No Arthur Ford stuff, no final seance, no biographies, no movie. So, Ken ended his book with the burial at Macpelah, ignoring the fact that with his death, Houdini had just begun to live. Years later, he told Kevin Connolly that the trunk that Culliton had was "a very important piece." There are rules for biographers: no editorials, but, Ken squeezes in quite a few (and I enjoyed them) and biographies end in the death of the subject. He completely mis-described the trunk in his book, giving the impression that the original trunk was not the trunk I owned. I showed him the gaff and the evidence I'd gathered that absolutely identified it for what it was. I let him examine the original Metamorphosis trunk at great length. I gave him the October, 1942 Genii magazine in which Edward Saint, in his obituary of Jacob Hyman, said just that, but, in that academically arrogant way of his, he writes that whoever suggested adding an "i" to Houdin is unknown. I sent Ken three different sources to prove that Jacob Hyman suggested adding an "i" to Houdin. What happened happened, as the Losties would say, and yet the recounting is a hydra! Reply Delete The contrast between them sparked my interest in historiography. In effect, it's fiction aimed at children. My first Houdini biography was Williams/Epstein. Not every item of evidence, or proposed evidence, should be given the same weight as every other historical judgments about plausibility and probability are important among the historian's tools, and here again, Silverman trumps. The Kalush/Sloman tomes (book, notes) share Silverman's generosity in documentation and footnoting but lack Christopher's judicious approach. I'd have to reread Graham's book the first time, it didn't impress me as important (except as a bridge between Kellock and Christopher), but maybe reviewing it with fresh eyes would change that. Kellock's tome gives a good sense of the officially sanctioned spin ca. As with his Illustrated History of Magic, Christopher's footnotes are few and nearly useless to the serious researcher. However, it lacks the scholarly apparatus. It's quite well researched and organized, and Christopher shows good judgment at many key points. Second in importance (and I agree with John here) is Christopher's bio. Its most important feature is that it's scholarly (in the sense that it follows academic conventions, including the provision of copious footnotes- especially for those who acquired the companion volume, Notes to Houdini.) There are a couple of things to dislike and many, many things to like about Silverman's biography.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |