63 comments:

1. Richard Quinn, 18. September 2008, 4:49
   

   I address Mr Derby’s review mainly in his chronological order. The title was no pun: Marsden gloated in the authority his priestly robes clothed him in: ergo: ego. There were puns in chapter headings and text. Marsden repelled me; puns were a way of coping with that. I will deal with typos below. Yes, I used frequent citations and quotes. They showed that the findings I reached were not just my own unscholarly work. Citing Marsden and his contemporaries also gave the flavour of the people, times and events. I thought it the right thing to do. I still do. No ellipsis was ever used to alter context. I offer Mr Derby $100,000 if he proves otherwise – even once – and will loan him my extensive Marsdenalia library to help him. It is unfair to make such a rotten suggestion without a shred of substantiation. I resent that most bitterly. My offer is without caveat or exclusion of any kind. A cash cheque. (I can offer that because, not being a professional historian, I never felt it incumbent on me to be dishonest in my work).

   My exemplar for using ‘SM’ instead of ‘Samuel Marsden’ was Philip Temple’s Wakefield biography, ‘A Sort of Conscience’, wherein he constantly used EGW for Edward Gibbon Wakefield. If Philip Temple isn’t a good exemplar, who is? I was under severe word limits and was forced to chop over 40,000 words. Mr D criticises my exclusion of detail about Marsden’s childhood. There is none extant. How can I include what does not exist? I stated this in the text … as any alert reader of average intelligence would have noted. However, I did give some detail about life for the poor in England. Should I have imitated Marsdenite hagiographers and ‘invented’ childhood reminiscences? My preface stated very clearly the areas of Marsden’s life that I would be examining. How can I justly be criicised for stating my goal and then sticking to it? If Mr D really thinks that I included no information which brings Marsden ‘into focus as a person’, he really wasted his time reading my book; it details precisely what sort of person Marsden was: evil.

   Mr D criticises me for piling up the evidence against Marsden. That was my purpose: to show, largely using published sources, exactly what the man was; how old the news was; and how badly read Marsden had been in NZ. Forgive me for piling up the evidence to prove my case. Presumably, I should just have said it, not proved it. (As mainstream NZ historians for several generations have blathered mindlessly and adoringly on about the man).

   An opening paragraph sentence which Mr D found ‘unappetising’ was of huge significance, because it was by that action that Marsden aroused John Butler, Mission superitntendent, to set down – for the first time in NZ – a range of very serious charges against Marsden. Chiding me for punning, Mr D then wants to have it both ways, chiding me for my seriousness as well. On those terms, I can’t possibly win, can I? Sigh… (But I already knew that by the time I had reached that part of his review). Mr D rattles on about a “turnpike judge” and says he does not know what one is and that I did not say what one is. NO: because I never used the phrase. I did use the phrase “turnpike trust”. I could have wished that a self-declared ‘professional historian’ might have both critiqued what I actually wrote, and known that a turnpike was a toll road and thus a turnpike trust was the managing body of such a road. But I would have wished in vain, wouldn’t I? How can Mr D put double quotation marks around words I never used? How unfair – and how unprofessional of him, too. I didn’t stand a chance, did I? But my preface clearly said that I would be skewered by Establishment critics. Congratulations, then, Mr reviewer, on winning a one-horse derby.

   Mr D claims I wrote a “baffling disquisition on the points of difference between Australian bushrangers and American gunslingers…” adding nothing to my thesis. In fact, read by one of a more (or at all) critical turn of mind than Mr D, it is transparently easy to see that I actually talked of the kinship between Shane, the American archetype, and Shaun, his NSW counterpart. Shane fought against the vested interests of the cattle barons; Shaun against the vespered interests of Marsden and co. (Damme, sirrah: another pun!) If you wish to criticise, Mr D, do so accurately. Read it again, huh? (Or at all).

   I am accused of not rating the reliability of texts I have cited from. I cited most extensively from Professor Yarwood’s book. Which of my quotes did Mr D rate as unreliable? And how can I succeed in satisfying him? Cite and I’m damned; don’t cite and I’m double-damned. Does he not accept that I have shown that Yarwood lied blatantly and fudged many important issues? Don’t just condemn me: prove me wrong.

   As the preface says, I stumbled on Marsden by accident. I investigated him merely to be thorough. I came to loathe him heartily. He distressed me at a very deep personal level. Had Mr D or other members of that fine-sounding body, the ‘Professional Historians’ of New Zealand Association’ done their work, perhaps I would not have needed to so reluctantly take up the slack. I never wanted to, but fwelt a sense of obligation to oppose the glowing and false accounts of his career. My work, even though a failure to the exalted likes of Mr D, was an honest attempt to understand and explicate Marsden’s life. If I have not done so, it is not from lack of trying or honest work, I assure you. My work was meant to help in understanding our past. As to typos, I can only sadly agree: they riddle the book. This was outside my control But I apologise sincerely for them. The book did not come back to me after the last series of changes were made. I feel very unhappy about it – and badly let down, too.

   You reviewed not the book I wrote, Mr Derby, but the book you would have liked me to write. I worked my guts out on it for six years, hating every minute of it. I stand by my work. It is honest, comprehensive, highly detailed – and long, long overdue. Lastly, Mr Derby chides me for not rating other writers as to accuracy. Let me rate his effort above: bloody dismal, dishonest and showing a gross inability to either absorb or retain information in a text. 1 out of 10.

   I apologise for any typos herein. It is late and I am very tired.

   Please note that Anna Rogers did not edit the final version. Her work was only on the early drafts.

   Thanks.

   Richard Quinn

    
2. Richard Quinn, 19. September 2008, 13:44
   

   News release: no embargo.

   NO-BALL PRIZE LITTERATEUR DECLINES HUGE CASH PRIZE!

   Mark Derby, doyen of the Establishment literary mafia, has declined the chance to win $100,000 by proving that an author altered contexts by way of using ellipsis dots.

   Currently ensconced in an Eketehuna farm cottage as ratter-in-residence, Derby refuses to comment. He is believed to be working on his twenty-seven volume epic saga, Fred Dagg’s Gumboots: their place in the New Zealand economic decline, 1979-1984.

   Release ends.

    
3. Alison, 19. September 2008, 22:13
   

   I really enjoyed your review, Mark.

    
4. Richard Quinn, 20. September 2008, 19:21
   

   I wrote this book terminally ill with cancer. Whilst writing, I also developed progressive ischemic disease of the brain, affecting my memory. But I perservered. I chose to not mention my health in my preface; I dislike special pleading.

   How shameful though, that Mr Derby, having made some very serious and blatant ‘errors’ [sic] in his review, did not apologise or retract them when this was pointed out to him.

   Clint Eastwood say opinions are like assholes: everybody’s got one. What a pity when assholes voice their opinion, though.

    
5. Jeremy Rose, 20. September 2008, 20:04
   

   Hi Richard, Sorry to hear about your illness. But I have to say I’m a bit alarmed at the increasingly vitriolic tone of your e-mails.

   Mark Derby is one of the most generous and thoughtful people I know. His review of your book was informed, informative, and, yes, critical.

   You’ve offered Mark $100,000 if he can show that you ever used ellipses to alter context but he didn’t actually claim you had. What he said was that when ellipses appear more than a dozen times in a single paragraph, “the reader tends to wonder whether the source document has been used with integrity”.

   And I would have to agree that most readers would wonder whether it was possible to make that many cuts to a paragraph and still manage to maintain its integrity. I’m happy to take your word for it that you’ve managed it… all power to you.

   As to the phrase “Turnpike judge….”, without a copy of your book to hand, and with your acknowledgment that it is riddled with typos, I can’t be sure that Mark got that wrong. But if he did, I’m happy to apologise for the error.

   As to the rest of your complaints with the review I’ll let our readers judge them on their merits.

   Regards

   Jeremy Rose
   Scoop Review of Books Editor

    
6. Richard Quinn, 20. September 2008, 23:27
   

   Mr Rose,

   The review itself was vitriolic because it dealt in blatant misinformation; that’s not my fault. I then tried to get Mr Derby to acknowledge his errors, but he wouldn’t. (or even show where they were in the text, to prove his point). Fie!

   I called Marsden’s defenders hagiographers because they were. Has Mr D read J B Marsden’s Life & Works of Samuel Marsden, for example, a tome I cite extensively in my text? What drooling, sycophantic lying drivel it contains.

   I don’t deserve a retraction because I have cancer. i deserve one for the wilful or negligent misinformation Mr Derby gave out – and then wouldn’t either retract or try and prove his points were true, even when I offered him my extensive library to do so. That’s just shabby and unprofessional.

   Anyway, you make it clear that you are prepared to countenance any lies Mr Derby cares to make, whilst bridling at my unhappiness about that situation. Clearly, this forum does make honesty and accuracy a priority, so I clearly have to stop trying to right the record. Accuracy and fairness is not what you are about, which is an awful shame.

   I stand by my research, work and findings totally. What a shame that you chose to so stoutly defend Mr Derby rather than seek the truth of his information. Had you done so, your comments would perforce have had to be rather less forgiving of him.

   But this is New Zealand, after all, and anyone moving outside the mainstream view pays for their sins, no matter how thoroughly they have researched and portrayed their subject.

   The $1000,000 challenge is re-opened; you may give it a crack too, Mr Rose. But you can’t win, because I DON’T cheat. But give it your best shot, okay. My library is open to you, too.

   My illness is only germane in the sense that, having been wrongly and unfairly and innacurately critiicsed, I find that it distresses me greatly and saps my already grossly weakened energy levels. No more than that.

   But I guess I have to pay for my sins against the received wisdom, don’t I. Even if the green-eyed god caused much of the fuss to begin with, which is a comment several people have made to me.

   No more. You run a very sloppy outfit without the courage to act when justly reprimanded for its faults. My congratulations to Mr Derby. He said he likes a good hatchet job. He did one on me; just a pity that so much of it was off-target.

   Okay, you say I am vitriolic for defending my reputaion and accuracy: Does this please you? Mr Derby read and understood the text brilliantly. He did not once misquote me. He is right to claim that hagiographers are not hagiographers and that I did not focus Marsden as a real person. Mea culpa.

   Happy now, girls and boys?

   But Mr Derby’s review was anything but ‘informed’ as you claim.

   Now, hatchet job done, let Mr Derby maintain his cowardly silence.

