Talk:R. R. Ryan

Untitled

I suggest Gwyndlr aka James Doig be blocked from editing this entry. He has a vested business interest in promoting the Midnight House reprint, hence his bizarre support for an imagined drawing of what R R Ryan may have looked like had she been a woman; details about Rachel Ryan's family are utterly irrelevant too. Cameron Carr is far and away and the most serious contender for being R R Ryan as per the evidence. Doig is using Wikipedia to a) promote his cronies' books and b) to engage in a silly battle which has its roots elsewhere. I don't care a fig who R R Ryan really was - I have no vested interest in any of the candidates - I simply care for the truth, and that truth is that Carr is the most likely candidate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.189.21.164 (talk) 00:21, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Personal attacks on other editors are not permitted on Wikipedia, nor are attempts to divulge personal information about them (such as the real-life names of those editing with user names other than their actual names). This sort of behavior can quickly get one into trouble around here. Deor (talk) 04:17, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

The picture of Ryan by Allen K. was actually added by me, who has no vested interest in it. I believe those that attempting to place a finite persona on Ryan — like Carr — are forwarding an agenda, since there is no conclusive evidence that the two are the same. The imagined drawing, which detailed why it was used in the footnotes of the template, was an attempt to have an image without biasing belief of who Ryan was. Nick Curtis (talk) 02:47, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

My main objection to the image is that an "artist's conception" of a person whose very sex is in doubt doesn't seem particularly encyclopedic. In particular, I think it violates this part of WP:NFC: "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." I don't think the drawing has any usefulness here that would outweigh the artist's rights to control its reproduction. (The motive attributed to my removal of it by the 172 dynamic-IP editor in an edit summary is, of course, utterly mistaken.) Deor (talk) 04:17, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I understand your reasoning, Deor. My personal preference is towards having an image on every individual person's wikipedia entry page and I felt the portrait was more accurate to use than a picture of Carr — since there is no conclusive evidence that they are the same person or even that the Cameron Carr in question is the actor.

I'd like to correct the nonsense propagated in the first post post above. Doig and Pajmans discovered the Ryan book contracts and wrote about the find in their article in All Hallows. They suggested that the actor Cameron Carr could be the writer R.R. Ryan and provided a good deal of biographical information about Carr derived from census and other records. However, the fact is there is NO biographical information about R.R. Ryan that is in the public domain - Random House refused to reveal the addresses in the contracts for privacy reasons. The problem with most of the editing done by the first poster above is that: 1. he attempts to repress important work done by others on Ryan, eg Ramsey Campbell, Richard Dalby, Doig and Pajmans, and 2. his edits are subjective qualifications on the work of others that try to lead the reader down a certain path, ie that Cameron Carr was R.R. Ryan. If wikipedia has any claim to be an objective encyclopedia, then this is clearly wrong. I have tried to be objective by providing facts and by not preferring one candidate over another. I've also added bibliographical and other information. There is more I can add, but it seems pointless if someone hijacks the site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.7.140.3 (talk) 22:09, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Referring to other people's contributions as 'nonsense' does not seem to be a very sensible or mature way of behaving. Bearing in mind that the Ryan entry references a work by Doig it was perfectly legitimate to point out that he was the person trying to edit the entry under a pseudonym. With regard to comments about agendas, well, it seems quite obvious who the people with agendas really are i.e. those mentioned in the article, and those who want to promote their own work, or their friends work, in the entry (I refer to the Dog article, the Midnight House reprint, and the MH artwork). References to Campbell are irrelevant: if Campbell does not base his speculation that Ryan was a woman on any actual evidence, it is mere speculation. As for Dalby he has changed his mind at least once with regard to Ryan's gender, but the article did not bother to0 source the claim that he once claimed that Ryan must have been a man because the adverts in the rear of Herbert Jenkins books from that era referenced Ryan's male gender. In contrast he claims in Barzun's 'Penguin Guide To Horror & The Supernatural' that Ryan was Rachel Ryan, so if any reference to Dalby should be amde, we should either say that a) he changed his mind at least once, and b) that in the cited reference book he claimed Ryan was a woman. Ultimately much of this is pointless and unneccessary squabbling from third parties who claim to be scholars but who are in fact agenda pushers with commercial interests and reputations to protect. Besides, I hope to be in a position to resolve this issue once and for all quite soon. Watch this space! Christopher Barker —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.159.223.202 (talk) 19:23, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Now Barker's obsession with Cameron Carr becomes clear. See the following page on his website: http://www.hauntedriver.co.uk/page38.html Three things to note: 1. the image of Cameron Carr is lifted from Getty Images, 2. he even gets the date of the image wrong, and 3. the bibliography he gives has omissions and is full of mistakes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Glyndwr24 (talk • contribs) 20:23, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

