Post by bookrefuge on Apr 13, 2012 5:46:29 GMT -5
I have just published an article on the LKC in the current issue of The New American magazine. It is a hard-copy journal, but they did post an online version of the article at thenewamerican.com/history/american/item/10966-the-lindbergh-baby-kidnapping-mystery
I am not mentioning the article here so much to plug it as to just serve the usual notice we have in the “News” section of this board, when there is something relevant to the LKC. Many followers of this board won’t like the article anyway, since it is favorable to both Hauptmann and Lindbergh. Anyone so inclined can feel free to write scathing reviews of it, although it really doesn’t say anything that I haven’t already posted on the board. I am currently working under a pretty tight deadline on another article for the magazine, so I will only have limited time in the immediate future to post replies to criticisms.
I would like to say one thing in the article’s defense, however. Some may accuse me of having “omitted” things. I’d like to make it clear that, to a certain extent, this was necessitated by the fact that I was under a strict word limit. This is not the case with a book, of course—you can say however much you like, whether it takes 200 pages or 600 pages.
In the case of The New American article, for example, I never mention Dr. Condon’s lack of credibility or his penchant for publicity. I am of course aware of these things, and share others’ revulsion at them, and originally intended to discuss them. The problem is that, when I finished the article, I was way over of the editorial world limit. I had to keep chopping thing to get down to the limit, and finally the story of Jafsie’s credibility wound up on the cutting-room floor. But it wasn’t because I was trying to “protect” him or something like that.
I might also mention that in the hard-copy edition of the article we included graphics. I wrote the captions for these, and this gave me the opportunity to squeeze in some additional information, such as that the controversy over the ladder continues to this day. You won’t see these captioned graphics online.
Of course, my article emphasizes items that support my viewpoint, although I think you’ll find most authors do that (perhaps with the exception of Gardner in the LKC?). At the end of the article, I note that many facets of the case could not be discussed, and refer readers to other sources, including Gardner’s book and this board, where they can learn more.
I am not mentioning the article here so much to plug it as to just serve the usual notice we have in the “News” section of this board, when there is something relevant to the LKC. Many followers of this board won’t like the article anyway, since it is favorable to both Hauptmann and Lindbergh. Anyone so inclined can feel free to write scathing reviews of it, although it really doesn’t say anything that I haven’t already posted on the board. I am currently working under a pretty tight deadline on another article for the magazine, so I will only have limited time in the immediate future to post replies to criticisms.
I would like to say one thing in the article’s defense, however. Some may accuse me of having “omitted” things. I’d like to make it clear that, to a certain extent, this was necessitated by the fact that I was under a strict word limit. This is not the case with a book, of course—you can say however much you like, whether it takes 200 pages or 600 pages.
In the case of The New American article, for example, I never mention Dr. Condon’s lack of credibility or his penchant for publicity. I am of course aware of these things, and share others’ revulsion at them, and originally intended to discuss them. The problem is that, when I finished the article, I was way over of the editorial world limit. I had to keep chopping thing to get down to the limit, and finally the story of Jafsie’s credibility wound up on the cutting-room floor. But it wasn’t because I was trying to “protect” him or something like that.
I might also mention that in the hard-copy edition of the article we included graphics. I wrote the captions for these, and this gave me the opportunity to squeeze in some additional information, such as that the controversy over the ladder continues to this day. You won’t see these captioned graphics online.
Of course, my article emphasizes items that support my viewpoint, although I think you’ll find most authors do that (perhaps with the exception of Gardner in the LKC?). At the end of the article, I note that many facets of the case could not be discussed, and refer readers to other sources, including Gardner’s book and this board, where they can learn more.