Evidence in Richard T. Cole's Liber L. vel Bogus.
You wrote: "Incidentally, the release date of the Appendix to Bogus is, ultimately, dependent upon the guardians of ol’ Fakey’s legacy."
Why is that so?
Does that mean that if these "guardians" do not comply with your demand that they "should routinely oblige all reasonable requests for access to material" the announced appendix will not be published?
Any British humour I once again missed?
OK, the thread stays open for the reasons outlined by Lutz.
@RTC - My apologies. It was not my intention to 'ridicule' anything. I hoped it was clear that I was merely speculating about the nature of your revelation about Rose's thoughts on the matter. I'm very pleased by the implication of your post: namely that you're going to present something more substantial than an alleged interview. I'm genuinely sorry to see you pin your Appendix publication date to the OTO's plans. If this is for copyright reasons (which implies a late 2017 date) then I can perhaps help with mediation on obtaining copyright clearance prior to then? Or perhaps you can think of a way to de-shackle your watermark evidence from AC's copyright? (A separate monograph seems like a reasonable opportunity?)
Again, my apologies if you took my last post as an attempt to ridicule. That was not the intention.
Owner and Editor
93, Paul and Richard!
But wouldn't the copyrights (if that is the reason for any delay) that will expire in 2017 not only apply to published works? Unpublished manuscripts are surely not affected, or am I wrong here?
Lutz: I'm just making an assumption that the explanation for RTC's linkage of the two is down to copyright and am doing my best to offer assistance if that is the case.
Owner and Editor
Maybe i'm a bit slow, but how would the OTO's ownership of some AC copyrights cover something written by Rose? Wouldn't any copyrights have expired, given she died in 1932?
Also, the OTO's rights do not include any rights over the watermark on the original ms. That is not a creative work, but merely an aspect of the medium on which that work was embodied; the only possible intellectual property rights here might be the trademark rights of the manufacturer. In any case, reproduction would be clearly allowable as fair use for scholarly discussion that would be impossible absent such reproduction.
Does this Appendix actually exist? If not, why is it referred to in Bogus? Interesting that the claim that AC was "Old Fakey" seems to involve so much, um, fakery.
"Does this Appendix actually exist?"
Why spoil your otherwise eminently sensible post with such an insulting sneer? There's no reason to assume that a guy who has published several books on AC has lied about the existence of one trailered in Bogus. It's this sort of thing that mars this thread and in fact all social media. Civil discourse, please.
Aren't you being a bit over-protective? I thought it was a perfectly reasonable question.
If Cole is already in possession of his smoking gun, then why should publication hinge on access to the OTO archives? Unless all he has now is suspicion, for which he hopes to find evidence?
I'm not protecting anyone. Read what I said again: I never said anything about the OTO question, I simply said to question the existence of a forthcoming book on Crowley by a writer who has previously published several is simply rude.
Why spoil your otherwise eminently sensible post with such an insulting sneer?
The poster asked: "Does this Appendix actually exist?" This is not an "insulting sneer" but a perfectly reasonable question.
. . . I simply said to question the existence of a forthcoming book on Crowley by a writer who has previously published several is simply rude.
It's a reasonable question. What's rude about it?
I'm unable to understand your repeated insistence that there is never pejorative content in posts (your own included) that appear here. If you think it's a perfectly reasonable question to ask if an author is lying that he has written a book, and in no way offensive, presumably you'd be happy for someone to ask if a book announced for future publication by Starfire was just a hoax made up by you?
When the big reveal(s) from a much-hyped published book turn out to have been withheld for said unpublished Appendix, and the reasons for not publishing sound so fishy, i think it's a reasonable question. This becomes especially so given belmurru's research above showing that no watermark evidence can establish a date, to which RTC has yet to reply, other than perhaps by (for the first time) alluding to new material from Rose.
Also, note that an appendix is not a book but a part of a book (thus the name) that is normally published with the book as an integral part of it. Something published later is a supplement.
If Cole's big reveal turns out "fishy", fair enough. I guess we'll have to wait and see as children do. As regards the quibbling about the word "Appendix", you may be correct but I'd be surprised if in the history of literature someone hasn't at some point issued an "appendix" separately but it really is irrelevant to the content I would've thought.