The above comment by James Doig is a text book example of personal abuse. No one has any obsession, least of all me. In contrast, Doig would appear to have commercial motivations. As for his libellous allegations about the photo of Cameron Carr, he is wrong. I procured a copy of this photograph from a specialist dealer (I collect stills and publicity photographs of actors and actresses who interest me). It is clearly stamped on the rear with a date which differs from that in the Getty Archive. Doig would appear to have seen the piece on my website, dashed off to the internet to validate the photograph (a photograph that he was not aware of before I announced its existence), and leapt to the malicious and erroneous conclusion that I must have copied the image from the Getty Archive. This exactly mirrors a similar situation which occured a year ago, when Doig and a couple of his business cronies accused me of lying about the title of Carr's novel 'Gilded Clay' coming from a play by John Masefield. They levelled similar abuse, arguing that I could not possibly know that the Masefield play was the source, and argued that it far more likely came from Shakespeare. Yet neither Doig nor his cronies had actually bothered to consult the book, which makes it very clear that the title did indeed come from a play by Masefield (I had read the book to check my facts where they had not). So, Doig is once again resorting to the same unpleasant and malicious tactics i.e. attacking my input to the R R Ryan entry because of personal animosity, rather than because of the actual facts. In this case the facts are that a) I have no commercial or vested interest in supporting any of the possible Ryan candidates and b) as a screen actor Cameron Carr circulated publicity photographs, so the notion that only one exists - and that it is owned by the Getty Image Museum - is preposterous. The sooner Doig grows up and learns to stick to the proveable facts rather than spew malicious allegations against his enemies the better (and certainly for Wikipedia). Christopher Barker PS. I freely admit to giving Doig et al enough rope to hang themselves. I deliberately with-held a key piece of proof of Masefield's having inspired the title for 'Gilded Clay' just as I deliberately clipped a part of the Carr publicity photograph, by way of enticing Doig to then make baseless allegations of a personally abusive nature. I did this because I am a tactician and wished to highlight his / their absurd prejudice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.207.115.4 (talk) 21:30, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Cool it, guys

This isn't Usenet; it's a page for discussing ways to improve the article on R. R. Ryan. Please stop with the personal and irrelevant stuff. And, 172-whatever, why don't you create (or reactivate) an account? There needs to be some way of communicating with you other than article talk pages. Deor (talk) 21:49, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

You want the truth? Because I get stalked by the likes of Doig and his band of cronies. If I used one fixed account they would be able to track every entry I contributed to or created, and they would sabotage it. Some of Doig's cronies - for example, the same one who published the recent Ryan reprint - set up malicious Yahoo discussion groups whose sole stated purpose was to harrass and pester me. They even boasted openly about creating a so-called 'sock puppet' - the password for which they circulated amongst themselves - which was then used by them to post the most disgusting (and cowardly) of libellous allegations. That, in a nutshell, is why I do not create an account, even though I have contributed in an objective and scholarly way to many Wiki entries. Christopher Barker at Haunted River www.hauntedriver.co.uk —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.189.100.8 (talk) 23:06, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

The above post sets out Barker's credentials very well - a harmless internet kook. A couple of points about the wiki entry: the British Library catalogue does not question the Rachel R. Ryan entries. Go to the catalogue at http://catalogue.bl.uk and search on Ryan, Rachel R. - there are no question marks or anything else doubting the name. Also, the Rachel R. Ryan who wrote "A Biography of Manchester" (1937), and who was the daughter of C.E. Montague, is not necessarily the Rachel Ryan who wrote "Dinners for Beginners: an economic cooking book for the single-handed" (1934), which Barker seems to think is a cook book for one-armed cooks! My own humble opinion is that R.R. Ryan was a man - it might well be Cameron Carr, or it might be a man named R.R. Ryan, but for the purposes of completeness we need to include the Rachel R. Ryan identified in the BL catalogue. I suspect that the British Library saw the Rachel R. Ryan book on Manchester, and assumed R.R. Ryan was the same person. If the wiki entry is to be complete and objective, it needs to set out both male and female arguments. And if Barker can identify R.R. Ryan conclusively, good on him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.7.140.3 (talk) 03:03, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

