Talk:The Secret of Hanging Rock

External Link
There is only one External Link and that is to someone's essay about the solution to why the girls went missing - which more or less dismisses Joan Lindsay's ending by saying it's inconsistent with the rest of the novel. The essay is written by someone who has obviously spent time looking into this, but I'm wondering what its value is in the light of Joan Lindsay's ending. More External Links are required that analyse Joan Lindsay's ending. Mickraus 20:05, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Seriously. Gee, it must be a time warp: I hear time warps make people turn into crab-like creatures on a regular basis, right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.5.239.5 (talk) 18:07, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Authenticity of the authorship?
I would like a reliable source for the assertion that the eighteenth chapter as published in 'The Secret' was actually written by Joan Lindsay. I find it suspect that the chapter bluntly reveals what was intentionally hidden in the previous 17 chapters, and that 'The Secret' was only published after Lindsay's death - so she was not around anymore to refute its authenticity.

If no such source can or will be presented, I believe we should change the wording of this article.Mcouzijn (talk) 11:26, 31 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The fact that she had the final chapter removed at the time of original publication and held in reserve until after her death has been widely discussed. Lindsay's bio page on Wikipedia cites Adelaide, Debra (1988) Australian women writers: a bibliographic guide, London, Pandora for this fact. The book was published by a respectable house, and none of her friends or family have ever gone pubilc accusing them of making it up. I think you can take the chapter as exactly what the publishers promise. Uucp (talk) 02:35, 1 June 2010 (UTC)


 * The fact that an idea has been widely discussed does not turn the idea into fact. You present two arguments why I should take the idea as a fact:
 * - it was considered fact in a book published by a respectable house;
 * - none of her friends or familiy have accused the publisher for making it up.


 * These arguments are not convincing. First, respectable publishers publish erroneous 'facts' all the time; the implication that any idea published by any respectable publisher must be true and should not be challenged, is naive to say the least. On what factual grounds did Adelaide conclude that the 18th chapter was genuinely written by Lindsay? We don't know.


 * Second, many known shams have been published, but I can think of none that turned out to be sham because of accusations by 'friends and family'. It is an open question whether 'friends and family' have more interests in revealing any sham than in hiding it.
 * Nevertheless, I cannot present proof that the 18th chapter is a sham. And indeed you have offered what I asked for: a reliable - or rather verifiable - source. I believe that the wording in the article should be changed to reflect the dependency of the presumed 'fact' on this very source, the value of which is undetermined. Mcouzijn (talk) 13:11, 24 August 2010 (UTC)


 * by that argument, wikipedia should not acknowledge any posthumously published text. That seems paranoic to me. Absent some credible charge that she didn't write it, I see no reason to challenge it. Uucp (talk) 13:16, 24 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Do you mean that you take all statements for facts as long as they have not been disproven? Or just this one?


 * I still haven't heard any substantial proof of Mrs. Lindsay having written this 'final chapter' other than hearsay. No manuscript, no diary entry, no civil law notary who acknowledges the transfer of copyrights from Mrs. Lindsay to Mr. John Taylor (of the editor's house Cheshires). Just hearsay and more hearsay. Mcouzijn (talk) 16:58, 28 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I have another factual argument for my suggestion that 'The Secret of Hanging Rock' was not written by Lindsay: she turned out te be a firm advocate of an open ending to 'Picnic at Hanging Rock'. In an interview on the Criterion DVD edition, Mrs. Lindsay can be heard and seen stating that she finds it 'an extraordinary thing to me that people are not content to leave it as a mystery', that she 'wrote the story as a mystery', that it 'will remain a mystery' and that a solution would only 'spoil the mystery'. She cannot tell her readers 'any more than that' when they ask for 'the solution'. She refers to Henry James' 'The Turn of the Screw', a novel that also has an open ending to a mysterious affair, and to its author also refusing to present 'solutions'. Mrs. Lindsay can also be heard stating that PAHR is an 'atmospheric' book rather than a 'story' or a 'whodunnit' with a concrete solution.


