George Sanger: Pseudohistorian? Making a Circus of History

In recent times I have become almost as interested in methods to study history as I have in the actual subjects. This has led me to read Richard J. Evans’ book “In Defence of History”. So far, it is an engrossing read that details the history of history and the various competing methods that have evolved over time. I was particularly fascinated in the many attempts to define history as a science, even a social or “weak” science, which it does not happily fit. Nevertheless, the struggle to keep history as an objective study of the past and to establish “facts” is a valiant one, especially in the face of postmodern ideas that have challenged the validity of history altogether. Anyway, having only got through the first few chapters I was delighted to come across a passage that mentions a member of my historical culture, a circus man, “Lord” George Sanger.

Sanger crops up in my book “The Legend of Salt and Sauce” and a relation of his, George Sanger Coleman, in “The Sanger Story”, gave me an interesting if dramatic description of one the characters I was researching, “Lieutenant” Frank Taylor (Aka Alpine Charlie). “Lord” George and his brother “Lord” John Sanger hobnobbed with royalty and ran a circus in the later 19^th and early 20^th century. George is known for making a presentation to Queen Victoria. A disease similar to the one that almost killed the elephant Salt even bore the Sanger name when it wiped out of their herds. George was murdered in 1911, providing a dramatic ending to a dramatic life.

“In Defence of History” cites Sanger as being a notorious source for another murder, the alleged kicking to death of a gingerbread salesman by a drunken mob in 1850 at the Stalybridge Wakes. His memoirs had been read by historian, George Kitson Clark and referenced in his book on Victorian England. The report was then repeated as an historical “fact”. According to Richard J. Evans no contemporary reports support this story. There are detailed newspaper reports of the fair, which included archery, morris dancing and a description of an ascent in a balloon. In fact, very little drunkeness was reported at all. We cannot just dismiss Sanger's report, but its validity should be held in question. I spoke quite extensively in “The Legend of Salt and Sauce” about the way fanciful tales were woven around various events in circus history. This helped contribute to my fascination in the way fiction becomes “fact” if a certain story is not checked, but repeated without question and then passed on.

Can History be Objective? A Conversation with Heather Vallance

“...conspiracy theorists are the ignorant and bored amusing themselves in areas they are least qualified to speak” – Dr Heather Vallance

We all need our teachers. I have always felt a great desire to honour and remember all of mine. I dedicated my first book “The Legend of Salt and Sauce” to my first teacher, the person who helped set me on the path of telling, reading and listening to stories. Years later I got bitten by the history bug, and became equally interested in investigating so-called “true” stories. During my time writing and researching “Salt and Sauce”, which is an historical investigation, I was put into contact with a brilliant historian from Canada who specialized in researching hard to find data and, in particular, primary source material. Dr Heather Vallance is a writer whose work is inspirational in the way it tries to quite literally bring history to life. In addition to recording and fighting to preserve historical data with a relentless passion, she is not frightened to use different mediums to convey her ideas. This has ranged from homemade documentaries to an actual historical novel, “The Tumbleweed Wars”. It is this combination of fact-sticking self-discipline and relentless imaginative energy that inspires me to regularly consult Heather, as a teacher, regarding most writing matters and particularly those concerning historical research.

In recent years I have taken the approach of the sceptic, after the fashion of the scientific sceptical community. It was a long “soul” searching decision that gradually progressed from a desire to establish facts and to filter out irrationality. It is now a philosophical approach that affects all parts of my life from my approach to teaching martial arts to the way I approach history. My book, “The Legend of Salt and Sauce” was all about filtering out myths and distortions of facts to establish the closest account of the truth I could find. However, I have noticed that the scientific community takes the lion’s share of sceptical analysis and debunking. They certainly have a lot to fight, but so do historians and, like science, history is also a discipline that is concerned with establishing hard facts. Just as there is pseudoscience baffling the ignorant, naïve and ill-informed there is pseudo-history fuelling paranoia and distorting our understanding of past events. It was this subject I broached with Heather and I learned a lot.
For me, the worst example of the pseudo-historian is a group of people we have ended up describing as the “conspiracy theorists”. Conspiracies, of course, do exist and have existed, but they rarely operate in the manner described by those who believe that the moon landings were faked, Princess Diana was assassinated, the Freemasons were behind the Jack the Ripper murders, the US government engineered the 9/11 tragedy or that anyone other than Lee Harvey Oswald killed JFK. People lie and secrets are kept, but there has yet to be a truly plausible account given of how a conspiracy orchestrated any of these events, and often it is the approach taken by conspiracy theorists that goes against rational and sober historical investigation. They operate on confirmation biases, counting anything that supports their theory and disregarding anything that opposes it, often the point of nitpicking small inconsistencies that always turn up in anecdotal evidence. At best such approaches bring history into disrepute at worst they fuel paranoia, unfairly hurt the relatives and descendents of those involved in the period of history being reported and draw attention away from thorough historical research. The conspiracy theorist is to historians what the lowest of the sensationalist gutter press is to responsible journalism.

