In writing my original review of Ted Babbs' book about Borley Rectory, I fear I seem to have upset both him and Keld Fenwick, the publisher. I'm very sorry to have done so, as both Keld and Ted are very pleasant people about whom I bear no malice at all; quite the contrary in fact. I feel well-disposed to everyone else who takes an interest in the history of the Borley Rectory affair, and like to live in peace with my fellow men. The book has many virtues and the Publishing house of Six Martlets Publishing is a very welcome addition and we all look forward to Keld's future projects. As I said in the original review, "One hopes that this will be the first in a number of books by Six Martlets Publishing, who have achieved a remarkable production quality in their first venture"
In a review that, I thought, mentioned these good points, I felt that the duties of a reviewer made it essential to mention the good points but to go over certain matters that might disappoint some purchasers of the book, as they did for me. I may be a severe critic of any book about Borley Rectory simply because I have studied and researched the subject for around forty years now on and off, and it could well be that I am too severe on the book. Had it not been for its title 'The Final Analysis', I think one could fairly judge it on its undoubted merits as an introductory summary of the subject, without taking it to task where it strayed from historical discipline or accuracy. It is only because it aims so high that it occasionally misses the target
On one matter I must unreservedly apologise. In complaining about the way that assertions were made in the book without the backing of primary evidence, I said "Alas, we will never know because there are no references or footnotes to backup his statements. There isn’t even an index.". I never meant to imply that there were no references at all in the book, What I meant to say was that the contentious statements are not always referenced, so it is not possible to check on how Ted substantiates what he says. There are some references, though I would have preferred a lot more. In unintentionally implying there is no indexing whatsoever, I was wrong too, as there is what is described as an 'Index of People, Places and Publications'. What I meant was that there was no general index that covers subjects as well: . The whole saga of Borley Rectory is full of references to footsteps, Bells, coaches, cellars, tunnels, bottle-throwing, Blue rooms, wall-writing, séances, Cats-cemeteries and other bizarre subjects. One aches for an index such as enhanced the classic books about Borley Rectory. It allows one to dabble, and browse, exploring avenues different to the authors' train of thought. An 'Index of People, Places and Publications' really isn't the same thing.
Ted draws attention to my 'poor grasp of semantics' in referring to the book as a 'little' book. I'm happy to accept that criticism. I had not meant the word 'little' in a derogatory sense and I'm rather surprised that it was taken as a criticism. I was referring to the book's width, in comparison with the classic books on the subject. I actually wrote "As a little book of sidelights about Borley Rectory, it succeeds admirably".
Ted then moves on to protest at my referring to ‘The Haunting of
Borley Rectory’ as a literary sensation when it was published nearly 50
years ago. He feels the book was discredited along with
.... 'the late Trevor Hall, whose main speciality was not ‘The Higher
Criticism’, rather it was what some people call ‘Trash Biography’ which
means that if enough mud is thrown some of it will stick.....
Fortunately, the booklet ‘An Examination of the Borley Report’ by Robert J Hastings, 1969', published originally in the proceedings of the SPR March 1969, is now available for study on http://borleyrectory.com/CDebr/index.html The points that Robert Hastings made were subsequently incorporated in the Underwood/Tabori book 'The Ghosts of Borley'. The booklet did not attempt to cover all the criticisms of Harry Price that were in the ‘The Haunting of Borley Rectory’. Although the story of Harry Price throwing stones turned out to require considerable modification, it is hard to see how it discredited the entire book unless one can assume that, by undermining one brick, the entire edifice is demolished.
I am called to task for making the observation that Ted is ‘always inclined to accept a supernatural explanation uncritically and avoids embarrassing details that suggest otherwise.’ Ted explains that his approach in the book was academic and very cautious. and protested that my illustrative quote had been taken out of context and distorted deliberately. Ted must also resent the considerable publicity he has received in the local paper over his more recent 'ghost-hunting' activities which I'm afraid I have not followed very attentively. We all like to think that we can approach a subject without any bias, but it is very difficult to write about Borley Rectory completely dispassionately.
To illustrate the sort of passages that make one suspect his predispositions, here is a passage that comments on the allegation that Harry Price planted the human bones in the cellar in order to substantiate the seances. 'The reality is that almost certainly he did nothing of the sort and if readers are somewhat surprised at the lack of trust and charitable feeling between these trained and serious investigators, then all that we can do is to remind them that that we have cautioned them already about this unfortunate state of affairs.'.
Ted's tirade against Trevor Hall is distasteful. The fact that Alan Wesencraft made allegations about the theft of 'The Locked Book' before him does not give him Carte Blanche to repeat the allegation of theft. Trevor is now deceased and so cannot defend himself, but I knew him to be a man of immense integrity. There seems little doubt that the original owner of the 'Locked Book' was Sidney Glanville, and I know of no evidence that he gave it unconditionally to Harry Price. I understand that, after helping considerably with the research for ‘The Haunting of Borley Rectory’ he willed it to Trevor Hall, with whom he struck up a friendship. I seem to remember that Trevor then 'published' it by making copies for the British Library etc. so that it should not be lost to posterity. I don't think for a moment Alan Wesencraft made the allegations out of malice, but from the understandable confusion that followed the untimely death of both Price and Glanville. It was in the Harry Price library and it was reasonable for him to assume that the late Harry Price had title, or ownership, to the book. I do, however, reproach Ted for repeating the accusation of theft against a man whose friends and family are still alive, as there is no evidence in the book that he verified it for himself.
Ted then makes the point that I'm attempting to disparage him as an author by complaining about his literary device of taking the events out of their chronological sequence. It is a perfectly legitimate device, frequently done for effect by authors of every calibre. For me, it just makes for difficult reading here. Ted does a quick gallop through the history for his 'Chapter 1'. he then re-covers some of the ground in his chapter 2, which is a critical essay on Robert Wood's book. He then starts again and, in the next four chapters works chronologically through the history of events. In dealing with Harry Price's involvement in the saga, we then have to work through once again. By choosing to extract some materials into a chapter called 'The documents and what they tell us', one gets another sweep through the chronology, as with 'Further experiences and an exciting discovery' which takes us back to the Foyster residency in the 1930s, before reaching the discovery of the crypt, first recounted in Wesley Downes' book 'The Ghosts of Borley'' in 1993. In making this criticism, I'm not seeking to disparage him as an author, I'm just saying that, for me, it made the series of events difficult to follow.
Ted says in his book that Rev Guy Smith believed in Ghosts and claims that my correction of his statement is made in order to "disparage the author of ‘Borley Rectory: The Final Analysis’ in the face of evidence to the contrary". Actually, Harry Price says in his book that Guy didn't believe in Ghosts. The local newspaper man who interviewed him says he didn't. Even the reporter from the Daily Mirror is careful to say that he didn't. His wife was certain he didn't. Ted must produce some pretty powerful evidence to counter all this. I'm aware of the correspondence between Glanville and Smith which suggest a less sceptical stance, but I suspect that Rev Guy Smith's beliefs were of a rather more theological concept of evil. Ted may like to think that Mrs Smith was an unreliable witness, but here statements deserve careful scrutiny. They are consistent and they tie in with a great deal of other primary evidence. She knew a great deal about what was going on at the time.
Try as I might, I cannot agree with Ted that one must parade allegations about Marianne's private life in the book. Sometimes, the historian intrudes much to far in drawing attention to matters that should have been long forgotten. This is a matter that troubles me greatly in my own historical activities in republishing old newspaper articles between 1782 and 1950. One must be extremely careful. Marianne redeemed all her misdemeanours in her later life and one ought, in all fairness, to touch on them only where they shed light on the supposedly supernatural events at Borley Rectory. Ted digs up village gossip about her attempts to seduce the gardener 'Marianne used to visit (the village schoolmistress) frequently and the two women could be heard shrieking with laughter. Apparently, Marianne had designs on a local resident, Herbert Mayes and we wonder if he was the subject of those hilarious conversations...It can only be a matter of conjecture as to how he dealt with the overtures of the rector's vivacious young wife'. I think it is perfectly legitimate to question the introduction of this sort of material when it seems to have nothing to do the haunting and probably wasn't true anyway.
Ted says that is incorrect to say that Alfred and Margaret Finch were ‘severe critics of the haunting.’ He says that he and Claudine Mathias spent many hours talking to them and never did they deny that there had been haunting at Borley Rectory. He challenges me to produce my evidence and says he would be prepared to accept my version of their beliefs 'if you produce interview notes, dated and authenticated as is normal journalistic practice, supporting your contention.' . That is unnecessary as they were interviewed by the Foxearth and District Local History Society on video camera for a Millennium project and the results are available for all to see (there is, I believe, a copy at the County Records Office). Alfred's most pungent remarks were, I fear, deliberately made after the camera was switched off but are remembered well by the local historians. Their daughter Kathleen has contributed greatly to the local history archives. I am at a loss to explain why they did not repeat their views to Ted. Perhaps they assumed that he wanted bunk rather than debunk!
I am taken to task for failing to see Ted's Leylines. These alignments are supposed to link prehistoric religious sites. I strained to see anything lining up on an ordnance survey map. Ted protests that 'they are published in the book without comment, for all to see.' Actually, what he says in the book is 'With the aid of a large-scale map of East Anglia and a transparent ruler, we think that we may have found two more ley lines which run through Borley Rectory.' In the next paragraph he says 'The point is that if a number of ley lines do intersect at Borley and if it is true that they are associated with magnetic force, then there could be consequences, to say the least of it'. The same would be true if flying saucers landed on the church roof, but it doesn't mean it has happened. In this case Ted says that there are alignments. I disagree, but I really don't think I'm guilty of an error of fact. Even if there was an alignment, it is difficult to understand how it explains phantom nuns, headless coachmen, bells, smells and footsteps.
One comes to my criticism of Ted's writing style. Oh dear, so much of this is subjective. I'm sure there are many who have dived into Ted's book with whoops of glee and chuckles of delight. I cannot find any reference anywhere to Ted's previous books, so I'm not sure that he is a professional writer. In criticising his style, I'm not making an attack on him as a person. If I were to perform a ballet to the paying public, I would ride with the blows if criticisms were made. It is not an attack on me as a person, only my skills as a dancer. Writing is a craft just as surely as woodwork, or synchronised swimming. It can be taught, assessed and judged. There is no reason why one can dash off a readable and entertaining book, and many reasons why it is extremely hard. It is a rare skill. I don't pretend to be a professional author, though my last, a rather esoteric technical book, sold 16,000 copies, providing a comfortable income for a while, and a previous one was translated into four languages. No, it is as a reader rather than a writer that I claim expertise. We could home in on the fine details of style here but not in public, surely. We all know that one man's meat is another mans' poison so to claim that I have defamed him and giving a public summary of the law on defamation is an unusual reaction to literary criticism.