I’m unable to understand your repeated insistence that there is never pejorative content in posts (your own included) that appear here.
Oh, I realised a while back that you weren't able to understand it. These are just pixels on an online forum. There is no emotional content; that is inferred by the reader. Sometimes that inference is correct, sometimes not. In this case, I don't think it was correct.
This is something we all do from time to time, Sandy; me, even me, with my eerie Zen-like calm; I, even I, am human, all-too-human.
If you think it’s a perfectly reasonable question to ask if an author is lying that he has written a book, and in no way offensive . . .
The way I read it, the post was simply wondering if the Appendix was already written and ready for publication, or whether it was unfinished as yet, or whether it was nothing more than an intention as yet. What's offensive about that, for God's sake? I haven't seen anything from Cole to suggest that he's offended by ignant666's remark and, given the tenor of his book, I'd be surprised if that were the case. Thus I'm not sure why you are being so sensitive on his behalf.
. . . presumably you’d be happy for someone to ask if a book announced for future publication by Starfire was just a hoax made up by you?
Why should it bother me?
Eerie synchronicity - I was sure you'd say something along the lines of oh I knew you wouldn't understand it, and also wondered if your position was due to some Zen-like imperviousness, despite being "human".
We must agree to disagree, as I can't believe the post in question was simply querying if the book was finished yet.
If it really wouldn't bother you to be accused of lying/hoaxing then you truly must be a Zen-like human..."for God's sake"!
Look forward to Beyond the Mauve Zone reissue, which I'm sure is not a hoax...no sarcasm intended, really.
Happy to agree to disagree.
Thank you for your good wishes on the new edition of Beyond the Mauve Zone, one of the most exciting books I have ever read.
Fullers documents maybe "the" evidence that RTC has to show us?
A digression is necessary to address the absence of most of the texts quoted in Collected Works III in the account of the Cairo Working in The Temple of Solomon the King in The Equinox I(7). The original plan for The Temple of Solomon the King was for Fuller to write up Crowley’s magi-cal career, relying on his papers, and serialize this through the various numbers of The Equinox. Fuller’s falling-out with Crowley in 1910 ended his involvement. However, Fuller had apparently turned in some work for the Cairo Working account in The Equinox I(7); the introductory sections seem to be his writing, and Crowley did acknowledge his contribution to that installment.
Once the account gets into the details in the longer, later sections, the character of the writing changes. The chronological account of the Cairo Working with the extensive quotations appears to be Crowley’s work; this is supported by the textual sources used. The Temple of Solomon the King from spring 1912 made no use of the important materials that went into the 1907 Collected Works proofs: the French “under-curator” translation, the biographically important typescript title-page, or the “The Great Invocation.” All are conspicuous by their absence. This was for the simple rea-son that Fuller retained these materials after his break with Crowley; the proofs, the French MS. “under-curator” translation of the Stèle hieroglyphs and the Liber L title page came to form part of his personal collection, as documented in its sale catalog, Bibliotheca Crowleyana (Keith Hogg, 1966). After Fuller’s hostile break, these papers were therefore no longer available to Crowley for use in telling his story. Crowley relied on his personal manuscript collection for his day-by-day account of the Cairo Working, i.e., the two key Cairo vellum notebooks known as Yorke OS23 and OS26, as well as the vellum notebook with his poetic Paraphrase of the Stèle. All of this material appeared in The Equinox I(7) for the first time.