So I took my attitude towards pseudo-history to Heather. She had just completed writing the third of her trilogy of books on Anglo-American history between the two Boer Wars, “Golden Nemesis”. No stranger to “misinformation and disinformation” in history, Heather had done a lot of debunking with the life of US solider John Young Filmore Blake in her first book of the trilogy “An Unconventional Soldier”. Her email responses to me, as always, were frank and informative for which I am very grateful:

“There is no such thing as objectivity or truth but there is a space in all research where we can try to see things as they are and not as we want them to be. Strangely, skepticism can get in the way of reaching that space as much as the inability to face what lies there.
“What is essential in seeking lived experience is that we build checks and balances on ourselves and our own responses rather than do what is believed to be the correct thing and that is place checks and balances on external things. By monitoring ourselves scientifically we automatically apply principles of internal integrity onto our subject of study.

“History as a discipline alone is too steeped in 'tradition' and mainstream to explore lived experience using just its principles. That is why I encourage people to go into parallel philosophies such as phenomenology for inspiration”.

On the subject of conspiracy theories, Heather described to me the difference between a conspiracy, and the methods used by conspiracy theorists, and something she calls “networks of intention”, which have solid historical validity:

“If you can plot the interaction between people it is not a conspiracy. If researchers think in conspiracies they can never unearth the truth about things. It becomes an intellectual game rather than a plotted lived experience. This type of thinking is as much a fantasy as is the rigidly adhered to traditional history.

“There are reports and congressional documents which show that Cecil Rhodes was in talks with John Hay and other Americans about bringing down German commercial power by 1920. That is not a conspiracy that is business advantage. If you do not plan and project in business you fail.

“Now, if the conspiracy theorists get going then the truth of that experience is lost in silliness. I often say that conspiracy theorists are the ignorant and bored amusing themselves in areas they are least qualified to speak. Unfortunately, conspiracy theory has become a fad and is 'taught' in history classes. Which perhaps just goes to prove my point.

“Anyhow, conspiracy theory is a game not an actual research method and its proponents either have to go around in circles or grow out of it and become thinking analysts. And, as we both know, some people just don't grow up.

“I don't cater for that type of individual as a writer, researcher, and historian. From seeing your work and how you process you findings I doubt that you do and will. The aim in primary source research is to build patterns of interaction over time and across space and let them speak for themselves. Questioning and curious minds who can accept that life is not what we try to pretend it is will always be drawn to you and your work.

“From my part, and this is not related to your own comment at all, I am maddened by individuals who refuse to accept that networks of intention do exist and have existed and treat these as 'conspiracy' thereby undermining our understanding of human interaction over time.

“The case in point is in [Golden] Nemesis which is a chaos of interwoven relationships of self-interest that eventually explode and shatter lives and countries.

“The story which is chronologically logged step by step is a chess board of greed, power, and money enveloping not just the so-called terrorist organizations and idealists but respected historical figures such as Rhodes and Barnato. They used systems of aggression to underpin their own aims and ambitions. There is nothing conspiratorial about this. The same thing goes on today. Sometimes, you have to live the chaos to identify it, and often those who sit around debating conspiracy theory come from very closed and protected homes and societies where everything can appear cut and dry.

“Hence the power of perception in writing history and my statement about objectifying our own responses rather than the data”.

This returned us to our discussion regarding objectivity and the area of confirmation biases, which brought up a very interesting discussion regarding personal preferences, fact-finding and the right attitude a historian needs to take:

“I think researchers in any sphere of interest who say that they do not hope for a set of results when they begin their projects are liars. We all engage in projects because we have specific beliefs, hopes, and hypotheses. The test is to separate the impetus for a study from the data as it reveals itself during the study.

“For example, I do believe that John Young Filmore Blake was an honorable man and an idealist who adhered to a set of morals which made him different from many others in his day. There is a substantial body of data to support this belief and to challenge the characteristics assigned to him by those who did not wish him well either during or after his life time. I also know from the data that he was a man who saw no problem with using physical violence against his perceived enemies - as long as there were no civilian casualties, a self-delusion suffered by many activists because there are always civilian casualties in guerrilla warfare.

“I am also a pacifist who believes that war is never an answer to anything if we as a species wish to remain civilized and/or to continue reaching our potential as a species. I had to temporarily overcome my aversion to war and violence in order to research and record a narrative largely about acts of violence and amoral behaviour which eventually implode on the perpetrators and bystanders alike.

“If as a researcher you want to reach into a muddle of lived experience through primary sources or any other means then you have to learn how to disassociate yourself and your personal beliefs from those of the actors of the time and their narrative. But you also have to saturate yourself in their world to understand something of what they saw and experienced.

“I cannot pass judgment on men like Blake because I have never experienced the horror of their lives and the lives of their families, nor should I become so empathetic that I endorse actions that do not adhere to the Geneva Convention. For instance, a group of fighters who joined Blake in Africa during the Anglo Boer War did so wearing the Red Cross, an inexcusable misuse of a neutral symbol. However, had they not done so they would not have reached the battle lines. There is no way an historian can weigh the two sides of the coin morally, but practically, as a method of attainment of a goal at the time these men lived and planned their engagement in the war, there can be no judgment passed on the plan they used to attain that goal.

“Cecil John Rhodes, equally, has been portrayed as a higher being or at worst a flawed god, even by historians I admire. In truth, he was an amoral megalomaniac who cast aside lives as Nancy Hammond said, like trees shed leaves. I respect Rhodes in many ways, but I think that we also need to understand that the underlying narrative of men like Rhodes is that even treason has a place in the world, and all things are expendable. Rhodes became the role model for many front runners of the early 20th century, and that to me is scary.

“We talk about blood diamonds today without any association of the meaning to our own present and past.

“I know I am about to bring down the wrath of the gods for this, - but the Rhodes scholarship funds are comprised of the interest garnered off the sale of blood diamonds in the past. That blood did not belong exclusively to traditional African men and women. The original 'mineral' blood was shed by Irish, American, Native American, South American, European, and even English men, women and children. In essence, what this means is that many students have gained knowledge off the backs and blood of men and women who are their own ancestors.
“Heather the person sees this as a form of unconscious cannibalism. Heather the historian sees it as a fact to be recorded, as a facet of what made the Anglo American 20th century at once both good and bad, strong and weak. Admirable and frightening”.

Her closing remarks in connection with her latest work, “Golden Nemesis”, are a reflection of the type of historian I aspire to be. Like “The Legend of Salt and Sauce” Heather’s book is not intended to be an absolute, but rather a platform for future historical researchers. I am happy to be in contact with more and more people who are secure enough in themselves and passionate enough in the interests of furthering history that they can accept their work is never a closed book:

“What I am trying to do with Nemesis is not formulate a definitive narrative but show through a progression of interaction composed of the relics of the lived experience that we have limited the story to what we want to remember instead of exploring all its angles and themes. It is my hope that others can add to the narrative or tweak bits that are not up to speed, using additional primary sources which I do not have access to. I think of it in terms of a 3D panorama which grows as each new, individual and independent photo is added”.

Links: http://heathervallance.blogspot.com http://penandspindle.blogspot.com

No Absolutes!

When I first made the decision that my story, "The Legend of Salt and Sauce", was going to be a book I thought it would be finished by 2002. Sure enough, by this time we had enough information to produce the life story of these two famous elephants. We knew where they started off, the names of all their owners, how one of them died and, so we thought, how the other died. We also had some good photos. However, as I sent off my proposals to various publishers we started to uncover yet more information. The story changed - not only the content, but my writing style too. As time went on I started hearing words of advice like "you must have a cut off point" - mind you, this was coming from someone who had surpassed Dr. Johnson's ten years in writing his book and five years on he still hasn't had it published! I began to realize that writing an historical book despite having its strict parameters was a completely organic process and one where it was not easy to estimate when its "life" would end.

As time went on I met some terrific writing coaches who helped me develop my writing style. As in the writing of any book, a huge amount of time was put into refining my writing style and then into editing. Please read my friend Geoff Thompson's philosophical article on this particular area, "There is No Such Thing as a Locked Script" http://www.geoffthompson.com/detailArticles.asp?id=86 My book changed from its initial conception, as a type of "Pulp Non-Fiction" (this style is retained in the book's prologue), to being a first person narrative of my father and my investigation into the story of Salt and Sauce (this is retained in the book's footnotes, introduction and afterward), and then finally into the book that it is today - a straightforward fact-based biography. The people who enabled me to take this route were Jonathan Burt, a social historian and author, Laura Longrigg, a literary agent who noticed that I had become infected by the Victorian writing style of the material I had been researching, and Ian Lewis, a retired teacher who did a tremendous amount of kind work for me.