    
7. Richard Quinn, 21. September 2008, 1:32
   

   Okay. I did nothing right; despite producing the most comprehensive, detailed and in-depth look at Marsden’s actions, motives and drives ever produced. I joined many previously unconnected dots together to create a coherent picture of Marsden, on both sides of the Tasman

   But I cannot get an accurate Scoop review of the book, or even a retraction for the blatant errors in the Scoop review. And then Mr Rose, Scoop books editor, races to Mr Derby’s defence without even having read my book! But then, why let silly, banal, trivial things like facts get in the way of ignorant and uninformed prejudice?

   Knowing that I was dying, I wanted to make a serious contribution to increasing the understanding of our past. But I am not allowed to even get off the starting grid by a reviewer who can’t even absorb or retain what he’s read, blatantly misquotes me, demands non-existent information and eschews the tag of hagiographer for hagiographer. Amongst other sins. And then ignores advice that he is wrong, pointers to where he is wrong, and refuses to retract!

   I really can’t win, can I, in such circumstances? It cost me $15,500 to produce and print the book. It will be withdrawn from sale Monday.

   Happy now, messrs Rose and Derby? You should be. You won’t answer valid criticisms, you don’t even know the facts, but you bag me. I neither need that nor have the energy to cope with it.

   Corporate Anglicanism and Establishment hacks will be proud of you both. You should, in fact, cringe with deserved shame.

   And for the evangelical loony-tunes that have been ringing me to anonymously abuse me, my e-mail is:
   arkew@orcon.net.nz. Have the balls to use your name, eh?

    
8. Richard Quinn, 21. September 2008, 22:27
   

   A CHALLENGE

   Using Mr Derby’s review as our only guide, he and I each make a case in support of the disputed matters in his review. The winner – I suggest $1000 prize money – to be decided by an agreed neutral judge. If I lose, I pay the prize money. If Scoop’s reviewer loses, either he or Scoop pays.

   I have a friend trying to raise $72,000 for one year’s treatment of breast cancer with Herceptin; not a Pharmac-funded course. Should I win, there is a Trust a/c at an Auckland bank for her fund-raising; my prize money to go there without me even seeing it. Scoop may take any course required to satisfy itself as to the Trust account’s purpose.

   No writer can rightly bridle at strong criticism – if it is accurate. When it is wrong, and the reviewer is adsvised of that, but does not retract or amend things both fully and immediately, something is very rotten within that outfit. It’s actionable.

   Should I win, Scoop to publish the facts and apologise for both the initial ‘inaccuraces’ [sic][A point of clarification: that "sic" in square parenthesis was placed there by Mr Qunn]and its failure to amend them or investigate when advised of them. Should Scoop win, I’ll walk to the moon – backwards. On my hands.

   Scoop, you stand by your reviewer; do you have the simple guts to now put your money where your mouth is? I do.

   Please reply, Mr Rose … or Derby. (Damn those spare ellipses; no matter how many I use, the bag never seems to get emptier!)

   What is your reputation worth, Scoop?

   Mine is worth rather more than $1000 to me; and I’m quite prepared to put that to the only test in the only arena that really counts now. Are you?

   PS I’ve been searching my library for details of whether SM was born a bastard. No final proof yet, just a strong clue: he was a book reviewer in his spare time.

    
9. Jeremy Rose, 22. September 2008, 10:44
   

   CHALLENGE DECLINED:
   Dear Mr Quinn, I’m sorry and puzzled to hear of your decision to withdraw your book from sale after just one critical review.

   As much I would like to believe that in its six month of existence the Scoop Review of Books had grown in stature to the point that its word deserved such drastic action; the sad truth is it hasn’t.

   Mark Derby’s review (and, for that matter, your extensive comments which now stretch to more than twice the length of the original review) has so far been read by less than 200 people. If, as you suggest, Mark’s criticisms are wide of the mark why withdraw the book?

   To date you’ve suggested that Mark and/or I are: arseholes, bastards, unprofessional, sloppy, liars, and, most hurtful of all, agents of the Anglican Establishment.

   I’m not interested in getting into an ongoing slanging match and am therefore declining your proposal to invite an independent “judge” to review Mark’s review.

   I am, however, happy to offer you the chance to nominate someone with an interest in the topic to write another review of your work and I’ll happily publish it. And if there’s an extract from your work that you would like published to give our readers a taste of your book I’m happy to oblige.

   That way, the readers themselves can decide the relative merits of your work and Mark’s review.

   Finally, I utterly reject your suggestion that the review is ‘actionable’. There’s nothing in it that is remotely defamatory and which doesn’t come within the ambit of honestly held opinion.

   Jeremy Rose
   Editor Scoop Review of Books

    
10. David, 22. September 2008, 13:28
    

    Dear Scoop,

    I have to say that I can feel the author’s frustration at the review…anything that is put out into the public domain will, quite rightly, be subject to criticism….but that criticism must be just, rational be able to be substantiated.

    I believe the author’s retort was a justified one.

    As for the book itself, I doff my hat to the thoroughness of research and have to say that I really enjoyed the little puns along the way…what’s wrong with a bit of mirth.?.That , for me, certainly did not detract in anyway from subject matter…indeed, the opposite. I also enjoyed the informative sub section all about “The Cat”. As regards the author using initials (SM) as opposed to his name..how trivial is that?

    If the book has ruffled a few feathers, and rocked a few boats, then that’s alright…I say well done to the author for having the balls to do so.

    I hope author doesn’t withdraw book .

     
11. Richard Quinn, 22. September 2008, 14:32
    

    Mr Derby’s review contained several very imporatnt factual errors. He also bemoaned my failure to detail information which simply does not exist. He used quotes for a term I never used. He created some interesting double-bind scenarios by chiding me for the length of my citations – and then chided me for using ellipses to cut down the length of citations (!), suggesting that ‘the reader’ (Derby, in fact), might ‘wonder’ about the integrity of such abbreviated citations. (That is, Mr Rose: that I am a polished liar – so who began the slanging match you now wring your hands in anguish and bleat about?) Mr Derby wailed at my calling hagiographers exactly that: hagiographers. What should I have called them, exactly?

    The parts of the review I objected to in my first response (and still now), were only those parts – nothing more; the lies, the gross inaccuracies, the nasty allegations and the mis-quoting from my text and the dismal lack of comprehension on my ‘disquisition’ about bushrangers. I am more than able to accept robust, fair criticism. But not wildly inaccurate – and therefore unfair – piffle and gross distortion, based on the reviewer’s lack of in-depth knowledge.

    But what happened to my polite first response? Nothing! You and Mr Derby chose to ignore the extremely valid, sound and telling points I made. I put them politely enough, did I not? Why would that ensuing resounding silence from you both not leave me intensely frustrated and feeling very badly cheated, knowing my subject matter as well as I do?

    Honestly held opinion is fine; no problem with that. It is the life-blood of literature. (Or even poor, shabby, writing such as mine apparently is). But when gross misinformation and double-binds (Catch-22s if you like), riddle a review, and therefore affect the tone of it, the author is quite entitled to feel shafted. I do and I was. Well and truly.

    What a shame that you and your reviewer can dish it out – unfairly, innacurrately and wildly, but cannot take it in return. Or even have the guts to say “Sorry; I got those bits completely wrong.” (Gentle reader: check out Mr Rose’s alleged ‘apology’ for a completely inaccurate allegation Mr Derby made! What a cowardly bit of work that was, Mr Rose! You know Mr Derby got it wrong, but you fudged your ‘apology’ shamefully. It was, in fact, no apology, because you said you couldn’t check the text to see whether or not Mr Derby was right in his claim! . For shame, Mr Rose, for shame! You had done better had you not ever written that. But you clearly have a cracker recipe for Fudge. Fromthe Edmond’s book, I take it?)

    You say I have insulted you. No: YOU have done that yourself by refusing to heed (or even check on the veracity of), advice that you have got some very important things wrong, which impacted gravely on any review reader’s pre-impression of the worth of my book.

    Your failure to forthwith (or at all) enquire and, if required, then speedily amend gross inaccuracies in the review is far more pungent and dismaying than anything you say I have called you.

    You can dish it out, but you can’t take it. How very telling. Your review destroyed any chance the book had of being dealt with on its own merits. That kills it. There is another, much more positive review of it, but it isn’t online. You know and I know that we live in a wired world; I always check reviews before buying a new book.

    My apologies for any typos. Morphine is a very hard master. But I apologise for nothing else. Mr Derby’s review was wildly inaccurate, unfair, uninformed and, despite his beguiling contrariwise claim, predisposed to vindicitveness and wilful destruction of a painstakingly researched andhighly-detailed work, the like of which has never before been published on SM, anywhere. I joined all the dots. That had never been done before.

    The evangelical loony-tunes are ringing and telling me I will go to Hell for my book. I merely ask if they want a message delivered to SM when I get there. And you, wrongly, have helped them. For shame. A Rose by any other name …

    (Still trying to empty the ellipses bag …)

     
12. Jeremy Rose, 22. September 2008, 16:51
    

    The Offer Stands: Correspondence Closed.
    Mr Quinn, my offer to publish a review by someone nominated by you stands, as does my offer to publish an extract to provide readers with a taste of your work.

    Please let me know if you want to take up either offer.

    As I’ve already said I’m not interested in getting into a slanging match and will not be replying to future comments by you.

    Jeremy Rose
    Editor Scoop Review of Books

     
13. Total Ellipse of the Heart, 22. September 2008, 21:01
    

    With Apologies to Gary Larson’s ‘The Far Side’:

    What ellipses do in the dark:

    I … like this book. I enjoy a good … historical hatchet job … which chops at … a figure of probity and renown to reveal the clay feet and bad breath which earlier biographers … overlooked or discreetly sanitised. … Samuel Marsden is a prime candidate for forensic literary comeuppance. The … purse-mouthed parson … had it far too easy at the hands of historians in this country, where he is practically revered. In Australia, by contrast, he is widely reviled …though, as … Quinn notes … Marsden shuttled across the Tasman for much of his career and did not … change his spots as he did so. So which Marsden is the more real – the stern yet saintly soul-saver who has a posh girl’s school named after him in Wellington, or the vindictive flogger who became a watchword for High Church hypocrisy in Port Jackson? I opened this book eager to find out.

    …the author’s antecedents … lie in Ireland – a promising qualification. Marsden’s hatred of Irish Catholics was as virulent as Ian Paisley’s, and he faced far less opposition … The author … acknowledges … that he has had … tertiary education. This makes his assault on the reputation of a weighty historical figure seem … not … unwise. New Zealand … circles are notably constricted and interlocking, … a writer who stands outside them may supply a perspective … more valuable for its unconventionality.

