In the Preface to the 2014 CSIRO publication “Ned Kelly Under the Microscope”, the Editor Craig Cormick asks “Do we really need another Ned Kelly book?”
Cormick is a Kelly sympathiser and apologist who believes Kelly made a heroic stand against injustice, but he nevertheless managed to assemble a very worthwhile contribution to the bloated and ever expanding mass of publications about Ned Kelly. He answers his own question by saying “As long as it has something new to say, then ‘Yes, we do’ ” and his work amply filled that criterion – it did indeed have a lot to say that was new. However I think he needed to qualify that answer by suggesting that the ‘something new’ needed to be something significant and it needed to be worth saying. The problem with the Kelly literature is that it in recent years many Kelly enthusiasts have published stuff that may have been ‘new’ but only ‘new’ in some trivial way – and very little has been significant, or worth saying. “Ned Kelly : The Iron Outlaw”, published a few months ago is a case in point – it says almost nothing new, and definitely nothing new that is important or worth saying , so by Cormicks criterion, it wasn’t something anyone needed. It’s a waste of space. It was just an ego boost for its brainwashed author (My Review of that book is HERE )
The latest addition to the Kelly literature is Jack Petersons “An Introduction to Ned Kelly : A pictorial history of an Australian Outlaw”. It’s a self published work of 100 pages available from Amazon. The link Peterson provides on his webpage takes you to the American site where you can purchase it as a 20 cm square paperback for $37.16. but if you search for it on the Australian Amazon site (amazon.com.au) you can get it as a download to your Kindle or e-reader for $3.99. The author, a self taught amateur describes himself as a Kelly enthusiast who has has spent “a lifetime researching, exploring, and photographing the country, relics, and structures that are relevant in demonstrating the historical significance of Ned Kelly’s life and the legendary status he is known for in Australia.”
So does this latest publication have something to offer the Kelly world that’s not just ‘new’, but also important and worth saying? Well firstly, Petersons idea to produce a ‘pictorial’ history is not exactly new. For about the same price as Petersons book, from Abe books you can still get a copy of Keith McMenomy’s “Ned Kelly : The Authentic Illustrated History”, which is the grandfather of all Kelly pictorial histories, an immensely valuable landmark publication from 1984. There is also the scholarly and very beautiful “Kelly Country : A Photographic Journey” by Kelson and McQuilton, 2001.
Certainly the existing pictorial Kelly books have set a very high bar. However, there are no recent predominantly photographic records of Kelly country, and no other photographic record of what Kelly-related sites look like in 2017, even as they are undergoing constant change. In that sense its potentially a useful creation which in time could become increasingly worth the effort. The exterior of the book certainly has visual appeal with its black cover and the famous image of Ned Kelly taken the night before his execution, and inside the uncramped internal layout of the many images and their accompanying text and stylish fonts look good. But as I learned in the discussion about Brad Webbs horrible book, production values aren’t everything. So what of the content?
Firstly, I need to forestall another telling off by Mark Perry who believes anyone who can get his act together to actually write a book and get it published deserves praise. Peterson expresses pride in the fact that he is self-taught, and that he values life experience as much as academic achievement, and so I acknowledge and congratulate him on the realization of his dream to publish a book whose unique selling point is that its a pictorial history of the Kelly story.
However the reader will quickly see why the book had to be self-published. Notwithstanding his life experience, Peterson needed to have taken some professional advice, particularly in relation to the taking and presenting of photos for publication, and specifically because the photos are supposed to be the main point of the book. But he didn’t and it shows. The amateur quality of the photos in this book will leave a critical viewer gasping. Wouldn’t you at least crop out or turn off the Date Stamp? Wouldn’t you wait until the light was right and the object of the photo was no longer in shadow before taking your photo? Wouldn’t you crop your photos or else use the zoom so that half of the image is not the road, or grass or sky or a car park and so that if there’s a sign, it can be seen and read? Surely he can do better than take a photo of the Kelly house at Beveridge that doesn’t include the security fence surrounding it? The photo of the Greta home site is taken from so far back its almost impossible to notice the single chimney that was still standing when that picture was taken in 2008. A quarter of the photo of the entrance to the Beechworth Cells where Harry Power was kept is a bush, and there’s a sign that is too far away to be read. For many of them you get the impression he didn’t even bother to get out of the car to get his photo. There were literally only two or three photos that were anything other than bad – the Railway line at Glenrowan, the Woolshed Falls and the view of the Sherritt Farm gate, but for the rest, lighting, composition, cropping, visual appeal, balance….all the values that a great or even just a good photo needs are more or less completely lacking.