Now, this is just the writing side of things. The trouble with history is that the content is also very temperamental. New evidence crops up all the time. And it was this side of things that became a constant source of jubilation and frustration. By October 2007 I was happy that I had researched all that needed to be researched. I had covered every important area of the elephants' lives that needed to be covered and I had all my sources noted and verified as far as practicable. The story was completely finished. I was happy with how it read. Now my father and I were completing the final tasks. We were listing all the photographs, putting a timeline together for the elephants lives and writing the introduction and afterward. We had a deadline and we were assembling everything to be sent off on time. The book was scheduled to be published by March with the first proofs through by January. Then, the emails came in. Emails from family connected to people who had owned the elephants. These people had more information that filled in gaps, presented new interesting and related anecdotes, and even new photographs. They had to go into the book.I worked hard to include the new material and photographs and still felt that I would make the deadline. As it turned out my publisher moved the deadline back, so I need not had worried at that time. After doing all this I began work on this blog with the very kind help and coaching of historian/author, Heather Vallance of http://www.penandspindle.blogspot.com/ I also started promoting elsewhere to garner local support. The next thing I knew Robin Stott a local historian was in contact with me regarding Sam Lockhart, the elephant training brother of George Lockhart, one time owner of Salt and Sauce. He gave me more information for my appendix on Sam, which I hurriedly included and begged my publisher to include. It made it to him on the eleventh hour. I sent Robin my completed appendix, but there was yet more information he had and a few errors in the appendix. This time my publisher could not allow it and this will be reserved for the second edition of the book.In my introduction to "The Legend of Salt and Sauce" I wrote that my book was not intended to be the "final word" on the lives of Salt and Sauce. Now I realize the weight of that statement. Over the past two years I have become more sceptical in my nature, which has been quite a liberating process. I have come to understand something that I have pondered for most of my life: there are rarely any absolutes in anything. It is a bitter pill for many people to swallow, but when you are in the field of history or science it is essential that you understand that research goes on and that even so-called facts are temporary conclusions. We need to embrace the idea that our work will attract constructive critics who will add to our research and present new information.

I carry this same concept over to my martial arts/self-defence classes. By not listing any techniques in my grading syllabus we have created an atmosphere of constant questioning, researching, testing and individualistic development. Nature seems to tell us that everything changes and develops or it dies. The same goes with history and science, however, this changing should only happen through objective research and the presence empirical evidence. Therefore it is fine to say "that's just a theory", but the theory with the most evidence temporally prevails.

The human desire for knowledge, however, is all too often checked by the human desire for assurance. This is why it is very easy for scientists, historians, religious people, politicians, philosophers and academics of all descriptions to rest on their laurels or become immovable in the face contradictory evidence. The same passion that drives assurance appears to be similar to the passion that drives belief in the improbable. Conspiracy theorists, alternative historians, pseudoscientists and their ilk are all driven by the need of wanting something to be true. We can all empathise with this feeling, so we should perhaps be a little wary of being too scornful of such "believers". I doubt there are many people who hear about the latest reports from Mars and don't get excited about the idea of there perhaps being "signs of life" - anything, please, a fossil of an amoeba will do.

However, being sceptical and accepting the concept of change is exciting too. In fact, it is through this questioning and progressing procedure that exciting prospects and new levels of awareness are initiated. An old maxim of mine was "love the flower but respect the root" and now I see that perhaps I might become a root. I remember getting quite frustrated with a lot of my original sources - books like George Lockhart Jnr's "Grey Titan" - and say "this bloody thing led me completely down the wrong road altogether". However, looking back it did present me with some fairly sturdy facts that actually gave some structure and helped fill the first third of the book - which doesn't even cover a decade - with vivid first hand accounts that were rarely equalled. There may come a day when an historian, who is interested in the areas of my research, picks up a copy of "The Legend of Salt and Sauce" and says "look how far we've come on from this". Putting my ego to one side that is a day the true historian in me wants to happen.

