A Natural History of Ghosts gets controversial

Radio 4 is running a ten-part series, starting Monday 19 October, called A Natural History of Ghosts, which also happens to be the title of a 2012 book by Roger Clarke.  One might readily assume the series is based on the book, and Roger would be amply rewarded for his involvement, but it soon transpired that the first he had heard about the series was when the BBC promoted it.

 The radio series is co-written and presented by Kirsty Logan, a novelist, mentor and speaker (for £175 an hour plus travel), but not a name particularly known in the field of psychical research, and therefore possessing no obvious credentials for her participation.  As is the way, she took to Twitter to announce in a proprietorial manner her pleasure at the forthcoming broadcasts, declaring ‘I’m so glad my ghosts are being unleashed!  A Natural History of Ghosts starts on Monday 19 October, 1.45, on @BBCRadio4, then a new episode every weekday until Halloween,’ with a link to the programme page on the BBC website.

 Roger replied to say he was unsure why the title of his book was being used, and disappointed it had been done without letting him know.  Logan responded in an ebullient tone to thank him for alerting her to his work, stating she did not know it was the title of his book, and assuring him that none of the content of the book was used or referred to in the series.  Roger was puzzled, and replied, ‘You’ve never come across my book?  On internet searches?  On Twitter?’  He received a flat denial, Logan promising to pick it up and adding that although she had co-written and was narrating the series, she had not chosen the title.

 This is where it gets unsavoury.  Roger was interested to know who chose the title, as he had pitched it to Radio 4 in 2013-14 (the book had received a huge amount of positive press when it was published and would have made an excellent series).  To his enquiry answer came there none from Logan, but in the meantime an observer, Richard Kovitch, weighed in to show her claim not to know about the book was inaccurate.

 He wrote: ‘You [Logan] read Roger’s book in 2016, and even list it on your website as ‘Best Beautifully-Written, Rambling Book about Ghosts: A Natural History of Ghosts, Roger Clarke.’  No ambiguity about that, and a screenshot from said website supported his contention (as of this writing it is still there, having been deleted then restored).  As someone else noted, she had actually tagged Roger in a 2016 tweet listing his book in her top 50 of the year.

 Logan promptly did some judicious pruning of her tweets, but as Roger noted, ‘you can never really erase things properly from the internet.’  As an example, someone else popped up to tell him about a tweet by producer Elizabeth Ann Duffy in March 2020 declaring ‘Right Twitter, @kirstylogan and I are using this time to start on out projects (sic) on the cultural evolution of ghosts.  So recommend reading to me, tell me which cool academics are doing the most interesting #ghostlore research.  I need all things #ghost related to read.’  A reply listed two titles, one being Roger’s book.  Ignorance by either Logan or Duffy was therefore hard to plead.

 Following this shabby episode Roger called on Radio 4 to change the title of their series, something unlikely to happen as it was being heavily trailed (it may be that I have not been listening at the right time, but I get the impression they ceased after the controversy broke) and for Logan to apologise for lying to him, which seemed equally unlikely as she was ignobly pretending the sorry business had not happened (as was Duffy).  He also asked fans of the book to listen carefully to the series to see if any of his book’s content had been lifted without credit, while wondering aloud why, as there was clearly an alignment of approach judging by the common title, he had not only not been invited to contribute but told they had not heard of him.  Perhaps he wasn’t ‘cool’ enough.

 The result of this BBC foot-shooting was a massive outpouring of support for Roger, and a boost in sales of the book, plus others tagging Radio 4 and asking what the station intended to do about it.  What Radio 4 intended to do about it was borrow the Logan playbook and remain silent.  Someone who did not remain silent was Christopher Josiffe (author of Gef! The Strange Tale of an Extra-Special Talking Mongoose) who announced that he had been interviewed for the episode on poltergeists but had asked for his contribution to be removed as he now felt uncomfortable being associated with the project.

 While there is no copyright on titles (hence those crying plagiarism on the title alone are wrong), it could be construed as passing off, and according to Roger some contributors had assumed he was involved.  However, it is difficult to argue he has suffered any loss of income when sales have increased as a result; but it does seem a shame to have lifted the distinctive title of a well-regarded book without acknowledgement.  Roger asked me to read it and comment when it was in draft, and I thought it sensitively written and informative, and a solid overview.  Even without her own evidence that Logan had read it, it would be hard to believe she could have researched an entire series, if she had done so properly, and not come across it.

 One wonders how the duplication came about.  Did a producer (Duffy?) think it up independently, was it perchance a case of cryptomnesia, or just a cynical disregard for the feelings of an author, caring more for the snappy title than the effect it would have; or perhaps in the arrogant way media people often have, assuming Roger would be flattered.  In the event, they have done Roger a backhanded favour by giving him exposure, but it hardly excuses the way the situation has been handled.

 Let’s hope that after this entirely avoidable unpleasantness the series is worth listening to, and makes good on Logan’s assurance Roger’s book was not tapped for its content.  Many ears will be listening to make sure such is the case.  It is hard enough for freelancers to make a living, and people who work for the national broadcaster should be careful how their actions may affect others with less power.  It is also pathetic that Logan should be caught out saying she did not know about Roger’s book when it was one of her top reads only four years ago – and the evidence was so readily apparent.  Unless of course she does not in fact read the significant number of books she claims to get through, and really had forgotten all about it.

 I’m sure I’ll be updating this story.

 

 Update 8 November 2020:

 More evidence of Logan’s knowledge of Roger’s book emerged before the broadcasts commenced in the form of her holding a copy on her Instagram feed in 2016 and referring to a startling detail that had caught her eye, indicating she had at least skimmed it.  Her initial profession of ignorance sounded more and more hollow with each new revelation, and actually peculiar; did she not realise how easy it was to check?

 One positive result of the debacle was the edition of Roger’s book selling out and requiring a reprint.  Less satisfactory was a meeting he eventually had with the BBC in which he expected to be offered an apology, not least for the corporation misleading contributors who assumed he was involved, but he was told by the executive that they did not feel they had done anything wrong.  Roger was offered a link on the series website, but declined on the grounds it would be confusing.

 It was too little too late anyway, and the negative comments continued until eventually the BBC cracked.  After transmission had already begun it quietly retitled the series A History of Ghosts, dropping the Natural.  Roger still had to find out from a supporter, though, as the BBC did not let him know they had done it, and Natural still appeared in the actual episodes as Logan spoke the title.

 Then belatedly, as the series wended its way to the Hallowe’en conclusion, Roger reported that he had heard from the BBC, apologising for any distress caused and telling him they had changed the title to make the lack of connection with the book clear, adding, ‘The title clash was coincidental.’  As Roger sarcastically pointed out, because Logan and Duffy both knew of his book beforehand it was ‘a very special and entirely new form of coincidence previously unknown to science.’

 The Beeb certainly must have been rattled to make the change after commencement, and Roger’s assessment that they knew they were passing off was reasonable, thanks to Logan and Duffy’s clear previous knowledge of the book.  Such attempts to mollify Roger did not prevent the story (sans names) appearing as a gossip item in the Times Literary Supplement, then in Private Eye, which included names and did not shrink from using the term ‘shameless lie’ in connection with Logan’s claim not to have known of Roger’s book.

 As for the series itself, it was well-written, enjoyable, appropriately atmospheric, and refreshingly incorporated ghost lore from around the world.  Logan’s generalisations and anecdotal approach were balanced by website-only podcasts featuring experts who grounded each episode (apart from the one on poltergeists, which was missing Chris Josiffe’s contribution), and were generally more informative than Logan.

 The broadcasts are sufficiently distinct from Rogers’s words to ensure no charge of plagiarism could be supported, and Logan is experienced enough not to have needed to resort to such tactics.  The difference between the two writers is illustrated by the unlikelihood Clarke would mistake Henry James for his brother William, as Logan did when quoting William’s famous remark about white crows.

 It is a pity the BBC ran into so much needless controversy over the title when in all other respects the programme was fine for a 15-minute slot between the lunchtime news and the afternoon repeat of The Archers.  Logan and Duffy must be fervently wishing they had called it something else, and saved all the fuss over such a minor point that has tainted their efforts and damaged their reputations.

  

Update 1 December 2020:

 After the flurry of critical activity in the run-up to Hallowe’en, things went quiet following the series’ conclusion.  On 25 November Roger tweeted that as he had decided Kirsty Logan was unlikely to apologise he was not going to talk about her further, and added that there was no need for his supporters to continue to be active on his behalf.

 It wasn’t quite the end of the matter, however, as the Christmas 2020 issue of Fortean Times (FT400, p.55) carries a Forum article on the subject written by Roger, ‘An unnatural history of ghosts’.  This runs briefly through the chronology, and concludes with the declaration: ‘Under conventional plagiarism laws, I don’t own the title of my book.  But I do own the private haunted space it has made.’

 Whatever the legal and moral ins and outs of the ownership of haunted spaces, he is entitled to feel miffed by Logan and Duffy’s contortions and the grudging way the BBC handled his complaint.  What puzzled me, though, was his assertion earlier in the article that ‘A Natural History of Ghosts has only ever been used once before, and that was by me.’  While it may be the first use for a book title in English, it has certainly been used before, albeit in German.

 Ernst Krause gave it to his 1863 book, Die naturgeschichte der gespenster; physikalisch-physiologische studien (The Natural History of Ghosts; Physical-Physiological Studies).  I had assumed this was Roger’s source, though Krause’s name does not appear in his book, but apparently it wasn’t.  While strictly speaking his title is not original, Roger’s reuse has no bearing on the passing-off issue with the BBC as the English-language version is so closely identified with him.

 As a firm supporter of the BBC I was sorry to contemplate this self-inflicted wound, but I am also sad the podcast Christopher Josiffe narrated about Gef was not, at his insistence, included on the series website, as while they were all excellent, it is one I would have particularly enjoyed.  Presumably it still exists in the BBC’s archives and hopefully one day, in another context, we will be able to hear it.