As a pictorial history, I have to say therefore that this publication is a massive disappointment, and falls a long way short of the standard set by the two previously mentioned. You certainly wouldn’t buy it for the pictures, though they were supposed to be its selling point. So would you buy it for the articles, for its “Introduction” to Ned Kelly ?
Well, frankly, no you wouldn’t. McCormicks requirement that you should be saying something new is not met here, as all Peterson has done is recycle the same tired old Kelly myths which can be read in almost any Kelly publication you care to name. He clearly hasn’t made any attempt to update the story in light of recent works by MacFarlane, Morrissey and Dawson, and its clear from his responses to my questions and messages on Facebook he has no intention of changing them any time soon. Take the Fitzpatrick incident as an example : He libellously describes Fitzpatrick as ‘drunk’, ‘intoxicated’ and ‘drunken’, and says that he fainted at the Kelly home and it was ‘more than likely due to the amount of liquor he had consumed” ; he repeated Mrs Kellys lie that Fitzpatrick needed to have a warrant in his hand to be able to arrest anyone, and the Kelly myth that he disobeyed orders in going there. These things are factually wrong, they are ‘fake news’ but for reasons best known to themselves Kelly apologists insist on clinging to them long after they’ve been shown to be false. Peterson repeats many of the Stringybark Creek myths, such as that the police were in disguise, and that Lonigan was behind a log preparing to shoot at Ned when Ned shot him in self defence, he recycles the fantasy that the Kellys were persecuted and oppressed by the police and of course endorses Ian Jones most famous fantasy, that Ned Kelly planned to establish a Republic of North East Victoria. All this is fake news. At the very least, wouldn’t you expect someone wanting to provide readers with an “Introduction” to Ned Kelly to be up front and say lots of these claims are controversial, still under debate, unproven, not accepted by many people, worth further study and so on? But no, just as Bradd Webb did with his horrible little book, everything is presented as if its fact, even things we know are wrong, or pure speculation, or contrary to all available evidence. Its no surprise that the book contains no references or a bibliography.
I said Brad Webbs book was the worst Kelly book I had ever read, and that remains my opinion. The particularly sickening truth about Brad Webb’s book, and the reason I despise it so intensely is that Webb himself knew he was writing delusional nonsense, he knew what all the controversies are and who the new authors are and what they’ve revealed about the Kelly story in recent years but he ignored all that and cynically wrote a deceptive little tract that he said was ‘the essential guide to the Kelly legacy’.
However, in contrast, with its dreadful text and awful photography this pictorial history of an Australian Outlaw does at least have a weird quality of authenticity about it, the quality of a raw amateurish poorly informed unsophisticated labour of love. I think the real problem with this book is the title, which claims much more for this work than it ought to, and creates expectations which it comprehensively fails to fulfil. A better, more fittingly modest title might be “Jack Petersons Road Trip and Snapshots of Kelly Country.” Its not really much more than that, and so its really not worth buying. If you want to see nice photos of Kelly country landmarks just go to Google Images and you’ll find dozens that are much better.
1 star for making the effort.
(Visited 64 times)
48 Replies to “Book Review : “An Introduction to Ned Kelly” by Jack Peterson”
As usual Dee, you are far too kind.
I couldn't find any content or reviews of this book on the net. This was a tip-off it was junk.
Amazon usually has better quality-control but seems to have slipped up badly here.