Myths, Faction and Pulp Nonfiction

If you are an avid reader with a loose discrimination over what you read you will understand that there is something excitingly decadent about visiting “The Works” discount book store. Don’t get me wrong I love second hand bookshops too, but they seem to have a different level of dignity that rises above the brand new miscellanea of cut-price paperbacks. Recently I browsed in a “The Works” shop and caught a glimpse of a series of books I hadn’t properly flicked through for years: The “World’s Greatest” series for Chancellor Press. These sensationalist factual books are the embodiment of what the great historian Robert Lacey called “Pulp Non-Fiction”.

Each book centres on a sensational subject from paranormal case studies to criminal biographies to the most celebrated stories of physical abnormalities, often bearing the title “The World’s Greatest-“or “The World’s Most-” prefixing the subject matter. Each chapter is a short self-contained account of a particular type of event or a particular person’s biography. There are no endnotes or bibliographies like you would find in most historical books, hell, they don’t even credit the actual book’s author in most of them (although you can find the names through simple internet searches). However, it is the content that says it all. These are the sensational stories that astound us, titillate us, intrigue us and terrify us in the manner of a Victorian penny dreadful, but have one supposed advantage over even the most engaging of literary works: they tell the truth. Or so you would think.

Pulp Non-Fiction is really a tabloid newspaper in book form. It sensationalizes true facts, mixes in rumour and produces light reading material for the mass market. Robert Lacey sees the beginning of the mass market of Pulp Non-Fiction coming from the 1950s publication of books on the mafia. These books mixed documented facts with a prose style that resembled a novel. The books Lacey refers to contained descriptions of what the authors imagined the gangsters had thought or even said, relayed like facts. Such aspects went unchallenged and became “anecdotal evidence” when later True Crime historians cited them for their books and thus certain myths were born. The old maxim “if a myth is repeated often enough it becomes the truth” was never more aptly applied than with Pulp Non-Fiction.

Pulp Non-Fiction, for all its myth-making and sometimes dubious pseudoscientific slant is essentially an account about true events, however, amid anthologies like “The World’s Greatest” series we find that there is the odd account, which is actually a complete fabrication. Take, for example, the story of the notorious Alexander “Sawney” Bean. “The World’s Most Evil Men” gives a single page account of this man monster and his grisly incestuously-bred family of sixteenth century cannibals who terrorized South Ayrshire. The tale has no historical basis whatsoever. In fact, despite it cropping up in many a Pulp Non-Fiction compilation of True Crime, there is virtually no mention of Sawney or his gruesome family before the publication of 18th century periodical “The Newgate Calendar”. The collections of these periodicals read like an early edition of “The World’s Greatest” series and, it could be argued are the Georgian prototype of Pulp Non-Fiction.

As I have discussed, the danger with Pulp Non-Fiction is that a lot of its dubious areas are repeated in future accounts and therefore become accepted as facts. The case of Sawney Bean is a perfect example. On the odd occasion I have even read historians actually referencing the case to show parallels with their subject matter despite the story’s undisputed debunking by Ronald Holmes in his “The Legend of Sawney Bean”. The story lives on and it appears as a self-contained appendix in another type of historical book that takes the style of Pulp Non-Fiction into the realm of complete pseudohistory.

This is the subgenre known as Faction. Truman Capote’s “In Cold Blood” has been considered to be an instigator in this type of popular Non-Fiction, although I see it as coming more under the Pulp Non-Fiction heading, as it essentially deals in primary source facts yet written in the style of a novel. Faction differs from Pulp Non-Fiction in that its core is not true despite being surrounded by historical facts and historical figures. There are two types of Faction: intentional and unintentional.

Intentional factional books knowingly mesh well researched historical facts with clever fiction – this form has its roots in plays and ballads of antiquity. The 12th century clergyman, Geoffrey of Monmouth, is cited as a good example of a Faction writer. One that was so good that his writings, a la Pulp Non-Fiction, were taken by the historian Raphael Holinshed to be the literal truth. There is obvious danger in this, but the intentions of the author – who is essentially an historical novelist – should not be called into question.

Unintentional Faction is an historical book that tries to earnestly prove the validity of a mythical story. The author, in this case, actually believes in what he is writing despite the evidence against his claim. It can be quite contentious as to what we call unintentional Faction, as the authors often hold onto their beliefs with a lot of passion, a passion that is then reinforced by their converted readers. However, passion alone is not enough to get the historical majority to accept your conclusions.