    … this book’s … stylistic oddities contribute … to its appeal … and … ambitiously revisionist intention … source document[s] ha[ve] been used with integrity.

    … the reader acquires … information which … bring[s] the contumacious cleric into focus as a person.

    … Marsden looms as a villainous force, a blast of wickedness … sadism, religious prejudice, gunrunning, flagrant dishonesty and administrative incompetence …The research required to amass this amount of incriminating evidence is impressive …

    … the author … set the historical scene for the … monstrosities he catalogues … the … difference between Australian bushrangers and American gunfighters …adds … to the author’s thesis.

    … A … measured approach … convinced this reader. I admire the vigour of the author’s … gloves-off hammering of this slippery historical figure, and applaud his choice of target …his blows … deliver the knockout he intends.

    Editor’s Note: Thanks for that illustration of the power of ellipses, Mr Quinn.

     
14. Total Ellipse of the Heart, 23. September 2008, 9:47
    

    Touchy wee prat, aint you?

     
15. Total Ellipse of the Heart, 23. September 2008, 9:55
    

    And not only a touchy wee prat, but again, a proven liar out of your own mouth.

    Jeremy Rose, Scoop Books editor, 22 Sep., 16.51, to me:

    … “I’m not interested in getting into a slanging match and will not be replying to future comments by you.”

    I set the trap; you walked right into it!

    Gotcha!

     
16. Richard Quinn, 28. September 2008, 3:27
    

    Deconstructing Derby ‘n’ Rose:

    ‘… the text swarms with typos …’ There are 5 in 106,000-odd words: 1 in every 10,600 words. In Rose’s 1000-odd words there are 5 typos; 1 in every 200 words.

    Using SM’s initials makes ‘…Marsden a cipher rather than a man.’ I cited Temple using EGW. Other examples: FDR, JFK, MM, BB, LBJ, OJ, RFK, GWB, JC, WC, AAM, GBS. People are not reduced by initialising; it is a sign of fame … or infamy.

    Derby bemoans ‘… Quinn’s selection of material’ which included no detail on ‘… an impoverished childhood…’ I said there is no data about Marsden’s childhood, (p 17). True, even to the point of the year and place of his birth being disputed, (p 16). My preface (p 9), said I covered ‘…five major areas: SM as minister; missionary; magistrate; merchant; and mariner.’

    ‘… Marsden abused his position as a ‘turnpike judge’, …’ The phrase ‘turnpike judge’ is not in the book. Derby failed to take $100,000 from me by proving a single instance of my altering contexts by using ellipses.

    I wrote ‘… a baffling disquisition on the points of difference between Australian bushrangers and American gunfighters, which adds nothing whatever to the author’s thesis.’ Only one difference was noted, (p 35): ‘Shane rode into town and cleaned it up; Shaun rode into town and cleaned it out.’ Twelve similarities were noted (p 35); all near the end of a ten-page exploration of bushranging and Marsden’s and the Irish role in it.

    Quinn ‘… makes little attempt to rate [the] reliability or quality’ of ‘published sources’ used. From prefatory comment about Professor Yarwood’s work, reference to the value of published sources included comment about work by: Prof. J. Binney; Prof. A. Salmond; Prof. J. Belich; Prof. K. Sinclair; R. McDonald; Bagnall; Capt. R. Cruise; Ensign McRae; Dr. R. Hare; R. Murray; A. Sharp; Gov. P.G. King; J. B. O’Reilly; M.G.S. Parsonson; B. Wannan, W. Hall; M. King, The Times, London; Gov. L. Macquarie; Manning Clark; Chief Justice Forbes; The Sydney Gazette; J. Tucker; J. L. Nicholas; The Missionary Register; The Evangelical Magazine; the CMS; W. C. Wentworth; R. Lesson; Rev. S. Marsden; Rev. Dr. J. D. Lang; Rev. J. West; Rev. J. Crook; Rev. J. Pratt; Rev. J. B. Marsden; Rev. Stiles; Rev. M. Harcourt; Rev. R. Taylor; W. Caley; Bonwick; L. Richmond; W. Woolls; W. Wilberforce; J. Campbell; J. T. Bigge; R. Crosby; J. Butler; DNZB, etc. Derby also chides me for calling some writers ‘hagiographic’. That word rates the ‘reliability or quality’ of the source.

    Derby claims that if Quinn’s use of citations ‘… damn his subject, they are quoted, often at length.’ The longest citation is Marsden’s appendices letter, pp 193-196. In the text proper the longest citation is Marsden’s, p 176. Next longest: Marsden, p51. Marsden is quoted more often and more extensively than any other person.

    These points are what I tried with increasing despair to get across. But Rose pretended not to understand. Of course, if he did and published the truth, it would show Derby’s review to be unfair, inaccurate and internally inconsistent. So Rose pretended not to understand my complaints, offering me what I had not said I wanted, but ignoring what I did want. He accused me of vitriol, when the above shows that Derby’s review was very cleverly and thoroughly laced with that very substance, under a palpably false veneer of scholarly impartiality. No wonder Rose declined to do what I sought! Remove the falsehoods from Derby’s review and little remains.

    The first comment I made was a short one to advise readers that an editor, Anna Rogers, used in the early stages of my work, did not do the final editing. Rose conflated that comment into another one by me, thus altering context substantially. Mr Rose, you may not do that – ever; especially after Derby questioned my integrity! Prof. Binney’s ‘Legacy of Guilt’ notes Prof. Elder doing this in a book on Marsden. Your interpolation into my comments does you no favours. You did not comment on other contributions, or ‘out’ either ‘Alison’ or the person who commented in total anonymity. That you did to my ‘Total Ellipse of the Heart’ comments speaks volumes about your views on impartiality, fairness, balance and professional ethics. (Though I had you well-sussed, didn’t I?)

    What motivated Derby? Certainly not a desire to be accurate. You too fell by the wayside, Mr Rose. That you did so to someone clearly distressed by the review’s many gross inaccuracies, but trying hard to correct them, is hard to stomach. I never mentioned my health until you had refused to answer my legitimate complaints of bias. I never sought another review: just amendment to or retraction of the falsehoods in Derby’s. As you were unwilling (understandably, if dishonourably!) to address those issues, I have done it myself. That I needed to is sad. That you will probably again (inconsistently!) ignore me is shameful.

    The Scoop Review of Books is (at least sometimes) partisan, unfair, unbalanced, vindictive and ethically unprofessional: a demonstrated fact. It is an ardent champion of the great Kiwi clobbering machine: well done, lads!

    Forgive me my typos as I forgive others theirs; it is very late and I am deathly tired.

    Finis.

     
17. Richard Quinn, 30. September 2008, 2:17
    

    SAY BUDDY, CAN YOU SPARE ME A PARADIGM?

    Sir,

    I find your many stylistic oddities
    to be despicable commodities.
    Don’t you ever call a spade a spade!
    (At least for the carriage trade).

    I abjure your use of ‘hagiography’.
    Your strange new orthography,
    isn’t normal historiography:
    it’s cunning-linguistic pornography.

    You may not, Sir, (at this point in time),
    dare create a new paradigm!
    Adhere STRICTLY to the orthodoxy,
    For I, Sir, (sniff), control it all by proxy.

    You see, it’s all my all way or the highway;
    Don’t you dare traverse a new byway!
    (Just you ruminate well on poor Joyce
    and you’ll see you’ve got no choice).

    (Sniff) …

     
18. Richard Quinn, 1. October 2008, 0:55
    

    Oh, God! Not again! Every time I look on here, there it is, that imperious, insistently demanding line: ‘Write a comment:’. In bold, too. And I mean, who am I to argue with a Book Editor, eh? Not very likely, is it? I mean …

    It’s just like school was, but without the daily half-pint of sun-boiled milk to top things off with. Ah, remember the days in the old schoolyard? You bet: how could I ever forget them? Which reminds me, did I ever tell you what Janet and John were really up to, the dirty little sods? No? Well, maybe another time.

    There’s summat freaky going on on this ‘comments’ site, did you realise? Yes: really. I’ll explain. When you get to it, it’s just a nice, small space. Finite. Well, not very hard to fill that up, you think to yourself. But it doesn’t work like that, does it? No: No matter how hard you try to fill the little space up, you can’t. It just eats your words and keeps demanding more.

    Frightening!

    Or perhaps it’s an opportunity? After all, JR (Oh, I love that!), JR said he’d had less than two hundred readers. How humiliating! Even Altar Ego has done much better than that! God, it must gall him, eh?

    Maybe I could help him out – anything for a fiend, eh?

    I could write a sort of Blog here for him. Hmm, might be just what the page needs. Tart it up a bit, like. A few naughty pix, perhaps. (Winston holding up that ‘NO’ sign, for example).

    We could discuss … well, anything, really, couldn’t we?

    Like: is there death after life?

    And: shouldn’t it be ‘life/work balance’, not the other way round?

    Well, m’boy, lots to ponder.

    But we can’t just call it a Blog, can we? I mean, everyone and their dead horse has got one of those by now. Hmm. Okay, we’re irish, so … I know! Goddit:

    QUINN’S BOG!

    OKAY, WE’RE AWAY.

    QB1.

    Ever been flummoxed by scientific terms? Wonder what they really mean? I used to, too, but I got smart (ha!) and learned to er, decipher them. Once you get the hang of it, it’s not really hard, as Ned Kelly said in his last seconds alive. And what a man our Ned was, eh? His mum was Ellen Quinn; Croatian, of course.

    So:

    SCIENTIFIC TERMS EXPLAINED

    Trajectory: scientific story with sad ending.

    Universe: poem in which all lines refer to same thing.

    Solenoid: Alien lifeform from the sun,

    Unstable state: Zimbabwe.

    Chaos theory: everything’s under control.

    Quark: inter-galactic duck call.

    Dark matter: porn stash in wardrobe.

    Calculus: Roman emperor after Caesar.

    Complex number: all numbers above 1.

    Kinetic: avant garde movie.

    Eclipse: typo for ellipse.

    Hubble: group of astronomers cuddling.

    Orbit: nice lies in newspaper after you die. (Typo).

    Periodic window: when ovulation opens the door.

    Pythagoras: A Greek snake.

    Black hole: a Calcutta kharzi.

