Lizzie Borden Society Forum

Hi everyone! I'm the culprit who wrote the new book on Lizzie. I fear reading any comments from all you Lizzie experts out there, so if anyone reads the book, please be kind! A writer's ego is very fragile. I realize that it's not breaking any new ground. After all, what can you do in 70 some pages. The publisher just wanted me to tell a story so it's aimed at the general reader, not necessary the Lizzie expert. I am working on another Lizzie book -- a more scholarly and analytical study which I hope will please even the most critical Lizzie expert. Remember, please be kind and I love you all!

Madam, you have, no doubt, read my opinion elsewhere. My advice would be to toughen up a little, and do a lot more research and less imagining. Your book, as it is (and I have it here beside me) is not a good addition to the canon, and no claim that you were just writing it as an introduction to the case can explain its shortcomings.

Hi,
I just started reading your book and I am loving it so far. I am no expert though and brand new to the board. I should finish it this weekend.

Bobbie

Dear Bobbie,

Thank you very much for your kind words. They are very appreciated!

More info-what is the title and where can I get a copy to read for myself?

kash

Kash,

I got my copy at Amazon.com

Lizzie Borden (New England Remembers) (New England Remembers) by Karen E. Chaney and Robert J. Allison (Paperback - Jun 2006

Speaking of Amazon, here's a handy link to the review page. You pays your money, and you takes your chances.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/188983 ... 46?ie=UTF8

Bob and all,

Perhaps the best thing to do would be this:

since we have the opportunity to talk to Karen and discuss her work, we should do so in a casual and relaxed manner. If you feel that her book has inaccuracies in it, then let's have a civil discussion with her about it.

She is here to discuss Lizzie Borden with her peers and if she has done something that wasn't accurate, then we can correct her. And the next time she works on a book, there won't be inaccuracies.

I'm sure that Karen would love to learn from us and perhaps to share with us her own knowledge based on the research she is doing now.

As a community, we can have some influence on the validity of her next work. you never know, even if you feel that her last work wasn't an important contribution to the canon, or that it is not a good introduction, then perhaps we can contribute to making her next book a very valuable contribution.

For myself, I am working on a piece of fiction about Lizzie and I do bounce a lot of questions off of this Forum to try to get important information in an accurate way from informed people. For that, I thank each and every person on this forum that has helped me over the past six months. And I'd like to help Karen in a similar way.

That is what she is here for. Correct me if I'm wrong Karen.

Dear Richard,

Thank you very much for your sentiments. I couldn't agree more. After having read Bob's criticisms, I felt very much like Lizzie probably felt at this time in 1892. Remember, tomorrow is the anniversary of her arrest. I joined the forum to engage in civil discussions about one of our favorite topics and to learn from those who have considerably more knowledge at this point than I do. Therefore, I expected and hoped for constructive not harsh or even mean spirited critism. Remember also that we write the book the publisher asks us to write, not necessarily the one we want to write. I'm sure with your help, my next book will please even the harshest critic. I will come the forum over the next few months with plenty of questions and I eagerly await your response.

Richard, that was well-put and very generous. I certainly don't think we're a clearing house where people must come to proof their work - BUT, in this case, maybe Ms. Chaney could've availed herself of our attention (or someone's!) before turning in such a slip-shod effort to the publishers. It's no secret that fact-checking in publishing has dwindled - the theatre books I review at Talkin' Broadway are usually not error-free. As well, in preparing my reviews for that site, or for Scarlet Street magazine, I pass my work around to several trusted friends, some of whom comment on the writing, and a few specialists who look over the text for factual mistakes or mistatements.

Ms. Chaney has taken a very complex case and simplified it for the first-time reader by eliminating some inconvenient information, most of which forms the very core of the mystery! Most of us here know that it's not agreed upon what Lizzie wore that morning, or whether Abby received a note, so by opening with a tidy little account of that morning which chooses one version (mostly Lizzie's) of the story and sets it as the truth, Ms. Chaney is, therefore, misleading her audience. In my Amazon review you'll see how I hold Rick Geary's graphic novel up as a model of how to tell a confusing story like the Borden murders clearly and compellingly, without committing to any one version of the events in dispute.

If reading this book is going to bring more new Bordenians to the site, terrific. Unfortunately, we'll have to take time to let them know that the Borden case is not some neatly defined timeline, as depicted in Ms. Chaney's book.

I think it's a little disingenous of Ms. Chaney to come here to join us in discussion with such a "poor little wronged me" attitude. I also don't believe her publisher insisted that she oversimplify and invent to the extent she has.

Richard,

I did not join the forum to become Bob Gutowski's favorite target. His criticism is extremely unfair and not at all constructive. I fully realize and appreciate the complexity of the case. That's why I'm working on another book to address these issues. Perhaps my earlier assessment of the forum as a place for civil discussion is incorrect and I should rethink continued dialogue.

Thank you.

Karen

murder1 @ Thu Aug 10, 2006 4:08 pm wrote:...
I did not join the forum to become Bob Gutowski's favorite target. His criticism is extremely unfair and not at all constructive. I fully realize and appreciate the complexity of the case. That's why I'm working on another book to address these issues. Perhaps my earlier assessment of the forum as a place for civil discussion is incorrect and I should rethink continued dialogue.
...

Alas, you need a thick skin when dealing with certain people here. It can educate you. In some countries you are questioned when defending your thesis. Be glad this is a tiny group of mostly self-appointed experts. (No Ph.D. in Bordeniana?) So learn, laugh, and remember its only other people's opinions.

No, I haven't read the book unless my County Library gets it. There are two other books written as introductions to this case, not counting Rick Geary's picture book.

The bottom line is that Lizzie was correctly found Not Guilty.
Emma and Uncle John have alibis, Bridget was not a suspect.
Some people here insist on thinking they know more, as if to fill a "psychological void" (as per Louis Solomon).
You can see this gossip mentality in other cases, like the Ramsey murder.

Thanks everyone. I have no idea what I did to incite Bob's vitriolic response to my short little book that does nothing more than tell a story. I knew when I accepted the challenge that some people would not like it, but I never thought I would incite such rath. I hate to tell you Bob, but some people have enjoyed the book and have accepted it for what the publisher meant it to be.

Thanks everyone. I have no idea what I did to incite Bob's vitriolic response to my short little book that does nothing more than tell a story. I knew when I accepted the challenge that some people would not like it, but I never thought I would incite such rath. I hate to tell you Bob, but some people have enjoyed the book and have accepted it for what the publisher meant it to be.

Ms. Chaney,

While I have not purchased your book, I have read the reviews both here on the forum (other threads included) and on Amazon.

This forum and the LABVML website probably has THE most accurate/factual information about this case. The Rebello book is the other most factual respresentation of the facts. I don't know if you have had a chance to look over the website info, or Mr. Rebello's book, but they may be of great help when it comes to your next book.

I would imagine a book on this subject would be difficult to write since there is so much we don't know...not as factual anyway. Mr. Gutowski is a professional in what he does.

You have nearly limitless resources in researching Lizzie when it comes to this forum/website. I am not an expert by any means, but I can gaurantee that if someone on this forum doesn't know the answer to your questions, they can either point you to someone/a resource who does, or else there is probably no definite answer.

Stck around, you will learn a lot. We all do.

http://www.lizzieandrewborden.com/






TRacy...

Yes Ms. Chaney: Though I have your book, I have yet to read it. It's somewhere in the middle of the pile of new acquisitions. Sure to get to it soon.

I do love your cover, nicely done, posh for a paperback and thumbing through it I find a generous sum of illustrantions and photos.

I don't want to sound to snooty, but this site is very exceptional when it comes to striving to find all things Factual on Lizzie. It is more than just "talk" but a virtual real time encyclopedia. To underestimate it would be an error, but I am sure you know that.

Don't be surprise if you find that those who are the most critical about your work may end up to be the most helpful.

Though, I am sure that Bob's critizism is not about you or your writing ability. Thumbing here and there and reading a little, it appears very well written and captivating. I am sure that once started it is probably difficult to place down. At least that is what I found in the little I read.

But some of us hard core Bordenians can see through a rushed narrative. And I am sure that even you will admit that that was what the publisher expected of you.

I spoke to some who have read your book, and though they say that you are a very prolific writer, it appeared to them that it was rushed due to some of the inaccuracies discovered, along with what they precieved as embellishments or incorrect or personal preceptions reflected as truth.

From what little I know it would be imprudent to arrive at a position; good or bad. Until I read it I will keep an open mind and hope what little information I have given is of some help.

Though at times you may find some foolishness on this forum it would be wrong to evaluate it's credibility by those. Please, by all means stay with us. I am sure you will walk away wiser.

And one more thing; Mr. Leonard Rebello's book LIZZIE PAST AND PRESENT is by far the best reference publication on the subject. In writing a book, researching for a paper there is no better tool you can use.

Well Karen you have thrown your hat into the ring. I beseech all forum members to "Give the Gal a chance" Let us have a constructive talk about what we think is wrong and give Karen a chance to respond. I'm sure we can teach her a thing or two and be pleasantly surprise by what she can teach us.

Welcome Karen. Can you give us some insight into your approach, the research you did, or perhaps what you have in store for Lizzie in the future?

Oh, boo-hoo. Ms. Chaney, you're being disingenuous again. It is a lovely photo on the cover, but, as we know, it was taken in 1893 and not, as the book claims, "...in 1892, the year before the murders..." So, you've gotten the date of the photo wrong, and you've apparently moved the murders to 1893. And I still have no idea what a "Bengalese" silk blouse is.

If you're sensing vitriol, you're right. You've done the equivalent of taking a poop on something I hold dear and have spent 35 years researching. I don't yet see you taking any responsibility for the specific errors I mention in my Amazon review, so your supposed desire for "constructive criticism" is actually pretty funny.

In short, you wrote a sloppy little book, my dear woman. Better luck next time. I'm off this thread.

Bob, please. We do understand your complaints about the book, but there is no need for a personal attack.

We have all experienced inaccuracies (some of them vast and inexcusable) in many books. Karen has already expressed her concern and her willingness to take part in our community and to learn and to share with us what she can.

Bob Gutowski @ Fri Aug 11, 2006 12:56 pm wrote:Oh, boo-hoo. Ms. Chaney, you're being disingenuous again. It is a lovely photo on the cover, but, as we know, it was taken in 1893 and not, as the book claims, "...in 1892, the year before the murders..." So, you've gotten the date of the photo wrong, and you've apparently moved the murders to 1893. And I still have no idea what a "Bengalese" silk blouse is.

If you're sensing vitriol, you're right. You've done the equivalent of taking a poop on something I hold dear and have spent 35 years researching. I don't yet see you taking any responsibility for the specific errors I mention in my Amazon review, so your supposed desire for "constructive criticism" is actually pretty funny.

In short, you wrote a sloppy little book, my dear woman. Better luck next time. I'm off this thread.

Good God Almighty--I'm beginning to think you're ALL wacko!

Good God Almighty--I'm beginning to think you're ALL wacko!

No, you and I are as sane as anyone on this bored can be.
(But I'm not really sure about you.)

Yes, it is an old joke; pardon me.

OK, I can understand slight errors but this should be a lesson to us all.

Hi Karen

Welcome to the forum!

I’m sure you’re sincere when you ask for constructive criticism of your work and hope you get some helpful input from here.

I think there were some of us who, given your credentials as a crime historian with a master’s degree in history, expected great things from your book and were consequently a little disappointed when it came out. (Some more sorely than others, it would seem.)

Although your bibliography shows you exposed yourself to a lot of source material, unfortunately, there appears to be little separation of wheat from chaff. Other than the Knowlton Papers and Rebello – it looks as though you relied primarily on books. Naturally, because those authors are presenting their own theory about the crime, the information they include or omit reflects their bias and they often they play around with the facts. We’ve found it’s a good idea to test any author’s statement against as many primary sources as possible -- such as inquest, preliminary hearing, trial transcripts, police witness statements, probates, land acquisition records, city directories, etc. And, although these primary documents are readily available, you don’t list them as resources.

A particular bugbear of mine is the propensity of authors to perpetuate rumors or false information by copying from previous works. And I’m wondering if this happened here, too.

For example, Edward Radin claims emphatically that Bridget said she saw Abby alive at 9:30. But where did he get this idea? Bridget consistently reiterates in her testimony that she saw Abby for the last time around 9 a.m. Yet on page 4 of your book here it is again: “At around 9:30, Abby went upstairs to make up Morse’s room.” Where does this come from? Is this Radin speaking once more through you?

Then there is the caption under the picture of Andrew J. Borden on page 5: “. . . Lizzie’s father earned a questionable reputation as a tight-fisted, abstemious businessman, who, in his early career as an undertaker, cut off the legs of tall corpses to fit them into caskets (Fall River Historical Society)”. Now that whole thing appears to be credited to the Fall River Historical Society. I may be wrong, but isn't it only the photograph that deserves the Historial Society credit here – not the caption? I’m guessing the rumor about cutting off the legs of corpses is by way of Frank Spiering’s book and not the FRHS.

On a more positive note -- I pre-ordered your book from Amazon before it came out and read it as soon as it was delivered -- and if you write another on Lizzie Borden, I will buy that too. I liked your writing style.

I enjoy reading any takes on the crime and totally recognize the difficulty in getting everything ‘right’. Some of us have spent decades studying the wealth of information out there and can’t remember half of what we’ve learned. Nor have we come close to writing a book length overview – so kudos to you for accomplishing that.

And please regard my input as a well-meant attempt at constructive criticism and take from it what you will.

Again – welcome!

When working on the submissions to the magazine The Hatchet, when I question a sentence or a wording or a concept that I think should be changed, I am required to provide an alternative or a solution. Then the Editor weighs that and makes a decision- Is my concern valid. Is my solution I propose the right one. Have I missed the point in some way. Does the Editor wish to use my suggestion or slightly modify it. Then the author can approve or reject. Then we go over it again.

This is editing. This is not even fact-checking.

I have fact-checked our submissions for 15 issues.
Since I also fact-check on this Forum, and help keep things as accurate as possible, I am a bit confused as to how an author can be a member here since February, yet not avail themselves of our unique services and input which we would have happily given to improve a work and to ensure accuracy.

It still is good to remember that an author does not intend to write a book with inaccuracies. And does not intend to perpetuate errors. An author's usual intent is to contribute. So I cannot think the author in question here did aything on purpose and cannot assume her motives were anything other than what she claims.

I think Diana's approach to the author's question is a good one.

Publishers are less and less involved in vetting or fact checking the books they publish. They tend, lately, to leave all that to the authors. They expect authors with an expertise in a subject to do their own work in this area.

It is a shame that editors are only there for formatting advice and not there to work with authors in questioning style and content. Especially since authors receive so little for doing not only the job of research and writing but of fact checking and final proofreading. I don't know if you know it or not, but authors rarely get over 12% royalties, and then that dollar amount is only on wholesale, not retail, sales.

That said, I too was dismayed to find so many assumptions and errors of fact in this slim volume. We here are available around the clock to assist people in their research and any questions are promptly answered or the person is at least directed to the proper source.

Ms. Cheney didn't ask any questions here, that I can remember. But then again, authors tend to hold their research very close to them for fear of someone stealing the idea.

One author who wrote a brief collection on women killers wrote me after her book was published and exclaimed that she wished she had seen our site before she wrote her Lizzie chapter. She openly admitted that she now saw that she had mutliple errors in her text and her honesty in this area was a welcome admission. She has remained on friendly terms because of her open nature.

I don't think Ms. Cheney should fly away from here just because Bob G. is upset with her. One must take criticism from all corners as a writer, especially when you come here and ask for it after the fact. So far I haven't read any admission of mistakes made by her, only a defense based on time restraints.

We all buy Lizzie books whether the authors "get it right" or not---just to own them all. So the author/publisher is sure to make money off of us. Sales on Lizzie books are guaranteed here. We are the audience! And we are also the critics.

One of my peeves is the last chapter. It is titled "Lizzie in Popular Culture" but is really a narrative bibliography. I was eager to read how Lizzie has invaded all of our lives through TV, comics, news, music, cheap novels, etc. I was looking for something new. I guess my complaint is that it wasn't meaty enough to have a chapter title like that. But that is only my opinion and it was the subject matter I was focusing on for my talk in Fall River.

Hello KAREN:

Yes, the HATCHET is unique in it's endeavor to get it right. Most Kudos must go to KAT for that of course. I must say, even an assembly line worker would not exchange their job for the eye twisting, mind taxing toil of proof reading and fact finding.

But, book publishing is dissimilar than magazines for the most part, in that it rests most of its fact finding onto the author's shoulders, and if incorrect, reflects very little on the publisher. Of course make enough errors and I dare say the publisher may reevaluate and reject your next book-------unless the last one was a big seller; then the publisher will overlook all errors.

I would like to make a request to KAREN to please post some explanation or defense to the Denunciations of her book that has been demonstrated here by BOB. As you saw, others are eager to hear from you, and with all respects to BoB, do not hold the same discontent. Please keep in mind KAREN, and I say this with kindness; you started this thread and must at the very least make an attempt to finish it, or at the very least give it a conclusion---even if it is just to make a statement. Come on KAREN, tell BOB what you think. You know it is the literary thing to do. Don't throw the baby out with the bath water.

Most, if not all, make no derogatory valuation of you personally or your honor or even your book. It leaves you little choice but to post, at the very least, an explanation or sorts. As it stands now it is only your book that is being scrutinize, if you leave eveyone hanging I am afraid that it will reflect on you as a writer---assumptions will be made and as the criticism grows you may be left as the author who can not stand up to her work. Please understand these are not harsh words, just necessary ones, and in reality, in your defense.

What ever you do KAREN I wish you luck with your next writing endeavour
and I am sure many here feel the same.

Ms. Chaney,

If we decide to purchase your book, is Amazon the place to make the purchase...or is the another you place you'd prefer us to use ?

I do hope you consider giving us your side of the story in how you prepared for writing this book. As mentioned by a couple of us, the use of the resources at LABVML would be helpful to anyone interested in this case...novelist or armchair detective.

We here are very protective of our girl Lizze...even those who feel she is guilty. While we all have our own ideas about what happend that day, there are some things that are just plain factual and should not be 'adjusted' or misconstrued.

As you have surely noticed, whether we agree with your work or not, we are here to help.



Tracy...

Karen, do you think it possible that your editor would be open minded to a revised edition of the book? Perhaps some of us can help you clean it up and correct some of the inaccuracies.

As Stefani pointed out, some of us are here around the clock to help in whatever way we can. We want this site to be as full a resource as possible for anyone who is researching Lizzie.

Richard,

I'm not sure about this. I'll let you know.

Thanks.

Karen

Karen
Cant wait to get the Book
I saw a few Harsh comments here about it.
Maybe all the " Experts " would be a little kinder & positive. ( tell them to write one of their own & see who picks it apart )
Its always easier to imagine climbing a Mountain, than actually doing it.
I wish you the very Best.

Matt,

Thank you very much! What a kind and thoughtful message, a definite boost to my ego! I always knew folks in North Carolina were grand people!

Greetings Karen Chaney:


Nice to see you again. I know that you were asked by your publisher to compile something on Lizzie Borden for quick publication; but, have you ever considered doing a comprehensive and broad study of the Borden case and write a more extensive work on the case?