I bought the woeful Brad Webb "book" and still want a 'rip-off' refund. Peterson's vanity, amateurish junk won't be in anyone's Xmas stocking from me. What a tiresome Nong!
I am thinking of sending this to you know who as Christmas bog-paper!
Mr Peterson wants big bucks for poorly researched kiddies' kindle.
I'm expecting it to be lavishly praised on the 'Unmasking Kelly Gang Unmasked' FB hatesite.
Well, well, it looks like I am ahead of the curve once again. I checked my amazon order history and it shows I got my digital copy of the book back on May 27th for $4.99 US.
I was wondering when someone else would finally take notice of its publication and bring it up. Also, as I always tell everyone as a public service announcement, you don't need a Kindle to read e-books, you can download Amazon's app to read them on your PC.
I think that Dee has hit the nail squarely on the head with this statement (though I would have been kinder and left out the words "amateurish poorly informed")-
"…this pictorial history of an Australian Outlaw does at least have a weird quality of authenticity about it, the quality of a raw amateurish poorly informed unsophisticated labour of love."
I agree on how the book is somewhat overpriced for the hard copy, but that is sadly true of most, if not all, new books on the market today. I also like Dee's tongue in cheek alternative title for it. That said, I did enjoy seeing many of the photos which made me feel like a passenger in a virtual "ride along" as he traveled through Kelly country. I didn't learn anything new in the text, though, but it has been a long time since that has happened.
Mr. Peterson seems to be a fine fellow (looking at his facebook page he is into animal rights and rock and roll, so that makes him ok in my book) and a keen Kelly and photography enthusiast, so I hope he will take any criticism in the spirit in which it is given.
What I don't get is why people like Jack and Brad bother to publish books that lead nowhere. As Dee pointed out there are better guides to Kelly country that broke new ground. McMenomy stands out for detailed research and great presentation. The McQuilton/Kelson book was a bit ordinary in my humble opinion, but still kilometres ahead of the Jack effort.
Brad and Jack re-presented the tired, old, error-filled version of the Kelly legend.
Boring, time-wasting piffle!
Hi Sharon great to have your input again. I was starting to think you had given it all up!
Your comments make me feel like Ive been too hard on this work and this author – but I am just so sick of the low level of scholarship in the Kelly world. Its like nobody thinks anyone has to worry about standards or quality any more, that everyones opinion, no matter how misinformed it might be, is as good as any other, and that its OK to misinform people who dont know any better, and take money off them. And then on the other hand we have the terrific genuine scholarship of Ian MacFarlane rubbished and lampooned by a moron who should be ashamed to admit he hasnt even read his book. This last author also has clearly not read MacFarlanes book yet he claimed to be a lifelong researcher into the Kelly story. What next?
How can a kid like Jack Peterson have spent “a lifetime researching, exploring, and photographing the country, relics, and structures that are relevant in demonstrating the historical significance of Ned Kelly’s life and the legendary status he is known for in Australia” ?
That is meaningless blurb drivel.
It seems these days that everyone wants to be an author. Doesn't mean they are all good at it.
Welcome back Shaz good to see you back.It's good to have a break from this subject isn't it?Hope Chucks brother is feeling better.Best wishes Bob.
Has there ever been a book produced about the Kelly gang that hasn't been full of errors? I am yet to find one unfortunately.Keith McMenomy's book is my favourite still by a big margin.
So when is your book due out, Bob? We need one from someone like you who knows everything.
Since most recent books are based on archival records of the time, how on earth would you know if they are 'full of errors' or not.
No I don't know everything about the Kelly story Alec and never will.At the last count I have 33 books on the story and I posed my question to Sharon a real expert if thats okay with you.Why don't you pose the same question to the admin of this site as you obviously think he is the real expert.I am related to the Kelly siblings and only interested in the history of our family nothing more nothing less.I am 70 and have 55 years of learning and catching up to do.Finally yes there are archival records in most books but in most cases as has been pointed out on here and other sites book writers even Ian Macfarlane are prone to making boo boos just like I do.