    Fractals: badly broken ankles.

    Doppler effect: loud, singing drunk falling over.

    Harmonic: sc. typo for mouth organ.

    Ellipse: the pornbroker’s three balls …

    Fluid dynamics: who peed on the floor?

    Partial differential: agreeing to disagree.

    Homoclinic tangle. Hosp. dept. Treats chaps stuck in other bloke’s zip

    Regular Polyhedron: Nice Rasta Ron from Otara.

    Three-body motion: mini orgy.

    Periodic Table: rhythm method.

    Qasar: typo for ‘antidisestablishmentarianism’.

    Quincunx: five typos for R. Quinn.

    Dimension: Interr. Abbr. for ‘Did I mention’.

    Newton’s Law of Motion: the other queue’s faster.

    Newton’s Law of Gravity: Apples bruise on hitting ground.

    Einstein’s Theory of Relativity: Always hire a nephew.

    Quantum Mechanics: bloody foreign workers!

    Classical Mechanics: second violinists.

    Bifurcation: sexually active experimental vacation.

    String Theory: give ‘im enough rope and …

    Derby: a hat; colloq: titfer, as in tit for …

    Well, that does it for now. More later, maybe.

    (And remember: not a WORD to JR, okay? We could hijack this page for ever! He’ll think it’s him that’s attracted all the new readers, eh? He’ll feel pretty good about that, I reckon. Least I can do for ‘im, innit?)

    So tell all your friends: BOG RULZ, OKAY?

     
19. Philip Hobbs, 1. October 2008, 12:44
    

    So encouraging to see large doses of virtriol and pungent comment lolling about in the ether. Says much about the liberty of having freedom of speech.

    This reader enjoyed Richard Quinn’s take on Marsden. His feisty approach enabled vivid rather than vapid images to be conjured up about the religious “gentleman’s” life, times, exploits, doings and misdeeds.

    Quinn’s hanging offences seem to be that he didn’t write for the local history claque, and that he committed grave sins against style. Fortunate indeed then that his volume wasn’t written in txt, the language of the upwardly telephonically mobile, and a form of expression that is gaining legitamacy in celebrated circles. Shock, horror! One can only imagine the lather and state of apoplexy the reviewer would have found himself in had txt been Quinn’s first choice.

    Overall, Quinn is right on the money. His research and interpretation of Marsden brings a new understanding by making it readable and enthralling. He is a rarity in being able to craft a fabulous story that is devoid of all the dull and clinical work that often passes for history: work in which the reader is left numbed because the writer has seemingly not be touched either by the events or the people that led to history being made.

    The Professof History and Graduate Director in the School of Social Sciences at the Austrlaian National University, Canberra, cites the American environmental historian Richard White, who puts it this way:

    “Any good history begins in strangeness. The past should not be comfortable … (those darned ellipis again) The past should be so strange that you wonder how you and people you know and love could come from such a time”.

    Griffiths also touches on the “lively debate” about the different and overlapping roles of history and fiction in literature and public culture. (Taken from The Fabric of a Common Humanity, the 2007 NSW {Premier’s Historay Awards address).

    On Monday (29 September) The Australian newspaper reported on Page 1 that history had been “dulled down ” by the exclusive focus in analysing evidence and argument, with historians neglecting their roles as storytellers.

    The comments are those of Peter Cochrane, inaugural winner of the Prime Minster’s Prize for Australian History.

    “Historians tend to see themelves as social scientists, as scholars whose job it is to ‘write up’ or report on their findings, rather than as writers whose job it is to create or imagine the past, to captivate an audience,” Cochrane said.

    “We should be crossing boundaries and borrowing what we can from fiction, or at least from fiction writers … in terms of structuring and vivifying a story.”

    I note the Scoop’s editor describes Mr Derby as “one of the most generous and thoughful people I know ….”

    The question, though, is this: is Mr Derby possessed of wit and charm?

    In the meantime Mr Derby may wish to produce a Marsden tome himself so as to right either the real or imagined wrongs of Quinn’s work.

    But that’s inlikley given that he’s probably too busy editing the history of New Zealand’s reponse to the Spanish civil war. Given the high bar he’s set on style and associated matters God forbid that a comma be misplaced, a typo and any of those things that give editors sleepless nights and tormented days creep into the text.

    Maybe Canterbury University Press will throw Quinn a copy of the book for review.

     
20. Richard Quinn, 2. October 2008, 0:17
    

    What a bold suggestion you end with, Mr Hobbs! But I wouldn’t dream of reviewing Mr Derby’s book. Who could dare comment less than fulsomely on published perfection?

    So I’ll just give you a little tale to be going on with.

    Feeling my memory slipping last year, and hearing the ticking of the clock get louder, I sought out a publisher. That person was kind but admitted to not knowing enough NZ history to make a decision on my manuscript. Would I be amenable to a peer reviewer by a (named)
    history professor, author and generally highly regarded eminence. Of course, I agreed – forgetting that the same worthy got a wet bus ticket across the wrist in my text. Oh, dear, Richard!

    Months went by, with no word back from the halls of academe. I started to push the publisher. And, it transpired, a wondrous thing had happened. Yon worthy academic had passed my text on to someone else to do the peer review.

    ‘Fine’, you think; ‘nowt wrong with that, is there?’

    But wait: there’s more:

    The new reviewer was an office-holder in the Anglican Church and a direct descendant of one of Marsden’s missionaries.

    Sigh …

    So you see, I already knew quite a bit about ‘professional historians’, didn’t I, even before Mr Derby came along?

    AND I had to pay for the review!

    Anyway, thanks Mr H, for your thoughtful and considered comments.
    ‘Professional’ historians think they own the raw material of history and have sole rights to interpret it. Not so: none of them ever touched Marsden. But they bitterly resent anyone else doing what they have so signally failed to do, and that’s the truth.

    And their writing is so bloody dry and barren it should be regarded as a major factor in global warming.

     
21. Richard Quinn, 2. October 2008, 10:58
    

    QB2

    Sometimes, just a bit of poetry or what have you is just the thing. A short Bog today; tiredness rules.

    A distant summer recalled

    Do you remember,
    blackberry-lips of summer?
    (Gulls,
    laughing in the bay).

    Have you forgotten,
    how bronzed we were?
    (Days,
    lingering on for ever).

    Can you recall,
    salty sea-spray kisses?
    (Arms,
    round a lover’s hips).

    In your memory,
    did we climb the hills?
    (Stand,
    breathless with God).

    Winter comes.
    I recall a distant summer,
    when
    young men lived forever.

    RQ: 22 Mar. ’08

     
22. Richard Quinn, 3. October 2008, 17:17
    

    QB3

    Poems happen for many reasons. Someone with memory loss and loss of belief in a God might well grieve.

    God Isn’t Dead

    God isn’t dead; it’s worse:
    Alzheimer’s and his mind’s gone
    to Hell in a basket
    of shattered memories.

    There’d been those nights
    with a virgin; nights to remember,
    if he only but could.
    Something about a cross.

    Omnipotent, but impotent,
    he wanders vaulted celestial halls,
    trying to remember what
    in God’s name it’s about.

    I am … I am …? Oh!
    Look on my works, ye Mighty,
    and despair: weep bitterly
    for me and mine!

    Didn’t I have a son? Son,
    son, why hast thou forsaken me
    in favour of, those cheap
    magick tricks for crowds?

    God whimpers, confused;
    tired old man now seeking death:
    dark grave’s quiteude,
    to shut non-mem’ry out.

    But old Gods never die:
    they simply fade away: shadows
    of their former self,
    when God was young.

    And we, we stand bereft,
    as Israel’s children in the desert.
    Now children of
    a lost and lesser God.

    30 Aug. 2008

     
23. Richard Quinn, 4. October 2008, 21:50
    

    QB4

    So how’s your day been so far? (Doesn’t wait for reply, just says ‘That’s good’). Ever had that happen to you? It stinks, doesn’t it?

    If you knew you were dying, you’d do, well, whatever you’d do. One of the things I found myself doing was more non-prose writing; I’m not sure that it’s poetry (who am I to say?), just that it’s different. It happens fairly simply (Hear! Hear! Mr Speaker!) Just an idea that I let sit awhile and then write down when it seems right to do so. It might well improve (or not), with rewriting/revising, but I just tend to write it and let it be. Here’s another example. Take from it what you will.

    March: to the sound of a nearing drum.

    The
    calendar says
    autumn.
    This March is
    November of my life.

    And
    even southerly
    turns
    its collar
    against the cold’s bite.

    In
    autumn’s secret
    garden;
    raking leaves
    from my book of life.

    A
    greedy fire
    curls;
    burns through,
    bonfire of vanities.

    So
    grey ash
    floats,
    in charred futility
    to wintry skies.

    And how’s your day been so far?

     
24. Richard Quinn, 5. October 2008, 15:34
    

    QB5

    SCOOPER-POOPER

    Statistics don’t lie:

    Analysis of comments above shows that acknowledged neutral Altar Ego readers are 100% favourably inclined towards it.

    Comments about the review are running 2:1 for the author.

    The figures speak for themself.

    (Smug, smug).

    I have apologised by phone to Jeremy Rose for calling him a liar. Strong word, that one. But I do not resile even fractionally from my criticism of the review. It was a shallow, inaccurate piece of work, with no insight shown. Finis.

    On other fronts, a long, rambling letter appeared in the Bay Chronicle in response to Bob Molloy’s review. I’m not sure what the letter was really about, though it mentioned me by name more than once. The writer, one Patricia Bawden, forgot to include the word ‘Reverend’ before her name. Funny, that!

    She made an unfounded assumption that I am Catholic. God forbid (to coin a phrase); I have enough to cope with already. My reply made it succinctly clear that I do not view the world through rosary-tinted spectacles.

    She also (and this really hurt), said I don’t seem to like the English very much. Oh, fie: for shame! The only reason my jokes in the book were so simple was so that the English could understand them.

    Sigh …

    So:

    Reverend Bawden took her axe,
    gave Altar Ego forty whacks.
    Quinn laughed at what she’d done;
    and never felt a single one.

    So that’s a rev up for the Rev.

    I have enjoyed my brief stint as a Bogger. Thanks to anyone who read my words and grinned: iss orl jus’ a bluddy larf, innit?

    So, having firmed up JR’s readership for him, time now to bow out.

    Thanks, everyone. Dunno about you, but I’ve had fun.

    Oh – and how’s your day been so far?