Of course most angles one can think of, short of fiction, have been exhusted, but strangely there always seems to be room for one more. I'm sure that is demonstrated by the sale of your book, and the fact that your publisher asked you to write about Lizzie Borden. I venture to add that it may be something to consider sometime down the road.

matt kevin jones @ Mon Aug 14, 2006 3:42 pm wrote: Maybe all the " Experts " would be a little kinder & positive. ( tell them to write one of their own & see who picks it apart )
Its always easier to imagine climbing a Mountain, than actually doing it.
I wish you the very Best.

Matt, do you think that a 74 page book in print trumps three years of a 60-75 page magazine devoted to the case and its side issues? I must have published close to 800 pages of Lizzie related essays in 15 issues and each and every essay, no matter who authors it, is triple checked for accuracy. My job is to make writers look their best.

Not to mention the sheer volume of words published on this forum by the likes of Kat and Harry---two people who continue to impress me with their accuracy and insight. Between the two of them they must have 9000 posts!

I think the world is moving a bit away from the printed in your hand book as the be all and end all of publishing. Especially with the very recent examples of publishers getting caught putting out works that later come into question.

As an editor, I see lots of issues with Karen's book. But that doesn't mean that I won't buy it and read it and talk about it. And isn't that why this author has come here anyway? To have us buy the finished product? And we will!

I never intended to belittle any of the hard working people who research day & night about the Borden case. I know that checking facts by publishers, editors, Authors, e.t.c is essential.
I do know however that everyone has to start at zero.
This forum ( Which I Love ) is so quick to bash & post rather nasty comments to anyone who disagrees with one of the Seasoned members.
My point being that a little kindness & encouragement goes a long way.
I was simply trying to be kind to Karen after everyone was wanting to rip her to Shreads. I'm sure all books written on the Borden case have some mistakes in them. I've never read a post where Len Rebello was corrected, but I'm sure there has to be some mistakes in His Book
( I havent read it yet ) along with the others Lincoln, Sullivan, Radin, Brown, and on & on.
I'm sure that if Harry & Kat were to pen a book about the case, even as informative as they are about the case, there would bound to be a mistake or two ( Editors fault or Authors )
I was just mortified how Bob ( I think it was ) was so rude to Karen in His post. That why I said let the so called experts write a book about the case & see how many people would pick it apart.
I never meant to throw anyone under the Bus, like what was done to Karen.

Matt, you are generalizing again, which is what you did about the "expert" post that I replied to. "Everyone" did not want to rip Ms. Cheney to shreads. Bob G was the only person in this thread who spoke bluntly about his opinion of the book. Others, as you can see, were quite nice and conciliatory to her and the book.

Ms. Cheney was not thrown under a bus. She wrote a book that has a lot of errors in it. She was a member here while she wrote it. She never asked for help. She published it with problems. She has not acknowledged them. And yet she wants us all to buy her book.

Matt, this forum is also a place where we get to analyze writing to find its faults. That way we learn more of the case. To not do this with the newest book on the case would make this forum irrelevant.

People here are entitled to their opinions on books. Even when they loathe them. I don't think BobG is not entitled to his opinion, do you?

And please don't say "yes, but he should have been nicer when saying it." The way he posted is part of his point.

One more thing you said is problematic for me: "This forum ( Which I Love ) is so quick to bash & post rather nasty comments to anyone who disagrees with one of the Seasoned members."

I don't see the evidence of this and I am saddened you think this.

Bob Gutowski @ Fri Aug 11, 2006 10:56 am wrote:Oh, boo-hoo. Ms. Chaney, you're being disingenuous again. It is a lovely photo on the cover, but, as we know, it was taken in 1893 and not, as the book claims, "...in 1892, the year before the murders..." So, you've gotten the date of the photo wrong, and you've apparently moved the murders to 1893. And I still have no idea what a "Bengalese" silk blouse is.

If you're sensing vitriol, you're right. You've done the equivalent of taking a poop on something I hold dear and have spent 35 years researching. I don't yet see you taking any responsibility for the specific errors I mention in my Amazon review, so your supposed desire for "constructive criticism" is actually pretty funny.

In short, you wrote a sloppy little book, my dear woman. Better luck next time. I'm off this thread.

WOW!