Bob, your mate Fitzy has been trying to undermine MacFarlane's book for five years without finding anything substantial. You say MacFarlane is prone (having a natural inclination or tendency to something) to making boo boos. You should explain what you mean.
Several years ago a Lloyd descendant – it may have been you – questioned the identification by MacFarlane that this Lloyd being a cousin of someone (I can't remember the details now). Since Bricky Williamson claimed to be father of one of Ellen Kelly's children and little has been published about the genealogy of the Kellys, Quinns and Lloyds, it would be rather easy to make a genealogical 'mistake' in those muddied waters.
You are partly correct. Yes I did point out genealogy mistakes a long time ago on Sharon and Brians blog before Brian gave his review of the book.I wasn't the only one to do so Alec as the Sherritt gene details were also wrong similar to my Lloyd side..A very good friend of mind told me the details.In regards to the latter I don't think they were made on the eleven mile blog though but may have.I can assure you Alec there are a lot more in his book and I certainly didn't like the way that Macfarlane says on one hand that prov documents were missing and also seems to me to indicate they may have been misappropriated.To me that is just making excuses as most other researchers like Grantlea,Ian and Kelvyn had no trouble finding them. Look no further than early in the book and his total innuendo on George King shown in his book.He mentions about 5 George Kings as you would know if you have read it and would confuse the best of readers.Just to put the record straight Alec all family members that I know of are certainly not pro Ned and that is a known fact.The polarising is not confined to the general public I can assure you Dee loves the book and I don't simple as that.
I don't think MacFarlane gave 'gene' information about Aaron Sherritt, but may be wrong. You say that "A very good friend of mind told me the details".
How could any author know what is in your head or your frind's head? Was your good friend correct? How do you know? Authors for the Kelly story have to rely on original archival documents or published sources.
You say that other authors have found documents MacFarlane claimed were missing from PROV.
I challenge you to name just one they have found that MacFarlane said was missing. Like Fitzy, you haven't read his book.
You dislike MacFarlane's "total innuendo on George King" although he relied on quotes by Ian Jones and others, and NSW gaol research. That you dislike the book is obvious, but that does not mean his book is "full of errors". You haven't provided proof of ONE SINGLE error yet.
Your mate Fitzy made a complete goose of himself when he challenged MacFarlane's claim that horses stolen by the Kellys were found mutilated on the banks of the Murray River. Fitzy said the Kellys loved horses and couldn't have done such a thing. He couldn't find the newspaper articles on-line and concluded they didn't exist. They certainly do.
So far, Bob, you and Fitzy haven't proved a thing.
Put up – or shut up!
I have been watching and monitoring things on the blog from behind the scenes just popping up now and then. The agonizingly prolonged SBC discussions made my eyes glaze over a few times, but I have tried to stay up to speed with Kelly stuff despite everything going on with my and my husband's families. Bob, thank you for your concern, but, sadly, my husband recently lost both his brother and mother within the space of three weeks (both to lung cancer), and as you know I lost my dad earlier this year (struck by a speeding car, we are still waiting for the case to go to court as it keeps getting continued) and my sister lost her husband (heart attack) in the past few months, heck, even my dog had cancer (but has recovered after two surgeries) so things have been in quite a state of stress and upheaval around here. It all really puts things into perspective. Before I had little time for naysayers and haters, but now I have zero time for them. Sometimes the best recourse is to not engage with them at all. Why can't we have pleasant civil discussions without some jack-leg jumping up and acting the fool? Anyway, there have been errors in the Kelly story from the very start. No book will ever be error free as many may not realize that what they are researching from is wrong and there are so many things that are seen from different perspectives. It doesn't mean we have to treat those who don't think like us with hatred and disdain. Those with the hateful ugly attitudes turn many people away from the story who would otherwise have been assets to the Kelly community.
