UBC: Lizzie Borden
Apr. 21st, 2011 05:32 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
truepennyBrown, Arnold R. Lizzie Borden: The Legend, the Truth, the Final Chapter. Nashville, TN: Rutledge Hill Press, 1991. [library]
All things considered, this was probably not the best place to start reading about Lizzie Borden.
Arnold Brown was neither an experienced historian nor an experienced criminologist--he was an engineer. This doesn't necessarily mean that he could not have written an excellent book about the Borden murders, but it does help to explain the book's faults.
1. Brown is a man with a New(!)Theory(!), based on a manuscript a friend let him read, written by the friend's father-in-law when he was dying in 1978, about the friend's father-in-law's childhood memories (pre-1901)--and about the friend's father-in-law's mother-in-law's memories of the day the Bordens were murdered (told to the friend's father-in-law in the early 1920s). (N.b., Andrew and Abby Borden were murdered on August 4, 1892.) Both the father-in-law and the father-in-law's mother-in-law were dead by the time Brown started researching (and Brown cheats, trying to make the friend's father-in-law's mother-in-law's memories seem more immediate by writing sections from her PoV, including her experiences the day of the murder). Also, Brown's theory (this part seeming to be Brown's contribution, not the work of the friend's father-in-law or the friend's father-in-law's mother-in-law) is a conspiracy theory.
2. Brown claims that the lawyers for the defense, the lawyers for the prosecution, the judges, and the local and state governments were all complicit in Lizzie Borden being tried and acquitted rather than going after the "real" murderer, Lizzie's alleged half brother William S. Borden, but while he claims Lizzie agreed to this in order to have her father's will suppressed, he gives no reason why the men in power should bother: "Their actions were not for Lizzie or for the Bordens. They acted for themselves and for the monetary reward, and they would have done the same for any of 'their own'" (323). They conspired because they were conspirators. Q.E.D.
3. Ironically, for a book that claims to refute what "everybody knows" about the Borden murders (he goes through and critiques the doggerel Lizzie Borden took an axe line by line for its inaccuracies), he assumes that everybody knows--and agrees about!--Lizzie Borden's selfishness, laziness, cold-bloodedness, and greed.
4. Brown is highly self-congratulatory about having researched the Borden murders for two full years (emphasis his) before writing his book.
5. If one reads the acknowledgments carefully, they suggest that most of the time, other people did Brown's researching for him.
6. Brown insists his book is the "objective, definitive answer" to the mystery of the Borden murders (11), the "true, factual account of an historic event" (13). And then he says things like, "What I have written, of course, is not testimony, it is reconstructed fact based on common sense" (182) and "All logic dictates that Miss Lizzie was under the pear trees when the murderer left the house and the property. Proof? There are times when logic is its own proof!" (225). Throughout, he tends to assume that saying something is true is the same as proving something is true.
7. He doesn't know basic things about historical research, e.g., that the most likely reason for two daughters of the same family, born in 1848 and 1850, both to be named Eliza is that the Eliza born in 1848 died prior to her sister's birth in 1850. And he doesn't have any sense of how to contextualize his historical argument. He insists that Lizzie Borden's trial was marked by an unusual degree of legal malfeasance (which he says was caused by his hypothesized conspiracy), but while he shows that the legal malfeasance was pretty rank and rampant by modern standards, he doesn't give any evidence to show that it was unusual. I've read about other nineteenth century trials; I need convincing.
8. He puts his story together badly. Partly, this is because the Borden murders are incredibly confusing. Partly, it's because he's trying to save his best secrets for last, but keeps having to mention them to explain his argument.
9. He ascribes motives and emotions to people based on the transcripts of their testimony, when in fact the transcripts do not reveal anything of the sort. And, on the obverse side, he shows himself fairly deaf to subtext:
Brown, of course, interprets this as somebody having screwed with the files, but I can see a second interpretation, which is this poor "official" identifying Brown as a crank and taking necessary steps to disengage. (There's also a rather snippy bit in the acknowledgments: "Requests for information in city or state public records were met with mixed results. Those who were helpful are: [and then a list]" (8). This is the sort of thing that tells you more about the writer and his subject-position than it does about the people who failed to be "helpful.")
I don't know that Arnold Brown is wrong, but he fails utterly to persuade me that he is right. Mostly, he persuades me that he is a man with a hobby horse.
If Arnold Brown has represented himself correctly, then it is true that he had access to primary sources that were previously unavailable. Does anyone know of any trustworthy books on the Borden murders written after 1991? I'll also gladly take opinions of pre-1991 books and whether any of them are worth pursuing, but if Brown really did have new primary sources, I'd like to know what other scholars have made of them.
All things considered, this was probably not the best place to start reading about Lizzie Borden.
Arnold Brown was neither an experienced historian nor an experienced criminologist--he was an engineer. This doesn't necessarily mean that he could not have written an excellent book about the Borden murders, but it does help to explain the book's faults.
1. Brown is a man with a New(!)Theory(!), based on a manuscript a friend let him read, written by the friend's father-in-law when he was dying in 1978, about the friend's father-in-law's childhood memories (pre-1901)--and about the friend's father-in-law's mother-in-law's memories of the day the Bordens were murdered (told to the friend's father-in-law in the early 1920s). (N.b., Andrew and Abby Borden were murdered on August 4, 1892.) Both the father-in-law and the father-in-law's mother-in-law were dead by the time Brown started researching (and Brown cheats, trying to make the friend's father-in-law's mother-in-law's memories seem more immediate by writing sections from her PoV, including her experiences the day of the murder). Also, Brown's theory (this part seeming to be Brown's contribution, not the work of the friend's father-in-law or the friend's father-in-law's mother-in-law) is a conspiracy theory.
2. Brown claims that the lawyers for the defense, the lawyers for the prosecution, the judges, and the local and state governments were all complicit in Lizzie Borden being tried and acquitted rather than going after the "real" murderer, Lizzie's alleged half brother William S. Borden, but while he claims Lizzie agreed to this in order to have her father's will suppressed, he gives no reason why the men in power should bother: "Their actions were not for Lizzie or for the Bordens. They acted for themselves and for the monetary reward, and they would have done the same for any of 'their own'" (323). They conspired because they were conspirators. Q.E.D.
3. Ironically, for a book that claims to refute what "everybody knows" about the Borden murders (he goes through and critiques the doggerel Lizzie Borden took an axe line by line for its inaccuracies), he assumes that everybody knows--and agrees about!--Lizzie Borden's selfishness, laziness, cold-bloodedness, and greed.
4. Brown is highly self-congratulatory about having researched the Borden murders for two full years (emphasis his) before writing his book.
5. If one reads the acknowledgments carefully, they suggest that most of the time, other people did Brown's researching for him.
6. Brown insists his book is the "objective, definitive answer" to the mystery of the Borden murders (11), the "true, factual account of an historic event" (13). And then he says things like, "What I have written, of course, is not testimony, it is reconstructed fact based on common sense" (182) and "All logic dictates that Miss Lizzie was under the pear trees when the murderer left the house and the property. Proof? There are times when logic is its own proof!" (225). Throughout, he tends to assume that saying something is true is the same as proving something is true.
7. He doesn't know basic things about historical research, e.g., that the most likely reason for two daughters of the same family, born in 1848 and 1850, both to be named Eliza is that the Eliza born in 1848 died prior to her sister's birth in 1850. And he doesn't have any sense of how to contextualize his historical argument. He insists that Lizzie Borden's trial was marked by an unusual degree of legal malfeasance (which he says was caused by his hypothesized conspiracy), but while he shows that the legal malfeasance was pretty rank and rampant by modern standards, he doesn't give any evidence to show that it was unusual. I've read about other nineteenth century trials; I need convincing.
8. He puts his story together badly. Partly, this is because the Borden murders are incredibly confusing. Partly, it's because he's trying to save his best secrets for last, but keeps having to mention them to explain his argument.
9. He ascribes motives and emotions to people based on the transcripts of their testimony, when in fact the transcripts do not reveal anything of the sort. And, on the obverse side, he shows himself fairly deaf to subtext:
Three inquiries were made to the Taunton State Hospital. The first was an inquiry about William S. Borden with no indication as to why there was interest. On January 9, 1989, the following answer was received: "In reference to Borden, (William S.)(W.S.)(William I), we were unable to locate the only file which appeared to be a match." Additional information was received from the same official on February 13, 1989: "A further search of our archives has failed to turn up additional records. However I did learn that William S. Borden's card lists Amanda Taylor and Eliza Borden as sisters."
This response would confirm that William Borden had been committed at some time to the Taunton Insane Hospital. However, on April 6, 1989, the last of three communications was received--all from the same official--which was most peculiar, short, terse, to the point, and reproduced here in its entirety: "We do not have a record of admission to this facility, at all, ever. If he had been here, we would know."
(303-304)
Brown, of course, interprets this as somebody having screwed with the files, but I can see a second interpretation, which is this poor "official" identifying Brown as a crank and taking necessary steps to disengage. (There's also a rather snippy bit in the acknowledgments: "Requests for information in city or state public records were met with mixed results. Those who were helpful are: [and then a list]" (8). This is the sort of thing that tells you more about the writer and his subject-position than it does about the people who failed to be "helpful.")
I don't know that Arnold Brown is wrong, but he fails utterly to persuade me that he is right. Mostly, he persuades me that he is a man with a hobby horse.
If Arnold Brown has represented himself correctly, then it is true that he had access to primary sources that were previously unavailable. Does anyone know of any trustworthy books on the Borden murders written after 1991? I'll also gladly take opinions of pre-1991 books and whether any of them are worth pursuing, but if Brown really did have new primary sources, I'd like to know what other scholars have made of them.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2011-04-21 10:34 pm (UTC)I literally laughed out loud. Oh my goodness.
no subject
Date: 2011-04-21 10:53 pm (UTC)Anybody want to get up a collection to send this guy a GIGO detector?
---L.
Lizzie Borden book rec.
Date: 2011-04-21 11:08 pm (UTC)Re: Lizzie Borden book rec.
Date: 2011-04-22 04:14 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-04-22 11:33 am (UTC)Plus, o dear, the whole thing about 'if the record isn't there, it's proof of a conspiracy!!!!' As opposed to not existing in the first place, or being in the corner of the store in which the pipes burst one winter, as a result of which everything in that corner was stuffed into the boiler, covered with mould, after the waters went down.
Fortunately, our place doesn't have any Borden related material. We do, however, have some material relating to a peripheral figure in the Ripper case.... (runs and hides)
no subject
Date: 2011-04-22 04:17 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-04-22 04:28 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-04-22 04:34 pm (UTC)Conspiracy theories are easier than history.
no subject
Date: 2011-04-23 02:35 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-04-23 02:36 am (UTC)