Elizabelle, and everyone, please cease from attacking the attacker, especially when the attack is not aimed at you. This is how things go from bad to worse. This is how the rancor keeps fresh.

Karen, perhaps the best thing you can do is just go back to the criticism of the book and perhaps try to explain how each mistake came to be. Perhaps we can learn something about how certain publishers, editors and/or authors operate.

Of course all of us would like to see accurate and factually correct books on Lizzie Borden come out. no one wants to see a rush job that just propogrates untruths about the case. There are so many "MANIACS WHO KILL" type books on remainder in Barnes and Noble with all sorts of garbage about Lizzie that this community would like nothing better than to minimize the occurances of these mistakes and urban legends.

I haven't read Karen's book, but it's out there and we have a golden opportunity to interact with the author and work things out as a community. I think that's a wonderful idea...not petty nasty pot shots.

Karen, perhaps if you have a web site, you can post corrections. That way, if your editor doesn't go for the idea of a revised edition, you can at least reach out to your readers and give them updates over your web site.

I would like to append and somewhat conclude the KAREN CHANEY matter, since Karen has choosen not to.

Let us approach this topic from a direction that was probably missed.

I have not read Karen's book and find that some criticism has been made here to errors in her publication. I must believe this to be true, since I have a high regarad for our little family of Lizzie Borden pupils and their abilities to get it right; BOB formost.

To KAREN it was a job---- to us our passion. Karen has touched on the matter; we practically live it. Karen is done with Lizzie-----we are here everyday; some for years and will continue to do so. I believe that in time, perhaps after MS CHANEY finds her bearings, that we will be receiving a retort about our response to her book.

I think even Karen would concede to this reality. Her approach to the site is proof of that. There are authors that would not give us the time of day, or care what are opinions were. MS Chaney at the very least did reach out for some approval even if it was after the fact. I believe her approach to be sincere.

Writing a book or article on a subject and studing a matter for many years, is a comparison we just cannot make----the first becomes proficent, the latter an expert.

After studying a topic for 20 years from every possible angle, then have someone write a book about it and get it wrong can be somewhat offensive. I don't feel that way myself but can somewhat justify the sentiments of those that do.

To touch on another matter.

As STEFANI has metioned, true, the "software book" is slowly encroching on the "paper book", the printed record if you will. But, I believe it will never altogether take it's place. There is nothing as tangible as holding the material in your hand. In this computer you simply push a button and it is gone. To rid yourself of a book you must burn it as BRADBURY would tell you.

A computer is like a heater, but a book is a blanket. There will always be blankets. There will always be printed paper books.

But to conclude here, and may I add, to our benifit, it is the two extremes, the two approaches, that of BOB and MATT that add integrity to this site. It's the reason all Lizzie Borden students and authors should check it out first before undertaking a paper or book. I know I do.

murder1 @ Thu Aug 10, 2006 3:44 pm wrote:Thanks everyone. I have no idea what I did to incite Bob's vitriolic response to my short little book that does nothing more than tell a story. I knew when I accepted the challenge that some people would not like it, but I never thought I would incite such rath. I hate to tell you Bob, but some people have enjoyed the book and have accepted it for what the publisher meant it to be.

I might as well throw my 2 cents even though this post has passed. I suspect the the people who enjoyed the book have read little about the Borden case and don't know all the facts, so a book like this would be "a good read." However those who have studied the case know the facts and only want to see the case presented correctly. The problem is that people read books like this, then don't do further research on the case and then go out and incorrectly tell people about Lizzie then before you know we have more myths and untruths floating around.

StevenB

I suspect most people "know" that Lizze was guilty and hanged for the murders. Because of dramatic plays on TV over the years. I dimly remember a "You Are There" story from about 1956 on this, showing an elderly and lean woman brandishing an axe (a person who resembled Emma more than Lizzie!).

But it does show how certain people will not give credit to those who are "just doing their job". Aren't there other quickie publications around, aimed at juveniles?

All you have to do is look around today and see how many "know" Patsy killed JonBenet, and OJ knifed two people to death!!!