Review:
Three years with Thunderbolt
By William Monckton
Ghost-written by Ambrose Platt
First published in Daily Telegraph in 1905
Later published by Cassell, Melbourne, 1907
Ghost-written by Ambrose Platt
First published in Daily Telegraph in 1905
Later published by Cassell, Melbourne, 1907
Catalogued Genre: Memoir
True Genre: Fiction
Research: Minimal
Source-references: None
Accuracy: Unreliable
As a historian I have learnt to go back to original records before reading most secondary-source accounts (that is, biographies of the relevant people or chapters/articles about the events in question). Secondary-source accounts can unwittingly influence a researcher, thereby blinkering them from the truth. When I eventually read a secondary-source publication, I have enough knowledge to judge its accuracy – or otherwise, as is usually the case. Take William Monckton’s memoir, Three Years with Thunderbolt, for example. It appears to be the Thunderbolt bible from the frequent references to its contents in Thunderbolt books and articles. The problem is: it is little more than a work of fiction.
I left reading Monckton’s memoir until I had written most of my own manuscript. Why? Not only for the above reason, but because Monckton’s period with Thunderbolt fell after the period I was covering in my book. I was also suspicious. Monckton was only with Thunderbolt for one year – eleven months to be precise – therefore the title was an immediate sign of exaggeration (if not falsification). It also indicated that much of the book had to be fiction or how else could the ghost-writer have dragged out eleven months to three years? Additionally, a quick glance through the book showed that much of the text was dialogue. Individuals don’t tend to recount copious amounts of dialogue when telling their life story; most is straight narrative. That being the case, most of the dialogue must have been made up. Accordingly, I had to dismiss virtually all of the dialogue because of the difficulty of determining the fraction that might be true.
So what else proved to be fact and what fiction?
Take Chapter 9 which was dramatically entitled “I save Thunderbolt’s life”. It tells the story of the “big strong Scotchman named McGuinness” who decided to single-handedly apprehend Thunderbolt and hand him over to the authorities, and how Monckton saved the day. “I seized the knife and with a yell of rage I rushed towards McGuinness, brandishing the blade and swearing like a trooper.” Monckton added that McGuinness backed down and Thunderbolt later said to the boy, “You saved my life today, Will.” Well, that’s what Monckton’s memoir says, anyway. In fact, this incident occurred in February 1867, a year before Monckton joined Thunderbolt, and the lad who saved the day was Fred’s previous accomplice, Thomas Mason.
What about Chapter 17? “We were approached by an emissary of Gardener’s gang of bushrangers who offered Thunderbolt the leadership of that band if he would proceed to Bathurst and undertake a big gold escort robbery”. Come on! Gardiner’s gold escort robbery took place in 1862 before “Thunderbolt” even existed!! And by 1868 Gardiner was serving a lengthy gaol sentence.
The same chapter (17) says that Thunderbolt and Monckton proceeded to the Bathurst district and stuck up the Mudgee-Bathurst coach. While the pair had a busy bushranging year, it did not include a trip to Bathurst or Mudgee.
Chapters 18 to 20 are devoted to the exciting story of Monckton winning a horse-race, yet at no point is the horse’s name mentioned. If Monckton had indeed won such a dramatic race, he would have had the horse’s name imprinted on his brain forever (the strongest memories are those forged when strong emotions surround an event: marriage, childbirth, death of a beloved family member, and so on). Those making false claims know not to include specifics – like the name of a winning horse – because it is too easy to determine the truth, or otherwise. And historical detectives know to keep an eye out for claims that lack specifics or substantiation as these serve as warning signals that the claim is likely to be false.
And what of Thunderbolt’s background, as covered in Chapter 25. What a load of codswallop. According to Monkton/Platt, Thunderbolt said that he came from “respectable folk – not rich, but pretty comfortably off and as good as God makes”. A bushranger not willing to admit to convict ancestry?
Then the book says that: “I had someone to keep me straight, even if I’d wanted to go crooked. There was a dear little girl lived near us – the daughter of some old friends and neighbours – Jess Anson was her name.” In fact, no such person existed. No Anson family lived in the Hawkesbury or Nepean districts and no person by the name of Jess Anson (or any similar variation) is found in the New South Wales birth, marriage or death indexes, the shipping arrival records, newspaper sources or anything else available online.
The known events involving Thunderbolt and Monckton are covered surprisingly briefly in the book, whereas the stories that are impossible to substantiate are recounted in much more detail. What does this tell us? That these stories are fiction. Monckton’s ghost-writer clearly gave himself licence to write whatever he wanted when he knew they related to events that could not be verified (like the story of Monckton’s first encounter with Thunderbolt). Yet Monckton was clearly involved in the fictionalisation as he must have told the ghost-writer about McInnes’ attack against Thunderbolt, perhaps inserting himself into the narrative at that time for dramatic effect.
