I received some excellent comments from Marius Hjelle from Norway on the story, “The Typewritist.”
Please let me know your opinions! Thanks
Subject: Re: Vedr. Re: regarding your story 'the
Typerwritist' |
From: alan downing <[email protected]> |
Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2007 20:27:52 -0700 (PDT) |
To: Marius Hjelle |
|
Marius,
Again, thank you for your thoughtful reply <…>
To give you more background of the case, you can read
about John Magnuson in The Casebook of Forensic
Detection" by Colin Evans. I believe you look at
these pages on-line by logging into Amazon.com and
searching the book. Briefly, the misspelling was on a
hand written address on the bomb packaging. The guess
of being Swedish was done by "rolling the
pronunciation around on his tongue." The only Swede
in the community lived nearby & he didn't get along
with the victim. John Magnuson gave a sample of his
handwriting where he made another similar misspelling
- this time Marsfild. There was some other minor
evidence against him. Some felt that John Magnuson
was innocent.
I agree about your assessments about many of the
fictional detectives. That's why I tried to have my
stories be based on real forensic deductions.
Sincerely,
Alan
--- Marius Hjelle wrote:
Hello again, and thanks for taking the time to reply
to my comment.
I’m sorry it’s taken me a while to get back to you,
but I’ve been through a very busy exam period. What
prompted me to read and comment on you story was, in
fact, because I was working on a paper on the
subject of ’Law and Literature’, and/or Rhetorics. Among
other things I commented on a few rhetorical deductions
and ”incriminating” circumstantial evidence that was
used in a trial I went to look at. The real-life examples
on our syllabus was (naturally) taken from known
cases of innocents being found guilty (the english term
for which has slipped my mind this morning), but seeing
examples also in the random case I witnessed… well,
my indignation over your story must be seen in the
light of this. People go to jail on far less proof than
what Lestrade has on your Mr. Shield.
Now, regarding your story and email.. You didn’t
tell me why the misspelling of the word caught the Yule
Bomb Killer. Did this point the bomber out as a
Swede?
him writing the word thisWere there examples of
way on other occations not related to the case? I assume
he was already a suspect, or one of the suspects,
and that they found other evidence and/or got a
confession out of him.
I see how this phonetic spelling can work if the
writer is not very fluent in English, in other words
that his pronounciation of the English word is
incorrect. Still, this would be more likely with a
word like Marshfield, as the s when following an r
gets a little thicker and a little closer to the
english phoneme of the word (that the s is followed
by the f only makes this more so). I have a harder time
believing this might happen at the beginning of a
word like shield. He would have to pronounce the s the
way it’s pronounced in ’say’ – and that’s a bit far
fetched (try saying ’sure’ with that phoneme at the
beginning). He must not have heard or read much
English at all, and particulary, he can’t have
thought about the relation between written and spoken
English. Not knowing how the name (Shields) is written, he
must have only heard it spoken.
But in this case, we have the fact that the victim
is a typist. I don’t know if (or for how) long he’s
been employed in England, but – event though it’s said
that he hasn’t been in the country very long, one must
assume so. He is, after all, referred to as a
typewritist, not just a typemachine-owner. Even if
he hasn’t – would he come to England seeking employment
without any knowledge of the English language? [I
remember now that the cryptic message was at the
bottom of an unfinished office memorandum]One would
assume that anyone dealing with language in such a
way must have an above average interest in it. A certain
sensitivity.
This being said; the man was, after all, dying. And
the suspect was seen leaving the building (but what
kind of building was this? Might there not be a
hundred reasons for him having been there at the
time?). I would feel a lot better if there was
indeed more evidence against him. A little charity for the
author: It is a circumstantial evidence that points
them in the right direction, yes. But it isn’t
enough to hang a man.
”Sellds” won’t do, though. He might type that (if he
was far gone), but Sherlock’s deduction won’t work.
Let’s leave the S as it is if it’s enough that he
doesn’t know much about English spelling. If not,
add a j (or a k). There are very rare occations when the
s might actually be pronounced sh in norwegian and
swedish, but you want to let Holmes make an argument
about this, and so add the j. The E might work if he
is thinking of how it would be pronounced in the
English alphabet (otherwise, make it an i). The
double-L must be the dying man’s typo if it is to be
left as it is. This would definately make the i into
a short vowel, as in ”bitter”, in other words – a very
diffrent phoneme from what he’s trying to get at. DS
is just fine. Him only having heard the name, you
could even drop the d, couldn’t you?
Sjilds / dkoød (heh, I have a Norwegian keyboard,
with
æøå)
Skils /dlod
If you can indeed drop the d, I like the idea of
’Skils’ very much. Ski is pronounced ’shie’ exactly
as in Shields, and there being only one L makes it a
long vowel in the word as a whole, too (in Norwegian, at
least. I can consult my Swedish friends, but there
wouldn’t be any problems making him a Noregian). If
you add the d there, it would definately be a short
vowel, but like we know – he is dying as he types
this. If you don’t want to leave this slack, add an
extra i.
So, regarding Holmes’ deduction you need this:
The phoneme SH is written sk or sj in Swedish and
Norwegian. The phoneme of the e, as it is pronounced in the
english alphabet, is equal to the i in the Norwegian
and the Swedish alphabet.
Sorry for giving you such a hard time about all
this. If it makes you feel any better I mentioned in my
essay how it was a good thing that the fictional
detectives hardly ever had to take their cases to
court without a confession from the misdoer. Without
A.these, both A.C.Doyle himself, or, say,
Christie, would be guilty of putting innocent men and women
behind bars. Poirot in particular has a bad habit of
falling in the trap described by Holmes in at least
three different stories;
”It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has
data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit
theories, instead of theories to suit facts.”
Sincerely,
-Marius N. Hjelle
<[email protected]> wrote:--- alan downing
ThisThank you very much for your feedback.
deduction was based on an actual 1922 case in
John Tyrell deduced who the Yule BombEngland.
killer was based on the Swedish killer's misspelling
"Marshfield" as "Marsfilld". The Yule Bombof
killer wasn't well educated and was doing phonetic
In the real case, they appeared to havespelling.
correctly convicted the guilty party.
In the typewritist, I changed "Marshfield" to
Do you"Shield" based on the same deductions.
believe that the Marshfield deduction was correct
Do you haveand the Shield deduction is incorrect?
other suggested words or names that can produce more
accurate deductions?
Of course, what was missing from "The Typewritist"
is that Lestrade was later able to find
incriminating evidence on Henry Shields that proved
beyond any doubt that Sherlock Holmes had the right
man!
Thanks,
Alan