Dee, I guess everyone can't be as well spoken and literate and well informed as we are (just kidding!) but everyone should still have a voice and not be afraid to use it. I would like to see some of the more obscure Kelly books from the past be looked at and reviewed and opened to discussion whether singly or in aggregate. I know that Brianmac gives a short synopsis of many in "What They Said About Ned" and it makes for a marvelous wish list but I want to know more about some that I don't have. Or to hear other's opinions on ones I do. How about a discussion of Kelly fiction especially with the new movie in the works based on the Carey novel? There is an endless variety of things to discuss. The focus does not always have to be pro-Ned or anti-Ned, does it? Does anyone put the legend of Robin Hood to this kind of scrutiny?
I have given my reasons to your questions so try and figure out the rest for yourself if you have the ability.No wonder you were named Alec doesn't take much to figure out why why does it?Macfarlane made the comment about missing documentation not me .I am only telling you what it says in the book.I am sure Dee knows who I am referring too in regards to the Sherritt family member and to be honest it is none of your damn business.I don't believe he or she looks at or comments on this blog and I am sure would not like me getting them involved.If your so smart and knowledgeable refer to Brian Tate as you appear to be a clone of his thats for sure.Fitz talks for himself and I talk for Bob and nobody else.The only reason I set foot in this blog was to stand up for Ian Jones and the disgusting treatment that has been dealt out to him on here especially.You can stand up for Macfarlane as is your right and I will stick up for Ian.Here is a question for you Alec- Sharon and Paul O'K were the main researchers for Peter Fitzsimons book and yet the book has been criticised continually by your leader.That is hypocricy in the extreme dont you think?The same applies to Kelvyns fine books just picks out the parts that suits him and completely disregards the fine corrupt police when the evidence is all there for all to see.
Oh shivers Sharon I am so sorry to hear about your family tragedies.Looks like you have had the same problems as my losses in 2010.Why do things seem to happen in threes?I don't know if the same saying is prevelant in the US but seems to be here in Oz.
I am so glad that you have said no book will be error free just the point I was trying to make about my family history.But as per usual I get ridiculed doesn't matter what I say about our history wether for or against.As I said above Sharon I don't know everything about the Kelly story but learning new things all the time and sometimes a lot of fun but not always.You along with Noeleen ,Lola ,Ellen,Leigh, Paul,Fitz etc have been most valuable and would know nothing at all without their help.
Please give my best my sympathy to Chuck and hope you have a good Christmas and a better 2018…….Regards Bob
Bob, if you start making some sense I will respond further.
Meanwhile, you have certainly not answered any of my questions. Among other things, I challenged you to name just one record your authors have found that MacFarlane said was missing. You haven't done so.
You are sounding more and more like Fitzy, and trying his bullying tactics which won't work on me.
So far, Bob, you and Fitzy haven't proved a thing. So much for your books "full of errors" nonsense.
Just shut up and make yourself scarse!
You obviously have no nouse about you at all.How can I identify the missing prov items when Macfarlane doesn't list them himself.He is the one making the accusations in the first chapter Alec or whatever your real name is.In my case I take no notice of prov items at all and like comparing various authors and their sides of the story.I am not a mindreader like you must be, I simply don't have that ability.
If you are taking notice of things that have been noted years ago why doesn't your name appear?I know why, you are yet again another fake.I am getting used to your kind.As Sharon has said previously there are errors in nearly every book right from the beginning in the Kelly story.
Off the top of my head and relying on my memory here is a few just for your benefit.Grantleas book it wasn't Steve Hart that accompanied Mrs Devine to the courthouse at Jerilderie it was cousin Dan.Peter Fitzsimons book Tom Lloyd did not marry Maggie Kelly/Skillion although they had many children (wouldn't be allowed today)Ian Jones wrong on SBC and didn't take notice of McIntyres written evidence,Kelvyn Gills summary of court appearances in his first book (and there were many Alec),Justin Corfields Encyclopaedia more than you can count.Just ask anyone that has read his encyclopaedia.Fitz and I helped make corrections to Kelvyns original list .
I stick to my original opinion that there are many errors in most Kelly books and is not very difficult to prove at all.As I have said I am no expert like you and just compare different writers.
As far as the 231 page masterpiece find the errors yourself as you seem to know far more than me.Ask the admin of this site as he obviously has very close links to your beloved author.
You are also wrong on Fitz he has disproved many things said on this particular blog and his biggest achievment was identifying Brian Tate.He is also a qualified genealogist and has helped many in the Kelly story and a lot of other people as well.
To make you happy Alec poof I am gone…….regards a real person.
Of course MacFarlane lists the missing documents! They are in his index under "missing documents" on page 254! How obvious is that!
You and Fitzy are prone to silly guesses about the identity of people. Fitzy has guessed that Dee is a dozen different people over the years. Like you, Fitzy doesn't know enough to respond to what she writes, so he just constantly attacks her. This is thoroughly dumb, boring and time-wasting.
Genealogists don't need quals. So far as I know Fitzy has no academic credentials at all. Neither did Winston Churchill, but Fitzy sure ain't in that league!
Glad you have decided to take a hike, Bob. The wastrels on Fitzy's Hate Site richly deserve your vacuous input.
Bob, I really wish that you would stick around. It was nice to see you here posting again. Don't let one person hound you off. One thing I really wonder about is if some folks here and on other Kelly sites would be as rude and dismissive in person as they are hiding behind a keyboard?
Before I go numbskull read pages 202 and 218 as it refers to them from the page you mentioned.Page 202"In the course of the enquiry it was found that the following had been either stolen or destroyed from the office. Like Macfarlane are you trying to say they were stolen,I bet they were not.Then it lists several items that had absolutely nothing to do with the Kelly story as it says in the following paragraph.Top of the page says" It is important then to know what documents were alleged to have been destroyed or removed from the detective office".Do you know what the word alleged means Alec or is it Ian, alleged is not proof of anything you expert.
Not properly arranged,mis-sorted,removed,destroyed,stolen.What a poor bunch of excuses trying to cover his inadequacies.I don't believe Macfarlane has proved anything at all with his copying of other authors work as he declares himself many times in his 231 pages of rubbish.
P218 "It is perhaps fortunate for the Kelly legend today that so many documents and caricatures have not been traced or disappeared"Dont tell me poor old Ian couldn't locate them when others could".Pretty poor researcher me thinks.Ned probably to blame for that too.
I couldn't care if a person is Joe Blow or an Academic and your comment of Sir Winston and Fitz really proves what a warped mind you have.Where are these missing documents listed Alec or is it Ian getting very upset?Were they even there in the first place Alec?
Bob, I am not trying to say or prove anything. I was simply quoting the MacFarlane index when you foolishly stated he had not listed the missing documents. He did.
You have completely misunderstood page 202 of his book. There, MacFarlane distinctly makes clear that documents missing from the DETECTIVE OFFICE "had nothing to do with the Kelly gang or the many missing documents reported in this book, including several letters written by Ned Kelly". You were completely wrong.
You are entitled to all of your ridiculous opinions and misunderstandings, Bob.
I just wish you would express them on Fitzy's Hate site and not here.
You only went 'poof' for a little while, Bob.
Please stay away a lot longer next time if you possibly can.
You are starting to annoy me a lot. I have lots better things to do than answer you ever-expanding list of non-sequiturs.
I'm gonna have to start charging you soon…
Dee you did rather a poor job of reviewing Nong Jack Peterson's pile of garbage. He trots out all the disproven rubbish like Standish accessing prostitutes for his parties. The incompetent waffler presents this grand lie "CONSTABLE FITZPATRICK was discharged from the police force in 1880 as a perjurer and drunkard." No he wasn't, Fool!
What a hopeless little (rhymes with twit)!
As usual, many of you are being far too harsh. I received Jacks book in the post yesterday. I liked it. The visuals are very good and extensive.
I said in my review that there were one or two nice pics – such as the Woolshed valley falls – but seriously Mark, many of them were very poor and unprofessional, and not the quality I would expect in a book that cost me $35.
And you havent mentioned the text!
You call it a worthy effort so do you think Kelly writers should be allowed to get away with shoddy work? Do you think Kelly followers are suckers and should swallow anything thats offered to them as long it maintains the Kelly fantasy that he was a great bloke? Jack was so unfamiliar with the Kelly story that your mention of the Lancefild petition was news to him. And it was news to him when I told him the chimneys at Greta are all collapsed! ( this was in the comments of mine that he censored)
Sorry Mark, cant agree with you on this one.
Sharon Ive been meaning to respond to your earlier suggestion about having discussions about more obscure kelly books and about Kelly fiction. It just so happens that a good friend of mine gave me "Our Sunshine" the other day and I am enjoying reading it. I'll write a review soon. Maybe then we can have a discussion about the role of fiction in the Kelly story ( lots of it is fiction if you ask me!)
Fitzy is flogging this hogwash hard on his Hate Page against another book. The quotes show that Peterson has regurgitated nearly all the myths and falsehoods of the past, most of which are now discredited and no longer believed by thinking people.
Authors – even if young and untutored and self-taught – are expected to take on board all of the Kelly literature, including the McFarlasne, Morrissey, Dawson and Dee writings that disprove all his rants. A more experienced author also did this. Peter FitzSimons will always regret being led astray by Ian Jones,
Jack Peterson doesn't even have this excuse.
His is a woeful, childish effort marred by yesterday's errors re-presented as modern facts.
While it was the Carey book that drew me into the Kelly story, it was "Our Sunshine" that ushered me into the Kelly world. Having heard it was what the Heath Ledger Ned film was based on I wrote in to Ironoutlaw feedback to inquire about how to get a copy. I was answered by someone well connected in the Kelly community at the time and taken under their wing, and, thus, started on a whole new life path. Fifteen years later I am still on the journey despite how at times "the ground was that rotten it would bog a duck."
I guess now I better go back and re-read the Robert Drewe book in anticipation of your post!
As more research comes out starting with MacFarlane's book a few years ago, and with more writers now having a good hard relook at the Kelly story, Ian Jones book, Ned Kelly – A Short Life, is moving slowly to the FICTION shelf. Morrissey has another book coming out next year that will help set the record straight. Over in Jurassic Park the illiterate dinosaurs are roaring mindlessly. They prefer picture books because they are easy to understand. A is for apple, N is for Ned.
Found whole of Jack Peterson's book, partly paid for by his Mum and Dad on Googlebooks:
It may not be possible to read the whole thing now – Maybe Google was still setting it up last night and now people can only get to selected parts.
But I thought it was a bit "ho hum" with ordinary photos and not worth the dosh. A creative photographer Jack ain't. Various people have picked up bloopers in his text.
I don't think Jack will make his fortune and might have some regrets later on https://xlibris.pissedconsumer.com/6/RT-P.html
Got as far as page 30 on Jack's book before Google cut me off. But you are right, this is ordinary tourist photography and insipid, old Ned Kelly apologia. An incredible waste of time.
From his intro, I found Jack is in his fifties which makes his complete acceptance of the misguided Kelly Legend even more objectionable and deceptive.
On Fitzy's Hate Ste, Jack says you Dee are "banned" from commenting there. Fitzy adds: "Don’t take any notice of Dee. Most of the anonymous people who post on his Blog are him using different names. It’s not hard to tell with the style of writing, poor spelling and lack of punctuation and the use of words and phrases foreign to Australia….See more".
Jack has understandably thrown in his lot with the Kelly zombies – the walking dead. He is one of them. He spouts the same Kelly untruths and doesn't let truth get in the way.
I hope his parents have a big enough garage for all the remaindered copies of his "studies".
From Jack's propaganda on Fitzy's Hate Site, I am beginning to think he set out to deceive. He seems to have known of your blog for some time Dee.
Maybe Jack is Fitzy – hahaha!
Jack is not Fitzy.
Merry Christmas everyone. I hope you all have a good, safe Christmas break. Don't drink too much and be at peace. Looking forward to a more calm, peaceful vibe in the Kelly world in 2018. Best wishes all.