Monckton provided the seeds, Platt turned it into a dramatic novel, and many Thunderbolt writers thereafter have believed it to be the truth. So “buyer aware”. Anyone who thinks to use Monckton’s memoir as a primary source should think again.
True Genre: Fiction
Research: Minimal
Source-references: None
Accuracy: Unreliable
As a historian I have learnt to go back to original records before reading most secondary-source accounts (that is, biographies of the relevant people or chapters/articles about the events in question). Secondary-source accounts can unwittingly influence a researcher, thereby blinkering them from the truth. When I eventually read a secondary-source publication, I have enough knowledge to judge its accuracy – or otherwise, as is usually the case. Take William Monckton’s memoir, Three Years with Thunderbolt, for example. It appears to be the Thunderbolt bible from the frequent references to its contents in Thunderbolt books and articles. The problem is: it is little more than a work of fiction.
I left reading Monckton’s memoir until I had written most of my own manuscript. Why? Not only for the above reason, but because Monckton’s period with Thunderbolt fell after the period I was covering in my book. I was also suspicious. Monckton was only with Thunderbolt for one year – eleven months to be precise – therefore the title was an immediate sign of exaggeration (if not falsification). It also indicated that much of the book had to be fiction or how else could the ghost-writer have dragged out eleven months to three years? Additionally, a quick glance through the book showed that much of the text was dialogue. Individuals don’t tend to recount copious amounts of dialogue when telling their life story; most is straight narrative. That being the case, most of the dialogue must have been made up. Accordingly, I had to dismiss virtually all of the dialogue because of the difficulty of determining the fraction that might be true.
So what else proved to be fact and what fiction?
Take Chapter 9 which was dramatically entitled “I save Thunderbolt’s life”. It tells the story of the “big strong Scotchman named McGuinness” who decided to single-handedly apprehend Thunderbolt and hand him over to the authorities, and how Monckton saved the day. “I seized the knife and with a yell of rage I rushed towards McGuinness, brandishing the blade and swearing like a trooper.” Monckton added that McGuinness backed down and Thunderbolt later said to the boy, “You saved my life today, Will.” Well, that’s what Monckton’s memoir says, anyway. In fact, this incident occurred in February 1867, a year before Monckton joined Thunderbolt, and the lad who saved the day was Fred’s previous accomplice, Thomas Mason.
What about Chapter 17? “We were approached by an emissary of Gardener’s gang of bushrangers who offered Thunderbolt the leadership of that band if he would proceed to Bathurst and undertake a big gold escort robbery”. Come on! Gardiner’s gold escort robbery took place in 1862 before “Thunderbolt” even existed!! And by 1868 Gardiner was serving a lengthy gaol sentence.
The same chapter (17) says that Thunderbolt and Monckton proceeded to the Bathurst district and stuck up the Mudgee-Bathurst coach. While the pair had a busy bushranging year, it did not include a trip to Bathurst or Mudgee.
Chapters 18 to 20 are devoted to the exciting story of Monckton winning a horse-race, yet at no point is the horse’s name mentioned. If Monckton had indeed won such a dramatic race, he would have had the horse’s name imprinted on his brain forever (the strongest memories are those forged when strong emotions surround an event: marriage, childbirth, death of a beloved family member, and so on). Those making false claims know not to include specifics – like the name of a winning horse – because it is too easy to determine the truth, or otherwise. And historical detectives know to keep an eye out for claims that lack specifics or substantiation as these serve as warning signals that the claim is likely to be false.
And what of Thunderbolt’s background, as covered in Chapter 25. What a load of codswallop. According to Monkton/Platt, Thunderbolt said that he came from “respectable folk – not rich, but pretty comfortably off and as good as God makes”. A bushranger not willing to admit to convict ancestry?
Then the book says that: “I had someone to keep me straight, even if I’d wanted to go crooked. There was a dear little girl lived near us – the daughter of some old friends and neighbours – Jess Anson was her name.” In fact, no such person existed. No Anson family lived in the Hawkesbury or Nepean districts and no person by the name of Jess Anson (or any similar variation) is found in the New South Wales birth, marriage or death indexes, the shipping arrival records, newspaper sources or anything else available online.
The known events involving Thunderbolt and Monckton are covered surprisingly briefly in the book, whereas the stories that are impossible to substantiate are recounted in much more detail. What does this tell us? That these stories are fiction. Monckton’s ghost-writer clearly gave himself licence to write whatever he wanted when he knew they related to events that could not be verified (like the story of Monckton’s first encounter with Thunderbolt). Yet Monckton was clearly involved in the fictionalisation as he must have told the ghost-writer about McInnes’ attack against Thunderbolt, perhaps inserting himself into the narrative at that time for dramatic effect.
Monckton provided the seeds, Platt turned it into a dramatic novel, and many Thunderbolt writers thereafter have believed it to be the truth. So “buyer aware”. Anyone who thinks to use Monckton’s memoir as a primary source should think again.