    PS Did anyone pick up the triple anagram on p 15 of Altar Ego?

    ‘The spectre of respect for the sceptre being lost haunted the upper classes.’

    Aren’t words magic? Truly: magic. Strong juju.

     
25. Richard Quinn, 6. October 2008, 0:54
    

    Go to:

    http://www.nzbc.net.nz/

    Where you will see Stephen Stratford’s ‘Midweel Miscellany’ express its delight at my distress (way above this last post) at being misquoted and chided for non-existent wrongs, etc. My distress is described as being ‘an entertaining spectacle.’

    There is also a heartfelt testimony to Mr Derby’s sterling personal qualities.

    Which must surely mean his review was accurate, right? Wrong – and it remains so.

    But good to see the self-declared guardians of literature all pulling together, because writing is usually such a solitary vice.

     
26. David Lee, 6. October 2008, 16:15
    

    Ello readers,

    Q. What does a re-union of octogenarian shoe repairers and Mr Derby’s review have in common?…

    A….. They’re both a load of old cobblers!

    I av to say “wow” ….what a “ballsy” effort…a cracker of a read…thouroughly enjoyed it , ..’twas totally exposing, extremely informative, fully researched and I loved the wit (being English, I appreciate the simplicity of it..thanks!) (see authors last comment).

    A FEW VERSES…

    There was an ol’ fellow called Sam,
    Who……,pray, did not give a dam,
    Cloaked as a parson,
    He traded in arson,
    And flogged it all off as a sham…..

    Starting in England with nowt,
    Deceitful and cunning throughout,
    Muskets ‘n’ powder,
    Were this reverend’s chowder,
    With a side of dried head, I’ve no doubt!

    Quick to avoid perilous scandal,
    He fiddled accounts and would dangle,
    An axe for a bribe,
    The truth he would hide,
    Clearing himself of the tangle!

    But here its all clothed in a veil,
    Like a letter lost in the mail,
    Considered collosal,
    Even made an apostle,
    His misdeeds of little avail!

    But into the story come Quinn,
    Who’s book unearths many a sin,
    Written with zeal, gusto and jest,
    It delivers the blows straight to the chest,
    Derobing the devil within!

    Bound to cause a reaction….,
    Amongst scholars and the Anglican faction,
    Critique is quite welcome,
    When insightful and wholesome,
    But an errornous one warrants retraction!

    And so to draw close, I do say,
    Go and buy a copy today,
    It’s truly fantastic,
    Fairly Iconoclastic,
    Casting a false myth FAR, FAR AWAY!

    The end.

    ..a little rough around the edges…please feel free to polish off anyone….

    One last word to the author…Well played, that man!..I’m off to the bog….keep… up yours..if you know what I mean!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

     
27. David Lee, 7. October 2008, 15:08
    

    Ello, again,…

    A couple of things I forgot to mention….as to this so called “visitors complex” to be opened up north.. would someone be able to enlighten me, please, as to what its all about ….if it is $12.5 million to honour this so called apostle then…SHAME, SHAME SHAME…….

    as to there being a posh school in Wellington named after SM. Perhaps “Altar Ego” should be made part of their curriculum……?

     
28. Richard Quinn, 7. October 2008, 15:16
    

    Mr Lee, you are a hoot! I loved your poem; but then, given its tenor (or even its elevener), I guess I would. But look, I thought I was the Poet Lariat here? (Our motto: give ‘em enough rope and they’ll …).

    Um, if you’re English, then I really should apologise for my crack at the Poms, I guess. But bugrit: I’m not going to. All good clean fun, eh?

    As to polishing off your poem for you, well, it stands pretty well as it is. A few typos, but nothing you couldn’t remedy by reading Mark Derby’s singlehanded semenal work ‘Typos & How To Aviod Them’. It’s a classic. Further, your constant use of ellipses makes me wonder whether or not you are citing things properly? I mean … I counted about 15. Hmm.

    Thanks for urging me to keep on bogging; I’d love to. But I’ll get cut off if I keep it up – as the Bishop said to the showgirl who ate razorblades with … Your comments about the book being a fascinating and enlightening read have been echoed by other people; music to my ears, of course. A well-known writer rang me from Sydney late last week. He had my book and he’s been looking for summat else on Marsden and came across Scoop. After reading the review, he rang me to say ‘Don’t worry about the review; there’s clearly something else going on here.’ I was pretty chuffed, as you can imagine. He told me never to forget that reviewers are to writers as dogs are to lampposts. I shan’t.

    Anyway, I can’t let a Pom have the last word, can I? Pride of the nation and all that …

    So here’s my last (I hope) effort before I get blocked by Scoop.

    DERBY DAY IN WELLINGTON

    It’s Derby Day in Wellington,
    so ‘e wears ‘is literary spats,
    an’ dons a lovely titfer,
    (for ‘e’s a man of many ‘ats).

    A writer an’ a researcher,
    (an’ a trenchant critic, too).
    A self-professed reviewer,
    but he wears ‘is ‘at askew.

    ‘e don’t heed no boring fact;
    misquotin’ is ‘is genre.
    Don’t never, ever put ‘im right,
    or ‘e’ll set ‘is dogs upon ya.

    Wears a Rose in ‘is buttonhole,
    (it suits ‘im monstrous well).
    ‘e wears a shiny top ‘at too;
    a right Establishment swell.

    But underneaf the ritzy clobber
    lurks a very bitter ‘eart;
    two-cents-a-word-paid jobber,
    tryin’ ‘ard to act the part.

    Yes it’s Derby Day in Wellington,
    an’ the smell of mothballs stinks:
    but it’s ‘ow ‘e looks that matters,
    not ‘ow low ‘e sinks!

     
29. David Lee, 7. October 2008, 22:02
    

    well, well, well (that’s a triple watering hole)….I take my tit off to you Mr Quinn, leaving myself with one……

    I address your comments in chronological order……….te, he, he

    Firstly, no apologies necessary,… ‘course it’s all in good fun..if one can’t laugh at oneself, what can one do, eh? and eh is for ‘orses, ( google cockney alphabet, readers)…and ‘orses for courses…you should know Derby’s are always hard to win…

    You talk of razorblades and ……. well, (that makes four), reminds me of an old story…
    ..Cast your mind back to the magical and mystical days of King Arthur and his court at Camelot….the King had to go and lead his country to war and save the Holy Land…the thing is, he was a little worried about leaving his good wife Gwenevere all alone at the castle with a load of young knights, see…..so he went up to the top of the mountain to call on his faithful friend Merlin the Wizard…to whom he recounted his predicament…..”no problem”, says Merlin,…”I’ve just the solution”… and so saying, produced the latest in chastity belts…..”this” he says “is just what me lordship orders,….give this to Gwenevere and if any young knight should try his luck with your lady, then, Wallop, down comes the knife and chops off his manhood….”fantastic” says The King and off he trots to war…………

    2 months later…. triumphant but tired, back comes The King from his exploits…..and is keen to see how his fair lady and his (faithful) knights have behaved….
    …..so he lines up his men for an inspection…

    ..He comes to the 1st knight and orders him to lift up his chain gates…..sure enough, nothing there, so he curses him and sends him off to the gallows…2nd knight…up with the chain gates…nothing..and so on and so on…until he gets to his last Knight… the ever faithful Sir Galahad…”Up with your chain gates, Sir Galahad”…..

    ..and lowen behold there is his manhood in all its glory…”I knew I could trust you, Sir Galahad,….and as a reward I gift you 100 gold sovereigns….what do you say to that”?…
    …”II UURR..HHRRRGGHHH”!!!!!!!!!

    Oh Dear, sorry, the old ones…anyway, in all seriousness, back to your book, (which is what this comment section is all about isn’t it)… I thoroughly enjoyed IT, and your ripostes and bogs YOU SHOULD BE BLOODY PROUD AND DON’T WORRY ABOUT SOME LAMPOST OF A REVIEW…..

    Once again, I’m off to the Bog (this verbal diarrhea is terrible, you know) ….av a nice day!

     
30. Richard Quinn, 7. October 2008, 23:03
    

    Mr Lee, you really are a cracker. I give the floor over to you, okay?

    (Pommy bastard!) And remember, you now live in a land where they love to cut down tall pipis, okay?

    Last words on it all:

    I was very hurt by Mr Derby’s many gross inaccuracies. But I got over it. Why should I make his inadequacy my problem?

    And this can’t be refuted:

    There are statues all around the world honouring writers.

    There are none honouring reviewers.

     
31. Richard Quinn, 7. October 2008, 23:13
    

    PS

    Re the Bishop’s showgirl:

    she ate razorblades with sauce on them.

     
32. David Lee, 8. October 2008, 10:54
    

    and what am I supposed to do with a floor?

     
33. Richard Quinn, 13. October 2008, 6:30
    

    QB6

    Just when he thought it was safe to come ….

    THE BOGGING PERSON’S BACK!

    When I die, my brain and spine are going to Professor Faull’s brainbank.

    I’ll be a book reviewer then.

    At the Hospice I’m going to die in, they don’t look for brain death in reviewers: they just wait until the spleen stops.

    And how’s your day been so far?

     
34. Richard Quinn, 25. October 2008, 2:19
    

    QB7

    Look, I did something really stupid this week. I sent Jeremy Rose a free copy of my book to read and judge for himself. But I was forgetting Derby’s review, wasn’t I? Especially the bit that acidly (but oh, so insightfully), said that “Quinn relies heavily on published sources but makes little attempt to rate their reliability or quality.’ Oh cringe, cringe! I know I cited 49 authors (above) whose value, veracity or soundness etc I commented authorially on. But I didn’t worry overmuch about Professor Yarwood’s Marsden biography, which was my primary source of published material.

    And now Jeremy’s going to see that I only made 38 authorial comments about Yarwood’s tome – and the longest critique of his work was but a scant 2+ pages! Oh God! How will I ever get out of this one, eh?

    And the relevant page numbers for the 38 authorial Yarwoodian commentaries are:

    9; 10; 18; 19; 36; 40; 47; 50; 53×2; 54; 59; 64×2; 65; 66; 84; 92; 93; 94; 95; 96×2; 102; 127; 154; 156; 157; 158×2; 164; 165; 174; 175; 184-186.

    Oh! If only I’d made 39 authorial comments on Yarwood …

    Jeez; yer sins catch up with ya sooner or later, don’t they? No matter who you are.

    Jeremy: sorry, mate. I shoulda known better, bugrit all. Just send it back, eh?

    Hi Richard, thanks for the copy of your book. I’ll happily send it back if that’s what you want? But if not I’ll hold onto it and read it once I’ve got through the pile of books that I’ve promised to review.

    Feel free to send through any other reviews as they’re published and I’ll happily put links to them at the bottom of the Derby and Molloy reviews.

    Thanks again
    Jeremy

     
35. Richard Quinn, 26. October 2008, 0:06
    

    BULLSHIT & JELLYBRAINS

    Jeremy, for Gawd’s sake keep the book! I was just taking the piss out of Derby’s inaccurate comments about me making little attempt to rate the reliability of my sources, which I actually went to great lengths to do.

    After all, Derby wrongly took the piss out of me, didn’t he?

     
36. Richard Quinn, 1. November 2008, 21:25
    

    QB8

    DEMOLITION DERBY:

    REMEMBERING THE DAYS IN THE OLD (SAMUEL MARSDEN COLLEGIATE) SCOOL YARD.

    Gentle readers, you will recall Mark Derby’s comment in paragraph 1 of his review about ‘a posh girl’s school named after [Samuel Marsden] in Wellington …’

    But had you considered the unspeakable trauma of that lonely ‘posh girl’s’ suffering on her solitary tramps through the vast, otherwise-empty halls of Samuel Marsden Collegiate? The long classroom hours with nobody to pass notes to, jab with pins, or make nasty, snide remarks in French or Latin about to her friends? No: I thought not.

    Sarah-Jessica Priscilla Monica Stuffed Shirt Longbottom (the third), was a lost and lonely girl. What use a father so high in the Establishment that other mortals could only look up his bum from the distant depths below? What use a mother whose every scintillating Botox-filled social event was a page-filler between the ads on page fiteen? What point the chauffeur-driven Roller to school every morning when there were no envious friends to admire the elegance and poise with which she alighted? (Especially now, when daddy’s investment portfolio was looking so terribly shaky).

    Dear and gentle reader, Sarah-Jessica was a lonely, lonely girl. Unable to explore – or even discuss – with her peers the natural urges of a perfectly normal, hormone-driven, acne-ridden teenage girl, she was to be driven to such despicably foul and solitary vices as …

    (To be continued)

    And may we be forgiven our typos as we forgive others, eh, men?

     
37. Helena, 3. November 2008, 23:28
    

    Hello Mr Quinn,

    I’m enjoying your biography so far. I have read two chapters and am motivated to read to the finish. I am so shocked about the flogging of Australian immigrants and I had not read such an account quite so striking as yours. It’s good you have told this side of the story, because what a tragedy and why not be critical of Marsdens merits because of these actions. You have exposed events and actions of huge importance. I think you can let the work stand well on its own merit. Its a permanent record you can be truely proud of.
    Great Index and Bibliography! This book is a challenging and brave and original work of History. It is well written. It re-interpretes an aspect of the past, (a significant character to New Zealand and to Australia)and his times, in a fundamental ways. It makes links between our understanding of the histories of these two countries. There is a breadth and depth of reading evident. Great evidence of ability to structure and present and argument. There is reseach into others interpertations. The quality of analysis is strongly developed, and you have been quick to develop and explain and defend your interpretations for the benefit of readers. Thankyou for presenting your argument, for re-introducing me to Marsden and the influence of Marsden. I love to read the primary sources so I think it is great to have Marsden quoted so liberally.

    Well to finish the book… so just some initial positive impressions! Thankyou indeed. Writing a book is such a grand achievement. A Tour de force.

     
38. Richard Quinn, 5. November 2008, 0:14
    

    I’m very pleased that you’re both enjoying the read and learning from it, Helena. It’s the distillation of six years of sustained, single-minded research. What finally gets published is, of course, just the tip of the iceberg; but a very important tip, I think, if we truly wish to understand how we got ‘here’ from ‘there.’ The research changed my own previously rather benign view of the origins of Pakeha New Zealand.

    Again, my thanks for taking the time to express your views.

     
39. Richard Quinn, 15. November 2008, 19:51
    

    For those who cannot speak.

    Grammaticus, 18 November, 1980:

    What sort of creatures are we becoming? When I read every week some story of suffering children, I wonder more. “I had been drinking,” mumbles the criminal as if that could do aught but aggravate the offence.

    Men have tried without great success to explain cruelty. Both Balzac and Froude named fear as the parent of cruelty. But does that explain the bruised baby? Does it explain the agony which parents, at the first weariness of each other, are prepared to inflict on helpless children the dumb anguish of mind domestic upheaval can bring?

    QB9

    TO KILL A MOCKING BARD

    http://www.yourchoiceforchange08.org/index.php?d=UmljaGFyZCBRdWlubg==

    Altar Ego goes from strength to strength. Chris Laidlaw interviewed me yesterday for his Sunday programme and commented that he enjoyed my punchy one-liners. (Thanks, Chris; I enjoyed the interview, too). Martin Edmond wrote me a very encouraging and complimentary letter from Sydney, and someone finishing a PhD wrote saying that Altar Ego was resolving questions about SM that had tantalised him for fifteen years. Online, someone’s Blog mentions To Kill a Mocking Bird on a reading list in the same breath as Altar Ego. (I hope old ‘one hit wonder’ Harper Lee is jolly well grateful!)

    It seems that I have gone over well in America, too. Click on the link above to see. Watch the main video first, and then click on the image of the woman in a red coat to see the other video. Time for change – and I feel that I’ve done my bit.

    When I was a kid (long time passing), Fred Tennyson was a classmate. He wrote a lot. He’d have appreciated ‘Derby’s Dilemma’, so, in memory of Fred – and those who try to kill a mocking bard …

    Puns to the left of him,
    Puns to the right of him,
    Puns to the front of him.
    Into the volley of wit,
    Mark Derby blunder’d.

    Have a jolly good weekend, friends.

    QB10

    NOSTRADAMUS KNEW!

    He was the most famous astrologer ever. So good that his quatrains are still regularly used (ex post facto), to explain anything and everything. So I went online and asked the ‘Nostradamus Quatrain Generator’:

    ‘Was Mark Derby right about Altar Ego?’

    And here, verbatim, is what the old sage replied through the mists of time:

    Triremes full of captives of all ages;
    The bird of prey offers itself to the heavens.
    Quite otherwise will one interpret it.
    The heavens draw near to the reckoning.

    Oh, I feel so BAD for Mark about this quatrain! Its meaning is SO clear.

    Line one: The ‘triremes full of captives’ can ONLY refer to Maori whom SM took to his Parramatta ’seminary’ as hostages against the lives of his NZ missionaries. (Which fact he even admitted!)

    Line two: If ever there was an evil ‘bird of prey’ which pretended to ‘offer itself to the heavens’, it was SM. He was a bird of a different feather.

    Line three: ‘Quite otherwise will one interpret it.’ Um, Mark: the old chap says you got it VERY wrong. Bugrit, eh?

    Line four: ‘The heavens draw near to the reckoning.’ Oh, Mark: you shouldn’t have; you REALLY shouldn’t have! Your Doom cometh!

    Have you got your affairs in order?

    But for those who still have a future, check out the Nostradamus quatrain generator; it’s a lot of fun. And, as it says below the answer given to any question, if you are unsure of what the answer means, you can always check out the Gideons Bible to be found in most finer motels and hotels.

    But it’s all pretty spooky, eh? Such accuracy!

     
40. Richard, 27. November 2008, 3:23
    

    QB11

    Woody Allen asked ‘What does it take to make God laugh?”

    His answer: “Tell him your plans.”

    What, I wonder, would make God weep?

    Night lasts forever.

    Robert Frost:

    The woods are lovely, dark and deep.
    But I have promises to keep,
    And miles to go before I sleep,
    And miles to go before I sleep.

     
41. Richard, 10. December 2008, 11:23
    

    QB12

    THE LAST POST

    This Sunday at 8.40 a.m. Chris Laidlaw’s interview with me is on National Radio. Though not as bright, well-travelled or experienced a man of letters as the Hon. Mark Derby, perhaps he may accidentally stumble on something cogent to say; anything is possible, at least in theory.

    Comment has now appeared on a blog (Black Wattle Boy) about Scoop’s editorial policy in this matter. Well deserved, too. How Jeremy Rose could have even contemplated using someone who belongs to an organisation of (allegedly) professional historians which publicly decries the very existence of people like me is something I have never been able to feel comfortable with. It smacks of an editor setting out – for whatever reason – to create controversy by using an avowed enemy of the work to be reviewed. Boosts Scoop’s reader numbers, too, co-incidentally.

    That’s not an honourable or decent thing to do. My criticisms of Derby have centred around his dismal lack of accuracy in the many unjustified charges he made against me. Jeremy Rose called Derby ‘informed’. Of what remains unclear, because he certainly wasn’t ‘informed’ about Marsden or about Altar Ego, which he falsely claimed to have read. Or, rather, he read but never comprehended it. (Further examples): above, he says I accuse SM of sadism. I didn’t: I said the exact opposite; see p39! He also berates me for saying SM was guilty of gross and ongoing mismanagement – across his whole life. Derby should read Yarwood, chapter 13, ‘Too Much Business On His Hands.’ He might – if he can stand the strain of actually concentrating that long – then proceed to read Binney’s Legacy of Guilt on the same subject.

    But, a reader might think, even if this is all so, Jeremy Rose offered me the chance to seek another review – a chance I never took up. Why? you may ask. Because another review does NOT remedy the defects in the Derby review; they still stand unamended. No other putative review can ever remedy that. So I declined the offer.

    But what of Derby and Rose? (Sounds like a pub, dunnit?) At the outset of this issue, my words were polite, if clearly strained. But I got no response from either man. The best I ever got was Rose offering an apology on Derby’s behalf if the latter had indeed been wrong and misquoted me. That’s no apology at all! It’s not even an admission that I had indeed been misquoted. And even had it been, the required apology needed to come from Derby, not Rose. He told the lie.

    Instead, despite having wrongly and unfairly accused me of every crime ‘in the book’ (so to speak) Derby has very cravenly stayed mum from the outset. I note that other reviewers are prepared to both comment and amend misinformation from time to time. A mature response when criticised is to check the criticism and, if you have been wrong, promptly and fully amend that. Derby has not done that once, though his gallimaufry is littered with basic errors. I can have no respect for someone too damned vain, arrogant or stupid to admit that they were wrong – and even more so when they have been proven to be wrong. Mr Derby, you look like a fool because you have acted like a fool.

    But, as a person says on the Black Wattle Boy blog, both Derby and Scoop’s attitude in this matter is not only very sad, but very identifiably ‘New Zealand.’ Tall pipis and all that.

    How Scoop could ever have pretended that Derby was either, competent, informed, or disinterested simply eludes me. PHANZA has an avowed published dislike of writers like me – we cost them money!The whole thing has been a very shabby, dubious, underhand piece of wor, from go to whoa.

    WARNING TO PUBLISHERS:

    Avoid sending your books to Scoop.

    At least sometimes, they use reviewers who belong to organisations with avowed pre-existing hostility to certain classes of non-fiction NZ writers.

    Seek a disinterested, informed and fair review elsewhere. Scoop isn’t up to it – not by a country mile.

    Editor’s Note: I’ve provided a link to the blackonwattle blog but have been unable to find the entry on the Scoop Review of Books.

     
42. Tony Carr, 11. December 2008, 6:45
    

    The mention of this thread occurs in the comments thread of a post on November 20 ‘Arrested development’:

    http://blackonthewattle.blogspot.com/2008/11/arrested-development.html

     
43. Richard, 14. December 2008, 11:05
    

    Forgive me for coming back after a ‘last post’, but I need to refute yet another porkie.

    I was too ill to listen to the Laidlaw interview at 8.40, but my wife told me that Reverend Bawden disputed the fact that SM died, in modern terms, a billionaire and claimed that I could not substantiate that.

    I can.

    Author: W.D. Rubenstein.

    Title: The All-time Australian 200 Rich List.

    Publisher: Allen & Unwin, Sydney, 2004.

    SM is cited therein as no 52 on the all-time top 200 wealthiest Australians, with a probated will value from his death in 1838 which translated in 2003 values to $3.5 billion AU$.

    Just idly, I wonder whether this very industrious man would have been ‘okay’ in Bawden’s eyes if he had died ‘only’ a millionaire?

    My book doesn’t ‘create’ facts; it relates them.

     
44. Richard Quinn, 1. March 2009, 5:18
    

    Gidday.

    I hit 79, 678 words in my second book tonight. Was trying to reach 80,000, but …, or even, sigh …

    Was there ever a more solitary but satisfying pastime than writing? I’ve never found one. Painting, maybe? I wouldn’t know, ‘cos I couldn’t paint my way out of a wet paper bag. Truly. (Though some folk might suggest I’d probably be pretty good at ‘joining the dots’ sort of work …)

    Maybe I’ll get to finsih this book yet; and maybe not.

    I’ll keep ya ‘posted,’ okay?

    Goodnight, world. I’ll be back: bet on it.

     
45. Richard Quinn, 15. March 2009, 7:36
    

    Gidday again.

    I got to 88,000 words tonight. Slow going, eh? Veddy, veddy slow.

    But the double eight means celebrate. So, as I am said to be no wordsmith, I thought maybe I could at least try to be a wordjones? If thass okay with you …? Ta very muchly; decent of you. I doffs me titfer to yer, Guv’nr. Fair does.

    ODE TO 88,000 WORDS

    By Wordjones

    I’m not a member of PEN,
    or even yet of PHANZA.
    Dead Poets Society, yes:
    if I quickly write a stanza.

    I’m of the type called feral,
    out beyond the city walls.
    With hot growl visceral,
    but not lacking balls.

    Bring yer top ‘at critic in;
    ‘e’s grist to my mill.
    I stand ‘ere: me; Quinn,
    loving language still.

    And still ‘ard at it. Bloody ‘ard.

     
46. Richard Quinn, 22. March 2009, 15:26
    

    Jeremy told me once that he wanted to make my poem ‘Say Buddy Can You Spare me A Paradigm’ the poem of the week. But he couldn’t contact me … sigh. I have moped ever since; truly.

    ‘Write about what you know’ is the sagest advice possible. Well, I know hospitals and the ultimate stripping of all shreds of dignity really well. Come Tuesday, I have yet another DRE (Digital Rectal Examination) scheduled at Grimlane Hospital, sometimes mistakenly called Greenlane. I loathe the whole (hole?) business. But, on the premise that one should write about what one knows, herewith my latest entry try for Poem of the Week.

    Vidi, Veni, Vamoose*

    Of all medical jobs – including urologists,
    Saddest of all is the gay proctologist’s.
    Faced with round and ruddy cheeks,
    Tempted daily to salacious peeks.

    He can but try and make a good fist of it;
    Concentrate and just forget the rest of it.
    And when he’s done and DRE through,
    Softly ask, ‘Was it good for you, too?’

    Pity thee then the poor gay proctologist;
    Interested in heads but no phrenologist.
    Barred by ethics from making passes;
    Daily tempted by virginal arses.

    *I saw; I came; I scarpered.

    Well, if not that, how about ‘antipodeanising’ a little bit that was previousl forever England? Rupert Brooke is a member of the Dead Poets Society, so he won’t mind.

    Say, are there Oysters yet to find?
    And toheroa, with lemon rind?
    Deep trout pools yet, for to forget
    The lies, and truths, and pain? oh! yet
    Stands the pubs’ clock at ten to three?
    And whitebait fritters still for tea?

     
47. Steve, 23. March 2009, 16:06
    

    I’m one-third through Altar Ego and I was motivated enough to find this website. But I’m losing motivation to finish the book. Well-researched history is hard enough to read without all the puns and joking elbows in the ribs from the author.

    Frankly, I thought the review was pretty fair. And I saw it as a POSITIVE review – my interpretation was “anyone who is interested in Marsden and/or is going to write something about him should read this book”. It doesn’t have to be the Last Word on Marsden to (eventually) have the sort of impact that the author is hoping for.

    But now anyone (other than a fellow conspiracy-theorist) reading this response thread is going to write-off the author as just another internet looney with a chip on his shoulder. I would suggest instead that readers give the book a go. Perhaps it is better than the reviewer would have you believe. It is CERTAINLY better than you’d imagine judging from the author’s comments above.

     
48. Richard Quinn, 23. March 2009, 21:27
    

    Conspiracy theorist? No Steve; not by a country mile. Unfair and untrue remarks were made by Mark Derby; I replied strongly to them – though to no avail. But conspiracy? I don’t know where you get that from. How is a detailed rebuttal in any way indicative of paranoia or the like on my part?

    My problem with Marsden was simple. Knowng nothing of him at the outset, I grew to loathe him intensely as I got to know him. The only way I could deal with that – (and I know there are better ways, but each of us is as we are) – was by the punning, etc. You clearly have the wit to see past that and find some merit in the work. For that, thanks. I have always believed (and still do) that the book needed to be written. It’s just a pity that it affected me so badly.

    As to conspiracy theories, I have had some very abusive phone calls and nasty notes from ‘Christians’ outraged at my detailed work. Academia at large doesn’t like it either, if for different reasons. My work shows that their work was lacking. Two academics who have privately supported me do not want to be publicly named, because of the possible negative affect on their careers. That’s a bit tough – all round. It does not speak highly of our academics valuation of freedom of speech, does it?

    I’m working on a second book. Again, NZ history. It is as detailed as Altar Ego, but without the ‘banter.’ The subject, though a toughie, doesn’t have the soul-shaking effect on me that Marsden did. My only real problem with it is my chronic fatigue.

    Given the time to finish that – which is by no means a sure thing – you will see me at my forensic, dispassionate best. I love research and history – and mysteries. This book has them all.

    Ultimately, all things authorial considered – which only I can know – I’m satisfied enough with Altar Ego. Yes, it would have been better without the puns, but I am only capable of being me. I had no other coping mechanism.

    In any event, I am glad that you are finding something of value in it. That makes it all worthwhile.

    Lastly, I don’t have a chip on my shoulder. The book is ‘out there.’ That’s an achievement I’m proud of. Always. But thanks for your comments, Steve. Believe it or not, I appreciate them.

     
49. Richard Quinn, 6. April 2009, 22:15
    

    I got another foreign review in the post today. Glossy, four-colour mag and a positive review. Double cheers to that, though I find I increasingly don’t care what others say. I can only do my best. I have done so.

    Well, I’ll hit 97,000 words tonight. That isn’t a great leap foward from the 88,000 reached by 15 March, but it’s progress, isn’t it? I don’t write every day now, but I at least think about the work every day. I couldn’t not – if that makes sense?

    As Jeremy is kind enough to allow me the space, let me speak to anyone who has ever considered writing a book: just do it. If you are serious, you will find it to be the most rewarding, frustrating, engaging and consummate passion of your life. It will be in your mind from the second you awake until the second you drift off to sleep – and every second in between. You will enter another world – or help create one – and find more real joy than is expressible.

    ‘No Other Requiem’ – the working title of my second book – consumes me. There is no other word for it. I love the research, which involves the thrill of the chase, then the mental putting together of the facts, which is akin to making a jigsaw without a picture on a box in front of you to show where the pieces go. And then that last lovely bit when you have captured it all (or so you’d like to think, anyway!) and set it down on paper or word processor. (And nary a pun in it, Godwot).

    I can’t think of anything more sublime than that: creating or telling a story. Give it a go. If I can, anyone can.

    And should I get to the magic 100,000 words, than dammit, sirrah, I shall break out a magnum of morphine: cheers.

     
50. fiona, 12. April 2009, 3:22
    

    Hey do any of you know of a Venerable Bernard Faull?

     
51. Richard Quinn, 12. April 2009, 18:53
    

    Only Professor Richard Faull, who will be getting my brain and spine (both in mint condition), when I shuffle off. For his ongoing research into Parkinson’s Disease, which I don’t have.

    Kiwis need to be better at donating organs for transplant and research.

    Good luck with your search, Fiona.

     
52. Keri Hulme, 25. April 2009, 20:34
    

    Richard quinn, afrer reading through all your extraordinary posts – and marvelling at Jeremy Rose’s paitience, tolerance. & lovely courtesy- what on earth do you think you’re trying to achieve? Is it the morphine?
    Playing at being other posters just doesnt work. Most readers can pick up a writer’s quirks *very* quickly, and find this kind of self-congratulatory posturing – squee. Sicko.
    I am interested in Samuel Marsden – because I think he was an early Victorian sociopath – but you’ve really put me off reading your book.

    I would, however, totally agree with your comment “Kiwis need to be better at donating organs for transplant and research.”

