Blog |
7/23/24
I wrote in my entry of the 16th, concerning what I took to be Mathew Franklin Whittier's anonymous tribute to his literary colleague, Mrs. Lydia Sigourney. In that tribute, he casually mentioned she had gifted him a book of poetry, and that he might "notice" (i.e., review) it at some point. But later that day, I said that I had been unable to find such a review.
Well, today I found one--not the book he had talked about reviewing, but a newer one, "Letters to My Pupils." I would say this review is definitely Mathew's writing. This means several things. First of all, I was correct about identifying the tribute as Mathew's work. Secondly, Mathew and Mrs. Sigourney were personal friends. Thirdly, Mathew was, in fact, writing these anonymous reviews, at least on occasion, for the "Weekly Museum." And, by inference, for other papers he contributed to frequently. It was, simply, a way of supplementing his income. But there are some crucial reviews that I've attributed to Mathew's pen, and this makes it that much more likely that I can use them as evidence, also. I'm thinking of one in which he as much as says, by way of inference, that Charles Dickens was incapable of having written the accurate metaphysical elements of "A Christmas Carol." That came up when Dickens published one of his subsequent Christmas efforts, and Mathew reviewed it. He said Dickens had better leave those kinds of things to those who have knowledge of them, like novelist Edward Bulwer (i.e., Bulwer-Lytton). But that infers that Dickens was incompetent to have written those same kinds of elements in the "Carol"--right?
Unfortunately, it's not signed. So now we have a bit more evidence that my assignation of it to Mathew, was correct.
It's a beautiful review Mathew wrote of Mrs. Sigourney's latest, by the way. You've seen Mathew at his most satirical and aggressive--but he reserved that primarily for his plagiarists. He had no use for someone who would stoop to outright plagiarism (no less imitation or intentional influence). Nor do I. It's a deliberate white-collar crime.
I'm telling you, Charles Dickens, Edgar Allan Poe, Margaret Fuller, Elizabeth Barrett Browning, and Albert Pike (the ass) were no better than this person named "David S" who e-mailed me earlier today from the not-so-official sounding e-mail, "davidsmith6774@outlook.com."
If you don't know who these people really are, I'd suggest watching Kitboga on YouTube.
I was inclined to share that review--but right now, I'm also mindful of something else, which gives me pause. I spent the morning, as I try to do every morning, writing letters to reporters, reviewers, authors and scholars about my literary discoveries. I rarely get a response. This morning I got two. The first sent me this from their phone:
What have scholars said? Why not write about it?
Well, I answered that I was way ahead of her, and explained briefly, but I haven't heard back. Likely, I won't. Now, does it seem off-hand to you, that she assumes if the scholars don't endorse it, it's automatically bogus; and she assumes that I haven't written a word about it? (Does a 110-page paper, reflecting 15 years of intensive research, count?
Then I got another equally brief response, from someone else, as follows:
I appreciate your reaching out, but even after viewing your video I am not persuaded. Even if I was, I would not be likely to mention it in a movie review. I wish you luck in your research, but I do not require any further details.
How does that strike you? It left a very bad taste in my mouth, and as I thought about it, it seemed deeply passive-aggressive. I have no idea what video they're referring to. Maybe if I go back and re-read my query e-mail, I can figure it out...
Ah, this person had reviewed a film related to "A Christmas Carol." I had sent him a fairly long letter (composed from scratch, as all of these are), and I had linked to my press release about my discovery that Dickens had inadvertently admitted stealing "A Christmas Carol." In that press release, toward the bottom, is a link to the video on this subject I posted on my YouTube channel. So this person watched the video,* and isn't convinced.
Well, you have to go into irrational denial not to be convinced by that evidence (i.e., specifically of this particular discovery). Incidentally, I know that the counter sat at 305 before I wrote him. Let us see if it advances, in the next day or so, to 306.**
There is nothing I can do about irrational denial. People are free to indulge in it, whatever their age or IQ. And they are free to insist that they are being rational, while telling themselves that you are being irrational.
This reminds me of a Native American I met in the town of Cherokee, many years ago. I seem to recall he was selling flowers, and I don't know how I happened to get into a conversation with him. He volunteered his personal history, that he had been an alcoholic and had gotten into a near-fatal car accident. In his near-death experience, he had a glimpse of the other side. He told me: "You can't rationalize, over there."
So this fellow can deal with his abrupt rejection of obviously valid evidence, in his life review. I told him he could get back with me in 10 years, but that he'd have to get in line.
And that is why I'm not so much inclined to share Mathew Franklin Whittier's tender-hearted, enthusiastic review of Mrs. Sigourney's deeply sincere book, which Mathew recommends for young authors. I'm aware of the sheer venom in the stubborn reactions to these letters I'm sending out, from the very few that are ever-so-briefly and casually responded to, after I've spent half an hour composing an honest letter, offering to share the fruits of 15 years of intensive, rigorous research from primary sources.
It's not like only some of the people I write to are reacting like this--it's that all of them are.
Best regards,
Stephen Sakellarios, M.S.
*I have learned to take people with a grain of salt, when they claim to have "watched my video" or "read my paper." What they typically mean, is they watched the first minute of my video, or read the first two pages of my paper. I don't always watch all of a video or read all of a paper--but I've been practising strict honesty for 50 years. If I watch the first minute of a video, I say that. If I read only the first two pages of a paper, I'll either admit it, or I'll say something like "I've found your paper," or "I'm writing with regard to your paper." Typically, I won't be able to read more than a teaser without paying, or without having a university affiliation, and I'll say that. But these people will swear that they have "watched my video" or "read my paper," and they aren't convinced, by which they infer that it's bullshit--when actually, they've watched a little bit or read a little bit, assumed it's what they think it is, and announce they were right all-along.
**7/24/24--Not seeing it. Maybe his visit is included in the 305, or maybe it will take 2-3 days to register; either that, or he lied and only pretended to have "watched my video." That would explain why he's "still not convinced"--and I think it wouldn't be the first time somebody made a claim like that. There's a tendency to automatically assume that skeptics and debunkers are being honest, because one assumes they are advocates of the truth; but that isn't always the case.
