The Guardian, for whom Jim Perrin regularly writes (with, it could be said, his sinecure the ‘Country Diary’), has been accepting the dubious postings of ‘Melangell’ (JP?) for two years since the exchange between jacssisters and Jim Perrin referred to in earlier posts; and although we have contacted several within that organization to record our belief that he is deceiving them, ref. our post ‘Is Jim Perrin ‘Melangell?’, still they seem unaware.
Most recently our suspicions have fallen upon Arthur Dooley, ‘John, N.Wales’, who reviewed The Old Ways on Amazon, 13/06/2012. To suggest that he is Jim Perrin would, we realize, be ‘Perrinoia’ but we do think that his name might have been ‘borrowed’ — a stratagem we believe Jim Perrin has used before.
One has only to read this particular Dooley review, and his comments (one of which follows a review by ‘Sentinal’, 28/04/2012,) to notice the similarities between ‘his’ style — although not in all the previous reviews — and those of ‘Llywarch’ and ‘Mark’; and the comment which followed the posting by Caroline Hardaker (one of Jac’s sisters) of 16/07/2012, was edited five times — we have kept print-outs…
‘Liz’ (JP?), we know, frequently edited ‘her’ comments. We read them and then, later, saw that they had been altered; they were removed by Amazon, at our request, but we kept copies for comparison.
The final Dooley edit, 25/07/2012, (in response to Caroline Hardaker), after much tinkering and adding to, changing around and deleting even more words until he felt he had done himself justice — included the extra and gratuitous reference to our own site… As we have written elsewhere: ‘Who else but [Jim Perrin] would care, or would be sufficiently interested, or would have the motive?’ But we thank him anyway.
* * * * *
Some contributors to the internet do give their real names but there are those who choose anonymity to post their poison — as we believe Jim Perrin has been doing for years (and as undeniably he did when he wrote to our late sister’s landlord, ref. our post The Anonymous Letter).
Aliases are being used to conceal chicanery; and bullying — both personal and professional — is rife. The worst is being brought out in so many who write with impunity, using the security of their pseudonymous identities: and they attack but will not engage in fair contest. Unchallenged, their words remain — damaging reputations as they are intended to do, and reducing the stars-average of a book review. The latter is a spiteful ploy, and risible, as books of real distinction and excellence will of course go on in the world regardless of the petty and vindictive pin-pricks of rival authors.
In our opinion Jim Perrin is in this select group who use aliases and we have thought so since our first knowledge of ‘Melangell’ (JP?), in 2010. We believe that he has used the internet to praise his own work to the skies and quite deliberately to try — by stealth — to sabotage the reputations of others, with his spurious critical reviews of their work: our conclusion has been reached after much reading, cross-referencing, and analysis of the many examples of his literary output in this particular genre.
We think that his is a mind which revels in deception: ‘Melangell’ — ‘the concealer’, and we also believe that by these means he has long been getting away with steadily enhancing his own reputation — so ‘eminent’ — so ‘pre-eminent’ — read all the reviews by ‘Llywarch’ for examples of flagrantly Blowing One’s Own Trumpet…
* * * * *
Surely if a review or comment is posted, the author of the piece, in honour, should be wholly accountable and the use of aliases and sometimes ludicrous pseudonyms — ‘masks’ through which cowardly contributors slyly glance — is a system evidently open to abuse and one which might with benefit be reassessed; the recent revelations about R J Ellory and his manipulation of the internet are further evidence of the trend. And whilst it might be said that there is a playful, teasing element to some of the ‘names’ and their postings yet those authors whose sole aim it is to be malicious, are thriving in this secretive and ill-guarded environment.
The traditional way, the optional use of the phrase: ‘Name and address supplied’, is by far more civilized — it being acceptable when anonymity is really necessary — although, in good faith, details are provided.
Might it be time for a similar, simple, twenty-first century, system to be devised; one which standardizes the method of posting on the internet thereby ensuring that contributors are genuinely accountable? That which currently is in place positively encourages mischief-makers and ill-wishers, and it is clear from recent disclosures that it lacks sufficient safe-guards: it should not be so very difficult to track down those who use the internet with malevolence — and the confidence of the majority might be restored.
Jac’s sisters: Elisabeth Simpson, Caroline Hardaker and Alex Richardson