    Tautoko!

     
53. Richard Quinn, 26. April 2009, 21:14
    

    Keri,

    What was I trying to achieve, you ask. Answer: To try and stay in touch with a world increasingly difficult to be part of because of pain.

    Never played at ‘being other posters’ and don’t know what you mean. Used my own name.

    Self-congratulatory posturing? What a shallow, uninsightful analysis! I find it tremendously difficult to keep my nose to the grindstone, from sheer fatigue. It is so overwhelming as to be impossible to describe. By posting what I was trying to do and where I was at, I was setting myself a public challenge, in the hope that it it might help me achieve the goal. Silly? Maybe – but you have to try what you think might work.

    I also took the chance to reply to Fiona’s query above as an opportunity to spread the word about the need for organ and research donors.

    If you can give me the title of the right book to read on how to try and do what I’m trying to do, but differently, in the context of terminal illness and constant severe pain, I’ll read it from cover to cover : promise. Maybe you could write it.

    Otherwise, ‘sicko’ or not, I just have to keep trying to do things that I feel might help. I might be wrong, but I AM trying. You tell me how it should be done, okay? Me, I’m just learning.

     
54. Richard Quinn, 26. April 2009, 21:45
    

    Jeremy,

    I recently thanked you for your kindness to me; it was not something I was either unaware of or ungrateful for. Ever. I’ve greatly enjoyed reading Scoop book reviews, ‘etc’ and found it a brilliant way of keeping in touch with another world. I don’t get out much, as I just get too bloody tired to be bothered – or able.

    In my own way, I’ve tried to contribute, and wasn’t aware that for some reason I would be taken for some kind of monstrous imposter for doing so. I never meant to be one, for sure. My last two posts (pre my reply to KH) were both about Anzac Day; but possibly different aspects of it than are usually to the fore at this time of the year. The themes were alienation, loss and private grief. If they didn’t stand on their own merits, I’m frankly buggered as to why you posted them. There was no special pleading from me to you, as you well know.

    So yes, you have been kind: and again, my thanks for that. I tried to respond to your kindness by making genuine contributions that might hopefully have some merit., for whatever reason

    Thank you, Jeremy.

     
55. Richard Quinn, 27. April 2009, 16:38
    

    KH:

    I only ever spoke positively about tbp (see my post 26 Feb).

    You made your comments some time since I last wrote about Marsden. Why waiti until I’m writing about other things to kick me in the balls?

    If my comments about loving writing, etc, are ‘self-congratulatory posturing,’ what are comments about how many copies tbp has sold ?

    Likewise for how many languages it has been published in?

    Marsden wasn’t an early Victorian sociopath: he was dead and buried before Victoria was crowned. Get your facts straight.

    You have not not read Altar Ego, but have very strong views on Marsden’s psyche. As no other writer EVER did the depth of work I did on SM, could you give me your reading list you used to reach that view? I’d love to see it. Otherwise, your opinion is just that of another uninformed person big-noting on a subject they really know nothing about at all. That’s a bit sad, eh?

    Re me being a ‘sicko’ as you so delicately put it. Any online dictionary will tell you that a sicko is a mentally il person. That’s what it means. What gives you the right to first diagnose me as mentally ill, then mock me for it?

    Discuss.

    Your comment about not reading my book, yet having the gall to comment on it reminds me of Oscar Wilde’s quip: “I never read a book before reviewing it. It prejudices one so.”

    Haven’t you got anything better to do with your time than pick on someone as little and as unimportant as me? Try macrame, maybe.

     
56. Keri Hulme, 27. April 2009, 18:46
    

    I can respond to the organ transplant part, Richard (and truly empathise with the pain & necessary morphine intake associated with cancer – one of my younger sisters died of widespread cancer in 2007: I certainly do not wish, in any way, to belittle or trash what you’ve already achieved – your book is out there eh?)

    Organ transplants: one of my family is alive, and mainly thriving, because of a donor organ from another of my family. We ‘re of part Maori-ancestry, and the number of Maori who donate organs is even more dismayingly low than the figures for the population at large. I have spoken about this at several of my tribe’s hui, in a low-key way.
    Dead – as in your most honourable donation apropos Parkinson’s- or alive, we need more donors…

    Right book to read? I know of none. I am very much a book person, but when things get very sad, bad, physically tough, I know I go listen – music, birds, sea,rain, wind, longdead voices. And I light fires, and walk beaches, when I can. Kia ora mai na.

     
57. Richard Quinn, 27. April 2009, 21:11
    

    Keri

    You are right about Maori: their record is even worse than Pakeha – which is abysmal anyway. I can no longer be a donor because of cancer (except maybe my corneas), but I am going to be used for research. Last chance to be useful. I’m grateful for that.

    I hate cancer and what it does to people. I’ve spoken to men’s groups – been photographed with Buck Shelford for a newspaper, even! – and take every chance I get – like now – to spread the word: guys, have a PSA (prostate screening antigen) test. IT MIGHT JUST SAVE YOUR LIFE, EH? Am also in an international drug trial which might help blokes ‘down the line.’ There were a thousand of us round the world at the outset, but we are a rapidly shrinking band of brothers now. I try and help other people who are sick. People need to know this: Sometimes, the ‘it always happens to someone else’ effect is bound to hit YOU OR YOUR FAMILY; as you know, Keri.

    There are no real ‘self-help books. We’re all too different. And all the real experts are dead. But – and we all respond in different ways to this need – you have to try and do the best you can. I’m not even sure why this is, but it’s very real. Do your best; keep on going; front the demons and fight. Not fight the cancer as much as fight your own fears.

    Ah, sheesh: I know so bloody little. But I do keep on trying.

    And Keri, if you ever ache in every bone of your body, and want music, try a Godfearing atheist’s choice: Luciano Pavarotti and Ave Maria. How ironic is that? But it helps.

    And guys: a PSA test only requires a tiny blood sample from your arm. So bloody easy: and so important.

    Kia ora to you, too.

     
58. Richard Quinn, 28. April 2009, 3:47
    

    As for me, I shall go back to my macrame knitting too, for I can hear the hollow sound of a tumbril approaching. I have a book to finish.

    Think what you will of me. I am simply doing my best.

    Yours, with a sickly (sicko?) smile …

     
59. Keri Hulme, 28. April 2009, 19:24
    

    Richard quinn* – I’m an atheist fullstop. I do ache in quite a lot of bones (I have osteoarthritis) but hey, music is an intensely personal choice & I tend to go for everything from Mozart to bits of Schubert to Richard Nunns & Hirini Melboune to Fatcat & Fishface. Life goes on – until it stops. Kia ora tatou-

    *it is a quirk of this particular keyboard that it will not produce capital qqq

     
60. Farrell, 12. May 2009, 23:06
    

    Salutations Richard Quinn for your passionately eloquent book on Marsden.

    The CMS have had an easy ride in New Zealand… so many of the books about the missionaries have been by family members and, as you point out, the professional historians, like Binney, have worn kid gloves when dealing with missionary involvement in the musket trade. I came across a book about the English missionaries in Tahiti (written by an American–sorry, I’ve forgotten both title and author) which did for them what you now do for Marsden. At the time I lamented the lack of a similar work on the activities of the missionaries in NZ. And now you have given us one.
    Nga mihi ki a koe!

    I was particularly impressed by the evidence you point to indicating the depth of the CMS involvement in the supply of muskets, and in particular for the pointer that Hongi Hika actually brought his muskets from England, and did not get them in Sydney as historians usually accept. The suggestion that it was actually De Thierry who supplied him with guns is made but not really nailed. Do you think Hongi may have got most of the guns from De Thierry?

    No wonder Marsden and his underlings made no converts. Their creed clearly had little to do with the Beatitudes. I was reminded of the waiata published in the Penguin Book of NZ Verse (1985):

    E, it te tekau maa whaa ka uu te whakapono ei
    Ki runga o Ooihi, ki te iwi Maaori ei!
    (In 1814 the faith landed at Oihi, reached the Maori people)
    Ka tuu Te Maatenga, ko te kupu teenei ei.
    (Marsden stood there, and this is what he said: )
    ‘Kei te rangi te Atau, me titiro whakarunga ei’
    (“God is in the sky; you should look up.”)
    Ka huri te Maaori, ka titiro whakararo ei
    Ki te papa oneone i Aotearoa ei,
    Ka taiapatia mai ki te paaraharaha ei,
    Ki te paatiti ki te paraikete whero ei,
    Ki te rooria rino naau, e Kaawana!
    (The Maori turned; they looked down at the ground of Aotearoa,
    fenced off with ropes, with axes, with red blankets,
    and with your Jew’s harps, Governor!)
    Kua riro te whenua, e tere ra i te moana ei!
    (The land has been taken; it is drifting out there on the ocean!)

    [My translation.]

    We have all known that missionaries and guns were essential components of European imperialism. You have shown us just how intertwined those two factors were in the colonisation of Aotearoa.

    You go at Marsden barefisted and I cannot imagine anyone who reads the primary sources you marshal who would think your anger unjustified.
    You should not be surprised that professional historians sniff at your passion. They are taught to maintain an icy veneer of apparent objectivity, and will be unable to appreciate your style, but you will get plenty of acknowledgement from the Martin Edmonds of this world who do not fit so easily into academic boxes.

    I look forward to your next book,

    Farrell

    (not a Catholic although, if I was in Belfast, I might have to be labelled a “cultural Catholic”)

     
61. Richard Quinn, 31. July 2009, 1:41
    

    Farrell,

    Thanks for your well-expressed regard for Altar Ego. You are right about the academics: they were never going to like either me or my work, so in the end I just thought ‘to hell with them’ and steered for the sound of the guns. It does greatly disturb me though when someone like Mark Derby, the Scoop reviewer, makes many blatant and provable mistakes, but won’t amend them when they are pointed out to him. At that point, the agenda becomes too clear for any words from me.

    As to where the bulk of Hongi Hika’s armoury came from, yes, I think De Thierry was right in the middle of it, along with Kendall. De Thierry was a CMS protege at the time.

    My next book will be a close-run thing if I can make it. I am very tired.

     
62. Edwin Knight, 13. September 2009, 3:04
    

    Richard Quinn Passed away yesterday peacefully.

    He will be missed by many. He was a very great intelligent and passionate man.

     
63. dave bedggood, 16. September 2009, 19:03
    

    Well done Richard!
    Now the emails have stopped I will have to read the book.

     

Write a comment: