (To date, no other investigator/researcher but myself has had contact with this witness. I am the sole source of her “elimination” as not being Photo #1. My critics readily inform readers that “her photo has been eliminated” but they never include the fact that it was done by me and me alone. The second photo (reclining nude) remains unidentified and may well be Elizabeth Short.
Finally, as to Mr. Harnisch’s comment/response to you that he, ” never claimed to have solved the Dahlia case. Never.” I would suggest he is playing with semantics. Here are two separate posted verbatim quotes written and posted by Mr. Harnisch in 1999. (That date was two years before he appeared on James Ellroy’s FEAST OF DEATH documentary in 2001 (Toronto Film Festival) and four years before the publication of my book, Black Dahlia Avenger: A Genius for Murder.):
“On the 52nd anniversary of the murder of Betty Short, nicknamed the “Black Dahlia,” I am announcing that I have identified an individual who is quite probably the killer. This is not conjecture nor coincidence, but irrefutable, concrete evidence.”
Larry Harnisch, website posting, 1999
“We may never know exactly how Betty Short was murdered. The probability is extremely high that Walter [Dr. Walter Bayley] was the killer, but there is no signed confession. “
Larry Harnisch, “A Scenario for Murder”, 1999
Wishing you the very best from across the pond.
Steve Hodel
Los Angeles
www.stevehodel.com
Anna Chapman and the Eccentricity of Espionage
One of the most facinating aspects to me about the Russian spy ring story is how the whole affair reeks of incompetence. Anna Chapman nee Kushchenko is supposedly a Russian spy, but this is a woman who puts up alluring photos of herself on her Facebook page and obviously craves attention. She hardly seems adept at keeping secrets! Perhaps we should stop regarding espionage as some sort of mythical and idealised world. Look at the sad case of David Shaylor, the former MI5 whistleblower who suffered a breakdown and is now a transvestite squatter who thinks he is Jesus. Spies are not flawless, suave James Bond types. In most cases they are simply ordinary people, or sometimes very weird people.
The novelist John Le Carre has demythologised spying more than anyone. He often says of spying (and this is a paraphrase) ‘If it’s a case of either conspiracy or cockup, it will always be a cockup.’ One of Le Carre’s greatest novels, Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy (1974), examines the heavy emotional toll spying leaves on people. Former British spy George Smiley is called out of retirement to uncover a Soviet mole who has infiltrated British Intelligence. Smiley sets about his investigation by interviewing former employees of British Intelligence who have all been sacked and are now embittered and working in random jobs. We should remember this portrayal the next time another big espionage story is reported by the media, and that Anna Chapman has become a celebrity through her own incompetence rather than for being a good spy.
More on Anna Chapman in the video below:
The Theakston’s Old Peculier Crime Writing Festival is coming up at the Crown Hotel Harrogate from July 22-25th. I’m not going to be able to be there–maybe next year–but as of today the website is still advertising tickets and accommodation packages. In the mean time, here is the shortlist for the Theakston’s Old Peculier Prize, and a chance to vote:
In The Dark – Mark Billingham
The Surrogate – Tania Carver
A Simple Act Of Violence – RJ Ellory
The Crossing Places – Elly Griffiths
Dead Tomorrow – Peter James
Gallows Lane – Brian McGilloway
Doors Open – Ian Rankin
Child 44 – Tom Rob Smith
Vote for the Theakston’s Old Peculier Crime Novel of the Year, 2010.
Critical Consensus, Mad Men and Crime Fiction
Season four of Mad Men premieres July 25th on AMC, and I seem to be the only reviewer with the opinion that it would take a miracle to salvage the show from the disaster of season three. Mad Men is not traditional crime fiction in any sense, but it does share some parallels with the crime genre my thoughts on which you can read here. I thought Mad Men was a great show until season three when it all began to fall apart. Maddeningly, I have found only one review which comes close to sharing my opinion, Peter Hoskin at Coffee House and his review only covers the first two episodes of season three. Has a false critical consensus emerged around the show? One good review follows another, critics repeat other people’s work and pretty soon the show has a reputation as a classic that reviewers are afraid to question. Now I may be wrong, and Mad Men is still a great show which simply isn’t my cup of tea anymore, but a critical consensus does emerge for certain books, films and television shows and they can be misleading and false.
On the subject of critical consensus, I was intrigued to read some of James Ellroy’s comments in a recent Paris Review interview regarding the negative critical reception to his novel The Cold Six Thousand.
Ultimately, I’m impervious to criticism. The ass kicking I got by a lot of critics for the style of The Cold Six Thousand was a real motherfucker, but I stopped reading the reviews. You can’t start thinking that critical consensus is a guarantor of quality. This is something I feel very strongly about. I remember when L.A. Confidential went to the Cannes Film Festival, a critic from The Hollywood Reporter wrote a negative review. He just didn’t think the movie cohered. But by then then all the other critics had loved the film, and this guy at The Hollywood Reporter had to join the club, so he included L.A. Confidential on his list of that year’s best films. The irony is that I think much of what he wrote in his original piece was actually dead-on.
Intriguing words from the Demon Dog of crime fiction. There is an irony here as some critics automatically dismiss crime fiction out of hand but could the film adaptation of L.A. Confidential, despite all the critical praise, really be not that good? Did a false critical consensus emerge? Contrarily, The Cold Six Thousand, is a flawed but stunning novel which in my opinion received an unfair hammering from critics when it was released. Perhaps its reputation will improve with time.
No doubt season four of Mad Men will dazzle the critics once again, and it might prove my instincts wrong and win me back as a Mad Men addict. But a little dissenting opinion might do the show more good than harm.
The Mystery of Jim Thompson
Part of Jim Thompson's House
I’ve just returned to the UK after holidaying in Thailand. One of the many highlights of the trip was a visit to the beautiful Bangkok house of the American silk trader Jim Thompson. Thompson (not to be confused with the crime writer of the same name) was an OSS agent during the Second World War. He was stationed in Thailand at the end of the conflict and quickly fell in love with country. Thompson settled in Thailand permanently in 1946 and focused his efforts on revitalising the then declining silk trade. Thompson’s efforts were highly successful, and he achieved worldwide fame after his silks were used for the costumes in the film version of The King and I (1956). Thompson is a revered figure in Thailand today, and the Thompson brand is still very popular.
On Easter Sunday, 1967, while holidaying in the Cameron Highlands in Malaysia, Thompson left the bungalow he was staying in and went for a walk. He never returned. A large-scale manhunt ensued but no trace of Thompson nor any viable theory as to what happened to him has ever emerged. Six months after his disappearance, Thompson’s sister was murdered in the US in what appears to have been a bungled burglary.
You can read theories regarding Thompson’s disappearance here, here and here.
Raymond Chandler’s Pearl
Over on his blog Tom Williams, who is working on a new biography of Raymond Chandler, has an interesting piece about the early story ‘Pearls are a Nuisance’ in which he makes the intriguing suggestion that the story might include a private joke between Ray and his wife Cissy, whose first name was ‘Pearl’:
‘Pearls Are A Nuisance’ is one of Chandler’s more unusual stories. It appeared in the Dime Detective in 1939 and is narrated by a heavy drinking, 6ft something Anglicized American by the name of Walter Gage who talks ‘the way Jane Austen writes’ despite his size and muscles (he played football in college we are told by his adoring girlfriend, Ellen). When Ellen asks him to track down some stolen pearls without the owner (her employer) knowing Gage is lead to a similarly sized thug and former chauffeur called Henry Eichelberger and, together, to two set out to find the pearls. The story has all the hallmarks of a typical Chandler tale: betrayal, a corrupt but wealthy woman, a beautiful girl. But it sticks out from some of his other stories for several reasons. Firstly there is something of Ray in Walter Gage.
[More]
The Critic Inside Me
I’m going on holiday in a couple of days, so I won’t be blogging for the next few weeks. One of the reasons I’m grateful to get away for a while is that it gives me an excuse not to go see Michael Winterbottom’s film adaptation of The Killer Inside Me. Okay, it’s based on a seminal 1952 Jim Thompson novel, but the extremely graphic violence that is depicted in the movie is enough to persuade me not to go. One reviewer even likened it to Torture Porn. Besides, I’ve never watched a film directed by Michael Winterbottom that has engaged me on any emotional level. They may be cleverly structured and well acted but they are usually joyless affairs (such as 24 Hour Party People (2002)). I doubt he can capture the essence of Jim Thompson’s work.
Clifton Webb as the acerbic critic Waldo Lydecker in Laura (1944)
Rereading my last paragraph makes me realise how much I enjoy slating a book or a film rather than praising it — which in turn makes me feel old! I was amused to read that crime writer Philip Kerr has apologised to Allan Massie for writing a scathing review of Massie’s latest book on its Amazon page. I reported last week that Kerr did this as revenge for Massie writing bad reviews of Kerr’s last two books. Perhaps Kerr could find comfort in watching a little known Vincent Price horror movie called Theatre of Blood (1973). The film is every critic’s worst nightmare. Price plays a hammy Shakespearean actor named Edward Lionheart who has spent his life receiving bad notices and being denied a coveted acting award from a group of reviewers known as the Critic’s Circle. Lionheart fakes his own death and then comes back to take his revenge on his critics by murdering them by gruesomely ingenious methods taken from the plays of Shakespeare. The film is on one level a comment on Price’s acting career and is remarkably good fun.
The entire film is available to watch on YouTube. Here’s the opening scene. Enjoy:
Henning Mankell on the Gaza Aid Flotilla
Swedish crime writer Henning Mankell was on board one of the aid ships intercepted by Israeli forces on route to Gaza earlier this week. He has been talking about the ordeal to the Guardian and seems in little doubt that the Israelis arrived with the intention to fight:
“I think the Israeli military went out to commit murder,” Mankell said. “If they had wanted to stop us they could have attacked our rudder and propeller, instead they preferred to send masked commando soldiers to attack us. This was Israel’s choice to do this.
“And it was the most stupid thing they could have done, because look around, Israel has never been so criticised in the world as of today, and if you ask me, this blockade will be over within the next six months.” Via
It has been a busy day for crime fiction bloggers with the dramatic news that Swedish crime writer Henning Mankell was on one of the Gaza-bound aid boats stormed by Israeli forces yesterday. He was not hurt apparently, but he may be in custody.
A slightly more lighthearted story was reported in The Daily Telegraph — crime writer Philip Kerr is an internet troll! Apparently Kerr was so aggrieved by two scathing reviews that historian Allan Massie wrote of Kerr’s last two novels that Kerr got his revenge by slamming Massie’s latest book on its Amazon page. The offensive review must have been taken down as it does not seem to be there any more. A literary feud or an internet imposter?
Also at the Telegraph is the obituary of the actress Carol Marsh. The late Miss Marsh played Rose, the naive young wife of the vicious hood Pinkie Brown, in the film version of Brighton Rock (1947).