ON THE FILL/KILL CORRECTION (3)
herupakraath (95224) - " I was never quite sure what to make of Katz’ observation until I exchanged mail with Cole four years ago; he wrote: "Are you aware that the Book of Results was written upside down, at the back of the notebook titled Invocation of Hoor?" In order for the pages of the Book of Results to occupy the sequence of pages Cole claims, they would need to be written right to left with the notebook turned ‘upside down’; the images in Katz’ publication of Invocation of Hoor proves the pages are written left to right, which means Cole is ‘incorrect’ in describing the pages the Book of Results are written on. The need to reverse the order of the pages makes it look as though the Book of Results was written after Invocation of Hoor, when in fact, the opposite is true. That’s it for me."
http://www.oto-uk.org/News ON THE FILL/KILL CORRECTION (3) - "I have previously noted that some Crowley notebooks are anachronistic, with material separated by years appearing in different sections with no rhyme or reason beyond the availability of paper—e.g., one can find a brief 1907 diary entry in the middle of one of his Cairo notebooks, and his “Bartzabel” ritual is written in towards the middle from the back of an earlier notebook from 1907 that has notes for Konx Om Pax. However, the later additions in such notebooks are usually separated by blank page or pages, or have the later section written in from the back, i.e., by flipping the notebook."
@herupakraath - Seems the author of the above quote also agrees with me that the Book of Results is a "later addition..." Hmmm...
@herupakraath – Seems the author of the above quote also agrees with me that the Book of Results is a “later addition…” Hmmm…
Nonsense: neither of the texts in question are mentioned on the page linked to; your attempt is the use of a generalization to support your position. How about addressing the issue brought up in the post you quoted: you claim the sequential order of the pages that comprise the Book of Results occupy pages 20-23 of the notebook, yet that appears to be an impossibility.
To clarify the issue for the membership, let's assume for the moment that Invocation of Hoor was written prior to the Book of Results as you claim, and the notebook was turned upside down in order to begin the BOR. The first page of BOR would have to be last page of the notebook, the second page of the BOR would occupy the next to the last page of the notebook, and so on. The order of the pages as described in your book are the reverse of what they would have to be based the factors involved. You have either misrepresented the facts inadvertently ;-), or engaged in a deliberate deception: which is it?
Let me see if I've got this right? After watching this exercise unfold over twenty five pages, the crux of Mr. Coles book all boils down to documentation of some sort which has been hidden away and locked up by the oto?
There is a lesson that has been learned long ago, you can beat a dead horse from sunrise to sunset but it will never get up and run.
That laughter I hear echoing far off in the distance surely must be Mr. Cole?
There is a lesson that has been learned long ago, you can beat a dead horse from sunrise to sunset but it will never get up and run.
Well, it's been cantering quite leisurely for these past twenty-five pages, and through several elephantine threads before that.
That laughter I hear echoing far off in the distance surely must be Mr. Cole?
But if Liber Bogus *does* all boil down to "documentation of some sort which has been hidden away and locked up by the oto", wouldn't that mirth be Mr. Breeze's?
In terms of those with most to gain, and laughing longest, loudest & last,
Michael I didn't have this thread in mind when bringing up the dead horse. This thread has been nothing like a dead horse. In fact it has galloped nilly willy all around the pasture. What I had in mind was this idea of some to try and pull down the Book Of The Law and somehow attempt to undo what Aleister Crowley (or ol' Fakey as it was put) has done. The past cannot be changed.
Jamie it would be like my accepting a commission to paint a portrait and upon completion declaring it one of my finest pieces. After I make delivery and collect payment, the painting is uncovered. The proud new owner finds that the eyes have not been painted! My reply, well the paint manufacturer hasn't produced the proper hue yet. They have the formula in their vault, they just haven't made it yet. But when they do I will contact you so you can pay me to finish it. If I could get away with that the world would hear me laughing also!
I wonder if that's the snap, click of the lock I hear?
Of course "the past cannot be changed" - but our understanding of what happened can. Nobody is attempting to "pull down" AC - others have noted here that Cole states in his book his belief that AC is one of the most important humans in history. Refusing to accept the standard account of the Cairo affair, and noting possible flaws in Crowley's personality is not the same as trying to "pull him down". For many it only makes him more intriguing.
Jamie it would be like my accepting a commission to paint a portrait and upon completion declaring it one of my finest pieces. After I make delivery and collect payment, the painting is uncovered. The proud new owner finds that the eyes have not been painted! My reply, well the paint manufacturer hasn’t produced the proper hue yet. They have the formula in their vault, they just haven’t made it yet. But when they do I will contact you so you can pay me to finish it. If I could get away with that the world would hear me laughing also!