The above person expresses their 'humble opinion' but like many cowards fails to actually say who he or she is, presumably out of an awareness that they are being personally abusive. Who cares what someone anonymous suspects about the British Library, especially when they are quick to abuse others who are prepared to put their name to their comments? My input into this entry has been very substantial: I have provided an accurate precis for most of the novels, I have highlighted the error of overstating the Rachel R. Ryan case along with using an imagined picture of what she may have looked like, I have corrected several inaccuracies and removed unsourced POV. Christopher Barker.

NB. According to an apic.net and ARIN search the user 203.7.140.3 is based in Australia. James Doig aka Gwyndlr is also based in Australia. Draw your own conclusions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.201.177.6 (talk) 09:41, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

New to R. R. Ryan

Coming to Ryan fresh, I have to say I find the article a bit frustrating. The connection is made that Ryan, Carr and Galton are the same person from the Random House contracts, but then there is no evidence given to prove that the Ryan/Carr/Galton person is Evelyn Bradley. I have been able to get hold of the articles in "All Hallows" and the "Book and Magazine Collector" article gives no evidence. Does the Bradley family have proof that R. R. Ryan is Evelyn Bradley? At the moment the article requires a great leap of faith. FardelsBear66 (talk) 13:16, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

R. R. Ryan- Denice Jeanette Bradley-Ryan ?

According to this review of "The Subjugated Beast", [1] John Pelan claims "R. R. Ryan" was actually a woman named Denice Jeanette Bradley-Ryan. 176.61.97.121 (talk) 18:56, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

UPDATES (Relationships)

Greetings, everyone! New here. Also a descendent of the author.

I have noticed the Evelyn Bradley / “R. R. Ryan” Wikipedia page is behind the curve and lacking some accuracy and details, so I am providing some updates.

Relationships:

Having sussed out and confirmed ancestry research, I have long thought it fair and best to clarify the personal relationships. (This particular info is by now publicly available, although it can be paywalled)

Mr. Evelyn Bradley appears to have had children with 3 women. (via marriage and birth/baptism/census records)

1st with Florence Daisy Bailey. Married 1909. They had offspring. She died shortly after.

2nd with Elizabeth Imeson Hornsby. Married 1910. They had offspring. (Of note: There is no divorce record for 2nd marriage.)

Annie Elsworthy Oppenheim Pinto Howard appears as Evelyn's 3rd and remaining life partner, whom he also had children with, including daughter Denice Jeanette Bradley.

- For posterity: There is no marriage record for the relationship with Annie Howard and she technically does not fall under category of “2nd wife”.

- Interesting tidbit: Annie Howard was also an actress who had a history of collaboration with Mr. Bradley-Ryan in the theatre venue. Further theatre connections are noted through both of Annie’s parents. Annie Howard is also a half sibling to members of the Redgrave (theatre) family.

October5th (talk) 20:15, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Address: 80b Lansdowne Place

For those wanting research details: The address of “80b Lansdowne-Place” in Hove, Sussex is key.

ONE: This reportedly is the last given address on the contract with publisher Herbert Jenkins for author R. R. Ryan. (1940, No Escape)

TWO: How do we know “Rex Ryan” is connected? 80b Lansdowne Place, is one significant bridge - the electoral records with this address (for the time period) record “Rex Ryan” as occupant.  (The Rex Ryan name is recorded in some Brighton/Hove censuses as well, opposed to the birth name of Evelyn Bradley.)

THREE: The connection between Evelyn Bradley and (musical-hall artist) Rex Ryan is noted in British newspapers reporting on his death. (Suicide at home.) And, some articles do further specifically note him to be the resident of Lansdowne. More confirmation.

Importantly, FOUR: The death certificate specifically notes “Evelyn Bradley otherwise Rex Ryan / theatrical manager and author” with the abode “80b Lansdowne Place, Hove”.

(This info is now technically publicly available but I recognize that direct record sources, plus newspaper archives, etcetera, can be paywalled.)

October5th (talk) 20:24, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Addendum: The 1939 census on 80b Lansdowne Place records “Rex Ryan” as an occupant and the quoted occupation is: “Writer (Fiction)” October5th (talk) 06:13, 23 October 2023 (UTC)