The Myth element, when isolated, is what surrounds a lot of Pulp Non-Fiction, adding to it and distorting the overall picture. The Myth element in Faction, whether intentional or unintentional, runs straight through it and decides the actual plot. As previously mentioned, there are completely mythical characters that have somehow found their way into both Pulp Non-Fiction and Faction. Sawney Bean and Sweeney Todd are good examples of this. Bean cropped up in Pulp Non-Fiction because he is often found in anthologies that contain accounts of real people, but essentially, like Todd, he is more suited for the Faction category. However, because of the lack of actual real events or any form of actual evidence weaved around the various accounts of Bean it would appear that he is far closer to being a pure Myth than actual Faction.

Myths, of course, are believed by many people and that is why they have their own class away from straight fiction unless someone decides to develop the myth into an historical novel (a genre that has a passing resemblance to some Faction). We may talk of the “mythology of super heroes” or fictional adventurers, but I don’t see a tidy historical comparison between a fictional character like Marvel Comics’ Spider-Man and Ancient Greece’s divine hero, Heracles. The reason being that we know who created the former and there are no allusions of his actual existence whereas the latter was a religiously and historically venerated figure.

The urban myth or legend is the modern evolution of what used to be referred to as “Old Wives Tales”. They thrive so long as people want to believe despite the growing army of scientific and historical sceptics producing volumes of well researched and proven material through every conceivable media.

In the world of martial arts, where I spend a lot of time teaching and training, there is a terrible mess of misinformation and misdirection thanks to a combination of propaganda, mysticism, religion, business policy and the “cult of personality” that has built up around the various fighting disciplines. The pseudohistory, such as the myth that all martial arts stemmed from yogic exercises introduced to the Chinese Shaolin temple, is taken as fact and then influences modern development and research. Following the premise “it all comes from Buddhism” or “it all comes from Yoga” it is easy for the modern practitioner to believe that this is at the core of what they are doing rather than the clear objective of developing a “combative craft” (one literal translation of martial art). The trouble with Myths, Faction and Pulp Non-Fiction is that it only takes a relatively intelligent, passionate and influential person to invest in a false idea for it to become a part of volumes of fundamentally erroneous work. In its most extreme cases it can contribute to the creation of dangerous ideologies. The Myth and the ideology will attract followers and very soon we have passionate supporters following and adding to what is essentially a wrong map.

When I embarked on my historical investigation into the lives of two famous circus elephants that became my book, “The Legend of Salt and Sauce”, I was responding to an inaccurate account given in a magazine. Every step of the way my father, an avid circus and zoo historian, and I found variations on the elephants’ story. The whole story had become modern folklore in the way it had been passed by word of mouth around the circus community both during the elephants’ lives and afterwards. Early in my research I went straight to the most well known primary sources on the topic: a book, a radio broadcast and a newspaper article written by George Claude Lockhart, the son of the elephants’ most famous trainer, George William Lockhart. G.C. Lockhart was the first man to wear the “pink” coat and tails that is now so closely associated with his profession. Being a hugely successful public speaking entertainer he also could spin a good yarn, and it was this personality trait that would also inevitably help lead me completely on the wrong track.

G.C. Lockhart’s book and his other works were essentially Pulp Non-Fiction. He embellished the past, removed certain important details, like the fact the elephants had been trained before G.W. Lockhart took ownership of them, and added in new ones, such as the unsupported reports of the elephants’ destructive stampedes around the UK. As our research progressed we found further myths regarding the elephants told by other people and some built on the original myths told by G.C. Lockhart. In the end we endeavoured to objectively research every important apparent “truism” on the Salt and Sauce story. On the plus side the whole experience taught me to be a better historian and a better researcher. It was certainly a contributory factor that pushed me towards the approach of reasoned historical scepticism.

Having said all this, I cannot completely deliver the killing blow to Myths, Faction and Pulp Non-Fiction in terms of research. I would certainly advise that a researcher applies a great deal of discretion when he uses the obvious sensationalist accounts of historical figures and events, but let us not forget that these imaginative and colourful stories are often what draws us into doing research on a subject in the first place. In fact, in an interview with Radio 4, historic author Philappa Gregory, of “The Other Boleyn Girl” fame, remarked how her historical novels are often starting points for future researchers.

On a personal note I would have never read such thoroughly well researched and lengthy books on true crime as Robert Lacey’s “Little Man” or John Dickie’s “Cosa Nostra” if I hadn’t first read about organized crime in a “World’s Greatest” anthology. For that matter I wouldn’t have picked up on that if I wasn’t reading about the adventures of those now forgotten “fowl fiends”, “Budgie Malone and Owl Capone” in a British comic-book when I was ten years old. Such affectionate memories will always ensure that my nose will never be moved to jerk upwards from a discount book store.

If you enjoyed this article please vote for it on Dooyoo