Our Sunshine is a beautifully written book, very lyrical and poetic. I love it. Far superior to Careys I feel, which I found hard going.
Just a quick one though. To give credit where credit is due. A few posts ago, Bob mentioned that Fitzys greatest work was unmasking Warren Tuckey as Bill Tate. I disagree. Fitzys greatest work was locating the birth certificate of Aaron Sherritt. Fantastic work. (which, if I recall, was In Prahan, 1856..)
I didnt know that about Fitzy locating Aaron Sherritts birth certificate. It certainly outclasses unmasking Warren Tuckey, which was actually an 'own goal' and nothing to do with Fitzsimons no matter what Bob might think. So how are you so sure Fitzy DID locate Aarons birth certificate?
I recall him discussing at length somewhere. Cant recall where. Unlike you Dee, I am not cynical and believe.
Same to you Mark with lots of glittering sparklers on!
It was Aaron's baptismal certificate that Fitzy allegedly found a few years ago. He wrote a piece about it for ironoutlaw at the time but the page currently no longer exists when I went searching. However, one can use the wayback machine and find it if they have enough initiative. I am even thanked in the article for helping to provide some background information.
Jack and Fitzy are two pees from the same pod! Grrrr!
As usual I see Fitzy over on his FB page is misconstruing what is said over here on this blog. I never took credit for his precious "find." All I said was "I am even thanked in the article for helping to provide some background information." How is that taking credit for finding the certificate? The mind boggles. At least if he is raging against me for now he is giving other recipients of his wrongful wrath a well deserved rest.
Sharon, expect nothing but vileness from that man, and from the people who suck up to him, expect more of the same. Incidentally apart from claiming he found this item, did he ever submit actual proof of its existence, or describe exactly how he managed to find it or where anyone else can go see it?
The Kelly Legend and its websites have toppled into irrelevancy.
All that's left now is the dregs like Fitzy and The Neducator trying to somehow prolong the silly Kelly myths.
They are failing.
No need to further discuss that particular article by fitzy. Would be best to give him no airtime at all on this blog as he has made his feelings about the people who contribute and visit here abundantly clear.
I guess there is no need to sweat the sensational tabloid type accusations against me, either. Maybe I should just be flattered I am important enough to be singled out for a bashing! Why let you and others have all the fun, Dee? 😉 I was laughing at the absolute ludicrousness of some of it. I must wield more influence than I even knew! Ha! I could go over there and do a point by point rebuttal but that would cause me to have to betray certain confidences and/or drop others in it, or have to explain at length about certain causes and effects that are, frankly, not for public consumption, but I won't do that. Character and integrity mean too much to me. Besides, logic, humor, intelligence and a grasp of the English language and the nuances of said language are completely lost on the haters and those who like their posts. They will only twist and mock anything said, so why bother. I will wisely just leave it all in the hands of the Lord, and He is not one to be mocked.
Oh, yeah, Dee, I do wonder what they would be saying right now if they knew our little shared secret? Enough said. Let em ponder on that for a while. Will be our Christmas gift to them. 🙂
The fat guy's response to anything is ask ten stupid questions as if he knows some secret. The best he ever does is give some quote out of the royal commission that is contradicted by something else. He does not understand nuance as it is a five letter word and he mostly stops at four.
secret? Are you Brian S by any chance Dee? That would explain Sharons blog going quiet I guess. The plot thins.
Greetings Dee -Mac,
just wanted to point something out to you.
Why did the State Library of Victoria NOT buy either Boxing Ned photo (they have had two opportunities to buy it)and why didn't the State Library buy the Ned woodcutting photo when they bought most of the Olver offerings from Christie's auction house ?
Jack Peterson's lame and boring rehash of the Ned Kelly myths has made it into my Top Ten worst Ned Kelly Books ever published list.
I hope his parents are asking for their money back. Jack sold them a pup.
More tedious identity guesswork from one of our occasional anonymous visitors.
Why don't you direct your silly questions to State Library Victoria. How would any of us here know how or why SLV makes its decisions?