Hello obscuruspaintus! If you accepted a commission to paint a portrait, in the interests of revealing all to your customer you would presumably notify them at the same time if it was likely to be unfinished, i.e. that the eyes would be incomplete and filled in at a later date. I don't know whether you would also take the trouble to then mention that s/he (the commissioner) could then "pay you [again] to finish it" - but any way, your analogy here does not apply further because Liber Bogus states very clearly, several times, that it is a "work in progress" and was to be concluded in the next companion volume entitled "The Governing Dynamics of Thelema". (It seems to have acquired the subsequent alternative title of "Appendix" somewhere along the way, but was not itself advertised that way in the original.)
It's not as if RTC is "getting away with it" or is greatly coining it in from (t)his book - I imagine he has covered his costs and maybe had a modest little bit left over for his efforts, but that is only reasonable surely? the labourer being worthy of his hire, & all that jive. And in the meantime the original purchasers of Liber Bogus will have had the privilege of owning a (hard, potentially even valuable in the future) copy of a topical, controversial work in advance of others (who may take advantage instead of the generous time-limited free-pdf download offer of up to the 666th place, I believe.)
So nobody has really lost out, have they? And if folk want to have a bit of a laugh along the way, well that's allowable too, isn't it? Therefore if some Lashtalian happens to be feeling hard done by, can they perhaps explain why this should be, given all the above? But if it is just their impatient champing at the bridle & bit (of said horse) might they not perhaps do well instead to emulate the virtue of the more positive and philosophical attitude of e.g. Lutz and wait-and-see a little while longer...
Chortling away meanwhile,
But if it is just their impatient champing at the bridle & bit (of said horse) might they not perhaps do well instead to emulate the virtue of the more positive and philosophical attitude of e.g. Lutz and wait-and-see a little while longer…
What would you call "a little while longer", I wonder? Six months? A year? Five years? Ten years? Or is it simply that, as someone once remarked, the Computation of Time is not here as There?
@MichaelStaley - Erm... I find the paradox of your impatience with respect to a publication of which you have not read, nor have any intention of reading, quite fascinating... Is it a Zen thing?
Does your angst apply equally to a veritable mountain of unfulfilled promised, going back decades, still 'pending' on the authorised front? When was the last time they, or your good self, issued a free digital download of a book not six months old?
As I previously stated (#95333): "Incidentally, the release date of the Appendix to Bogus is, ultimately, dependent upon the guardians of ol’ Fakey’s legacy."
There's no "angst" about it. The hype about your book has been going on for years, and you've yet to deliver. As such, it's surely you and not Crowley who qualifies for the moniker "ol' Fakey", especially bearing in mind the relentlessly-moronic Carrot_Childe.
As I previously stated (#95333): “Incidentally, the release date of the Appendix to Bogus is, ultimately, dependent upon the guardians of ol’ Fakey’s legacy.”
No, you didn't state, you maintained. Huge difference. If you've seen these supposed documents, then presumably you can give us the gist of them, if not reproduce them. If you haven't seen them, then how do you know that they exist?
I'm all ears.
@Michael, I'll answer your question & hope that by setting such an example this will go on to create a glorious precedent where you'll then actually continue to answer my questions to you for an agreeable change (rather than think if you wait long enough you'll manage to evade them & they'll go away - which they usually eventually do!)
What would you call “a little while longer”, I wonder? Six months? A year? Five years? Ten years? Or is it simply that, as someone once remarked, the Computation of Time is not here as There
Based on the present level of available evidence, hype, intimations, confirmations and speculations, I'd be prepared to wait until (say) the December of next year (2017), although I'd regard that very much as an "outer limit" & would greatly hope that the "great reveal" would be revealed in all the glory of its greatness before then. (Perhaps even by the (c).o.t.o. itself, although that I imagine that would be very unlikely!)
So now it's your turn, and perhaps in terms of outstanding questions we could start with the outstanding one remaining from Post # 95193 on page 18:
"Particularly in light of the recent discussion in this thread, and in view of the ongoing increasing level of enquiry surrounding the official account, would you still maintain yourself to be “counted in” to that august assembly of people who “accept” the reception story as conveyed by Crowley in The Equinox of the Gods etc, or is it the case that you have now revised your opinion - and if so, when did this happen?"
Computated as having been resurrected from inside the circles of time - viz., on February 15th
In response to Jamie, you can still count me in that 'august assembly'. Having thoroughly read Liber Bogus, I have yet to find any significant evidence to undermine the reception story. Certainly, there are questionable details, as there have always been. But hard evidence that disproves it? Not in this book. And actually killing the story 'stone cold dead', as promised? Not even close.
One question that does arise during the course of this thread is the presence of the author, who has not deigned to actually answer any questions directly, but does manage to lob rhetorical grenades from time to time, none of which actually address the questions raised in the thread - for example the one raised by HPK regarding the orientation of the Book of Results notebook. Why show up if one doesn't want to actually engage in the conversation?
But it's not as if the author is incapable of answering questions. I did receive a private message assuring me that the discovery of the connection of the title with the number 666 via Hebrew gematria was done independent of my mention of it on this forum. I will take Cole at his word on that one. But it is still disappointing that he doesn't want to answer any questions directly.
To stick with the topic of the thread, we have already discussed in the past Cole's mistaken claim that AC couldn't get to Paris fast enough after leaving Cairo. But I remain intriqued about when the actual departure date from Cairo was. The ship timetables and AC's memory don't add up, and we remain without a conclusive answer on that particular question. But the fact is that Cole didn't do the basic research to determine the dates of the Isis and Osiris, which took all of an hour to find on the web. It was a minor point in the book, nothing more than an allegation, but it's still an error.
I guess the unfulfilled promise you refer to is the continuing non-publication of official OTO editions of the complete Confessions, et al? Mr Breeze has always been very nice in his communication with me, but I agree it's disappointing how books that were said to be near completion several years back still haven't emerged.
I'm not sure what to make of Michael's statement that to state and to maintain are different. One online dictionary states (or maintains!) that to state something is to assert or maintain a position.
I’m not sure what to make of Michael’s statement that to state and to maintain are different. One online dictionary states (or maintains!) that to state something is to assert or maintain a position.
On reflection I agree, Sandy, that the difference between "state" and "maintain" is not so clear-cut. Until you introducd a dictionary definition, I had thought that one stated a fact but maintained a position. It looks like, for the first time in my life, I'm wrong about something.
threefold31 (February 26, 2016 at 3:52 am #95413 Reply (page 26 in this thread)): "One question that does arise during the course of this thread is the presence of the author, who has not deigned to actually answer any questions directly, but does manage to lob rhetorical grenades from time to time, none of which actually address the questions raised in the thread – for example the one raised by HPK regarding the orientation of the Book of Results notebook."
Regarding the orientation of the Book of Results notebook, is it the front cover or the back cover of the said notebook that is depicted in a facsimile of the cover of it, on page 82 in Richard T. Cole's pdf version of the version of Liber L. vel Bogus, that members of this site can download and read for free?
Given that the handwritten words "Invocation of Hoor" - as depicted om page 82 i Cole's said book - are the only words written on the 'ouside surface cover pages' of the said notebook, this will with respect to the orientation of the Book of Results notebook, indicate that the cover page on which the words "Invocation of Hoor" are written, is the said notebook's front cover page.
My apologies Jamie. You took my comment more serious than I imagined. I was opining in a more generalized way. I just can't seem to get past the meaninglessness of the whole thing.
p.s. I will exercise more self control from here on.
Thank you Richard for the download!(& Paul too!)I'm reading it & will review it soon. My first thoughts are that you possess a mighty 'turn of phrase' & there is a wonderful flow to your writing. I immediately disagreed with you upon your assessment of AC as a psychopathic narcissist which you introduce as the diagnosis of a professional! You must be joking?
...there is plenty of evidence that AC did indeed possess empathy & compassion for his fellows. Look at how he never climbed again after that fatal K2 expedition- a psycho narcissist would have persisted in that field. He did not. Also, his love for Rose which permeated his entire life. Look at the poems he wrote for her!
If you read the Confessions account of how AC behaved on climbs you find much narcissism and scant empathy. I have to say that when putting together my AC Scrapbook many years ago I refused to include an expert's analysis of a page of AC's handwriting only because I wasn't convinced bythe claim she didn't know whose it was - but the conclusions were uncannily similar to those of Cole's shrink. Doesn't make me like Crowley any less, though.
The point, @sandyboy - at least so far as I'm concerned - is that RTC indicates that this whole 'Narcissistic Personality Disorder' nonsense is actually a formal diagnosis by one 'Dr Hudson', a specialist, it is claimed, 'in mental health issues, publisher of numerous medical papers', who, apparently, 'acted as a consultant to the UK government,' and so on. This eminent consultant apparently uses phrases like 'Aleister Crowley was clinically insane,' and someone who 'could have been committed on grounds he presented a clear and present danger' - she also apparently refers to 'Crowley's insanity.' These are not the words of a real expert on such matters, of course. They give every indication of having been written by RTC. It's interesting that the book gives no indication that 'Dr Hudson' is a pseudonym until we reach the supplementary material on page 225 in the mocked-up interview of RTC written by RTC as promotional copy and reproduced as such on his website.
The relevant question in the context of this thread is not whether AC was 'insane' or not: it's whether RTC presents viable or convincing evidence to that effect in his book and whether this 'evidence' is itself relevant to his allegation that this supports his suspicions surrounding the Cairo Working. He doesn't.
Owner and Editor
@Horemakhet (#95459 & #95460) - "Thank you Richard for the download!(& Paul too!)I’m reading it & will review it soon. My first thoughts are that you possess a mighty ‘turn of phrase’ & there is a wonderful flow to your writing." You are indeed a man of discernment and impeccable taste."
Would that be the K2 expedition in which ol' Fakey walked away from a disaster (primarily created by his attitude and behaviour) with no regard for assisting survivors, then wired fabricated reports to newspapers - To the condemnation of all? As for Rose... I'm sure she just loved being hung in the wardrobe whilst her loving husband shagged his way through half the hookers in Scotland, on their marital bed...
I urge you to commission your own analysis. Oh, sandyboy already did (#95461) and, what do you know... Another positive test on the psycho scale!
@lashtal (95463) - "It’s interesting that the book gives no indication that ‘Dr Hudson’ is a pseudonym until we reach the supplementary material on page 225" That is just plain silly, and akin to suggesting that a goal scored in the last five minutes of a football match is questionable, if allowable at all. The actual quote from Bogus (which you chose not to reproduce) is: "This was written by a fairly eminent consultant who agreed to participate only on guarantee of anonymity. That alone is an intensely frustrating indicator of Crowley’s enduring toxicity."
@lashtal (95463) – “It’s interesting that the book gives no indication that ‘Dr Hudson’ is a pseudonym until we reach the supplementary material on page 225” That is just plain silly, and akin to suggesting that a goal scored in the last five minutes of a football match is questionable, if allowable at all.
You consider that deliberately delaying the revelation that a primary source in your book is a pseudonym (if she exists at all) is akin to scoring a winning goal? Now, that's 'silly'!
“This was written by a fairly eminent consultant who agreed to participate only on guarantee of anonymity. That alone is an intensely frustrating indicator of Crowley’s enduring toxicity.”
You're preaching to the choir when it comes to recognising that AC's reputation is far from ideal! But what does this have to do with the Cairo Working? Beyond suggesting that you are right to doubt everything that AC wrote because he had a bad reputation, I mean!
Just for the record, do you intend to use this thread to address any of the direct questions that other members have asked, questions that relate to the honesty of your 'evidence'? Or are we really just scraping the bottom of the barrel with pseudonymous 'experts' asserting AC to be 'mad', watermarks that can only be reproduced when the OTO permits it (somewhat surprisingly) and the possibility that AC might have broken unwritten rules in turning a notebook over halfway through to start a new section?
Owner and Editor
I really don't see anything wrong with RTC's football analogy. The point he's making is that something stated on page 252 of a book is just as valid as if it was on page 4. After all, many details of dramatis personae are often given in the endnotes of volumes.
