Rudeness is the weak man’s imitation of strength.
- Eric Hoffer

The Bleeding Hills - A Novel by Wilfried F. Voss

During the research for my novel The Bleeding Hills I found information on British Captain Robert Nairac whose behavioral patterns during the Irish Troubles can only be described as bizarre, to use a mild expression. I have posted two articles on Nairac on this blog, Robert Nairac – Hero, Butcher, Homosexual…? and Robert Nairac – Supplement to previous entry. I understand that my assessment that Nairac was gay is provocative to those who are unable to accept homosexuality as a different form of lifestyle, and I had to learn to live with criticism.

It is an unfortunate situation, though, that comments not agreeing with my assessment of Captain Robert Nairac’s sexual orientation are harsh to the degree of unfairness, and they are usually insulting, which indicates to me that the commenters are unable, if not incompetent, to contribute solid facts that would contradict my writings. The only solution out of their dilemma is plain rudeness. All they offer are unsubstantiated opinions.

In earlier days I would re-engage into more research on the topic just to learn that my previous research activities on the subject of Robert Nairac, even though he is not the central part of my novel, were thorough. At the same time, nobody who ever criticized my research has been able to prove me wrong. The information I found on Robert Nairac is primarily from English and Irish newspapers and through books written on the subject. I found further information, including a personal testimony, on sexual abuse at Ampleforth College during the time when Nairac was a student there. The speculation that Nairac may have been one of the victims is not out of this world, considering his self-destructive behavior as recorded by the previously mentioned newspapers.

These days I am familiar with the pattern of the criticism and the insult that comes with it, and I use these comments to post them here on my blog. The language of the comments speaks for itself.

April 28, 2010:

Comment:
“Nothing that you’ve grubbed up, googled or just plain guessed at constitutes research in any meaningful sense. Trawling through blogs written by embittered ex-squaddies and republican sympathisers certainly doesn’t, nor does regurgitating damaging hearsay.

For your information, there is absolutely nothing that anyone has ever said or written which suggests that Nairac was abused as a child, at Ampleforth or anywhere else. Your assertion that abuse occurred at Ampleforth, and Nairac was at Ampleforth (although not at the time of the abuse), and therefore Nairac was abused is typically specious. Even an apprentice in his first week on a local newspaper would know that you can’t get away with that kind of post hoc ergo propter hoc rationalisation. But then, I suspect, such a person would know a lot more about writing than you do.

Robert Nairac was a valiant soldier who died in tragic circumstances, and he and his long-suffering family deserve better than to have individuals like you making prurient, pseudo-psychological claims about his private life. Nor, for your information, do you have the moral right to distort the facts in the interest of your (presumably vanity-published) “novel”.

Following one of the links on this site, I note that you are putting together another masterwork, entitled American Male Prostitute. Might I suggest that you direct a little of that “research” towards yourself, and your own fantasy life?”

Response:
“It is funny, but every comment that does not agree with my view is harsh to a degree of unfairness, and they are usually rude, which indicates to me that the commenter is unable to contribute solid facts that would contradict my writings. The only solution out of their dilemma is plain rudeness. My research on the subject of Robert Nairac, even though he is not the central part of my novel, was thorough, and nobody who ever criticized my research has been able to prove me wrong.

I do encourage comments on my work, may they agree with my view or not, but I will not give in to unsubstantiated opinions.”

April 29, 2010:

Comment:
“Your “research” as you call it, is no more than a rehashing of other men’s work and (usually tendentious) opinions. Anyone who knows anything about this subject would recognise the sensationalist articles, no-check blogs, republican propaganda-pieces, and shameful would-be novelisations that you’ve drawn your conclusions from. There’s nothing remotely original about any of it. It’s not a question of not agreeing with your “view”, because the regurgitation of hearsay and rumour does not constitute a view.

There are two respectable sources on Nairac’s life, namely John Parker’s Death of a Hero and Martin Dillon’s The Dirty War. Both writers employ professional journalistic methodology. They have talked to primary sources, remained personally objective, and where facts cannot be established, they have said so. Learn from them.

Your blundering pseudo-psychology (Freddy Mercury? Elton John? Please) would be harmless if it didn’t involve real people and their families. Can’t you see how offensive your comments are? Are you surprised that people get angry when they see people like you, with their glib, shallow, second-hand opinions, trying to make a fast buck out of these tragic events?”

Response:
“Ray,
I have both books, that of John Parker and Martin Dillon, in my book shelf. I also own “War Without Honour: True Story of Military Intelligence in Northern Ireland” by Fred Holroyd and Nick Burbridge. Other sources I used were English and Irish newspapers.
Let me, for a moment, ignore your insulting tone and ask you: In what way are my comments offensive? I would like to learn your view on gay rights, because your comments point toward a despicable discrimination of homosexuals, and that may be the root of your anger.
Regards,
Wilfried”

Comment:
“You should know that Fred Holroyd’s account of events in NI has long been discredited for more reasons than there are time to go into here.

I have absolutely no problem with gay people or gay rights, and if Nairac was gay (which Martin Dillon suggests, and which many people have believed for some time), then that’s fine by me too. As ever, your pseudo-psychology is a mile wide of the mark.

What I find offensive is your crude fixation with Nairac’s sexuality, and the way you use it to try and generate publicity for yourself and your “novel”. If you can’t see that a headline like “Robert Nairac – Hero, Butcher, Homosexual” is crass and sensationalist, then there’s no more to be said. For your information, no reputable source suggests that Nairac ever “butchered” anyone, and Dillon comprehensively refutes all such claims.”

Response:
“Ray,
I thank you for confirming that my assertion that Nairac was gay is valid. As to the reputation of Fred Holroyd let me state that my research activities do not exclude any sources that may not be pleasing to either side in the conflict. I engage into thorough research and when finished I form an opinion.
You have the right to disagree with my marketing techniques. I only wished you had expressed your concern a bit more to the point and, after all, I wished you kept a professional tone. You should be aware that your accusatory style only damages your credibility.
I consider this matter closed.
Regards,
Wilfried”