Richard Cole wrote a deliberately provocative book in order to increase sales. It amazes me that so many people are still making a living from Crowley! RTC's book is still on sale at Amazon for £12 +p&p, even though he genrously gave Lashtal members a free pdf.
So, just to confirm, AC was 'clinically insane' because someone with alleged extraordinary mental health credentials used words like 'insane' and quoted others words like 'mad' with approval and because you consulted a graphologist? LOL! And, failing to mention the anonymity when naming the 'expert' on page 30, but hiding the statement in a mocked-up interview 200 pages deeper into the book's 'Supplemental Material' is actually some sort of successful goal scored by him?
By the way, I appreciate that your professional relationship with RTC goes back to a previous book, but you really don't have to jump in to deflect every question asked of him! This 'AC was barking mad and I can prove it because someone I can't name and someone who uses graphology both say it's true' level of 'evidence' reminds me very much of a book similar in tone to RTC's, the one suggesting that AC was responsible for the 'curse of Tutankhamen's' deaths...
I repeat... @RTC: 'Just for the record, do you intend to use this thread to address any of the direct questions that other members have asked, questions that relate to the honesty of your ‘evidence’? Or are we really just scraping the bottom of the barrel with pseudonymous ‘experts’ asserting AC to be ‘mad’, watermarks that can only be reproduced when the OTO permits it (somewhat surprisingly) and the possibility that AC might have broken unwritten rules in turning a notebook over halfway through to start a new section?'
Owner and Editor
Tosh. Very few writers make a living out of books, let alone books on AC. As I said before, my Scrapbook has been in print here and USA for well over 25 years and my total income has been something like a couple of grand.
I never said it was akin to a goal, just that the analogy of where something occurs (at the beginning or end) doesn't invalidate it holds. I wasn't aware the amount of times I comment here bothered you.
I don't like breaking confidences but feel I must mention that in a private message exchange quite recently you seemed to be apologetic that you'd missed that Cole had stated his shrink was pseudonymous, but the mood seems to have passed aa you now accuse him of hiding the info away.
I have no professional relationship with RTC beyong writing a requested introduction, which I'd do for anyone if the project interested me.
@sandyboy I bought your book 20 years ago & found it delightful. In regards to the K2 expedition I'm not saying that AC was not partially to blame in the tragedy which transpired there but that it is telling that he quit climbing after this. This was an activity which he loved & identified himself with decades after yet he stopped. We also know that much of his 'bad reputation' was a cover for his espionage work. So it takes some sifting to arrive at a conclusion.
I wasn’t aware the amount of times I comment here bothered you.
I enjoy your posts and would welcome more of them. I merely pointed out that you don't have to jump in to deflect every question directed at RTC.
I don’t like breaking confidences but feel I must mention that in a private message exchange quite recently you seemed to be apologetic that you’d missed that Cole had stated his shrink was pseudonymous, but the mood seems to have passed aa you now accuse him of hiding the info away.
I think that kind of makes my point - I'd read the book several times and couldn't remember having seen the statement. By the way, if you 'don't like breaking confidences', then just don't do it. At least your approach to personal correspondence and the usual confidence that such matters are normally afforded is now a matter of public record here.
Owner and Editor
He was certainly an innovative climber. There's a book called The First Tigers by Alan Hankinson which gives him his due.
Post deleted by Moderator. See the Guidelines.
@RTC It's difficult to prove conclusively that AC was 'in love with' Rose, & I will not attempt to here. I am suggesting, however, that he most definitely was, & further- that he never 'got over' her. AC felt remorse, & there is evidence of this in his writing of later years. He said that he always tipped his hat to young couples in love, & regretted how little love there was in all of his shagging. How could he experience remorse if he was never in love himself? He was. It's actually quite tragic & was a key point in my understanding of him.
@Horemakhet - I think anyone unconvinced about AC's love and affection for Rose need only read Kaczynski's 'Perdurabo'. AC was never one for flowers and chocolates (!) and, yes, there were allegations - and regretful admissions - about his mistreatment of her, but his fondness is clearly evidenced in that book.
Owner and Editor