 * To me this is further support for my thesis that Lindsay's own conception of PAHR was as an open-ending narrative. The decision to write and publish 'The secret of Hanging Rock' may have had a commercial motive, and may have been taken even before Lindsay's death, but not by her. So far, I have not found or heard any trace of Mrs. Lindsay's personal involvement or even the slightest interest in a 'solution' or 'answer', let alone 'secret' to the thoughtfully conceived mysteries in Picnic at Hanging Rock. On the contrary. Mcouzijn (talk) 01:38, 14 December 2010 (UTC)


 * This sounds like POV to me. You have a theory that she may never have written it. A theory that, as I far as I can tell, has never been voiced by any other person. Perhaps this is best for a personal website? So far as Wikipedia goes, I just don't see how it fits. Uucp (talk) 17:09, 14 December 2010 (UTC)


 * On my part, I don't see how unproven ideas, that lack the slightest material backing, fit within a serious encyclopedia. Shall we, from now on, add ideas to Wikipedia for which only one verbal, i.e. immaterial, source exists? Like the editor of 'Secret'? Should we blindly believe any informant on any topic, as long as 'the family doesn't resist'? I think that is unserious scrutiny. Mind you, I don't ask to erase this lemma, but to improve its wording so that a rational reservation emerges as to its present all-too-factual presentation.Mcouzijn (talk) 21:41, 22 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Perhaps this article needs a section on "Criticism"? Surely some critics must have voiced some opinions as to the nature and/or the authenticity of this chapter?
 * I don't have any vested interest it claiming that Lindsay didn't write this chapter, but having read the book and seen the movie, the chapter does seem to stick out oddly. It seems too "pat", and invokes a science fiction/pseudo-occult explanation that is out of character with the  overall feel of the rest of the story.
 * It's a little as if someone proposed "answering" all the JFK assassination theories by positing that a hyperdimensional space-alien came down and stopped time, committed the crime, fabricated all the seeming evidence, and wiped-out all the witnesses' memories -- before conveniently vanishing into his spacecraft, never to be seen again.
 * At any rate, if there are critiques of this chapter, it would be in the interest of thoroughness to include at least a summary of them in the article. No?
 * 74.95.43.249 (talk) 03:15, 21 October 2015 (UTC)


 * It can be hardly surprising that I welcome your suggestion, Yet my main proposition is that in the first sentence of this lemma, the word 'presumedly' is inserted. A serious encyclopedia should present a topic as the established facts want it. If there is any valid reason for serious, rational "criticism", it means that the fact of Lindsay's authorship is not established, but presumed.
 * I totally agree with you that the nature of the 'secret chapter' is in itself reason enough to doubt its authorship, given the quality of the original chapters *and* the explicit, recorded statements of Joan Lindsay who said that no solution to the mystery ever existed. Add to this the total absence of any material evidence (manuscript, typoscript, annotations, diary entries, correspondence, transfer of rights, last will), and any rational mind must conclude that there is serious doubt as to the authorship of this dreadful "Secret". Mcouzijn (talk) 21:41, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Repeated controversial article edits
Mcouzijn, you've repeatedly made similar edits to the article, attempting to introduce doubt about the authenticity of the chapter, and you have repeatedly been reverted by a number of different editors (including me). Since other wikipedians clearly disagree with you, could I please ask you to refrain from further attempts without first establishing consensus for this change? – Snarkibartfast (talk) 18:55, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I understand where you are coming from. So let me try to find some establishment for my position. You & I & Wikipedia believe that any encyclopedic lemma should be based on verifiable fact rather than doubtful opinion. So what are the verifiable facts that support the idea that 'The Secret of Hanging Rock' has been written by Joan Lindsay? Which verifiable facts do you think should be established before this lemma should rightfully claim that X has actually been written by Y? Just asking (and just feeling embarrassed that forwarding serious, scientific, philological doubt meets with such enmity).Mcouzijn (talk) 17:11, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Obviously the basis for the claim that the so-called "Chapter Eighteen" (really Chapter 3b) in The Secret of Hanging Rock was written by Joan Lindsay is the booklet itself, particularly the testimony of John Taylor (who is apparently something in the way of Ms. Lindsay's literary executor, disposing of her copyrights after her death): "Joan gave me the manuscript of Chapter Eighteen in December 1972". It is also recorded in the copyright notice of that book, and Joan Lindsay's name is printed on the title page of the relevant section. Published by Angus & Robertson, a reputable publisher, the booklet is clearly a reliable source for the statement.
 * So to raise doubt about the claim, I firmly believe you need to cite some other reliable source that supports such skepticism. Since Picnic at Hanging Rock is a classic and has been the subject of much scholarly attention, that should not be hard to find if your suspicions are shared by acknowledged experts. (Taylor's introduction also mentions that the chapter was among the papers inherited by the National Trust, so a skeptical researcher could presumably check without too much trouble.) A quick search did not bring up anything: most sources appear to take the chapter's authenticity for granted (notably, one Sarah L. Frith, who had access to Lindsay's papers in the National Trust Archives for her dissertation Fact and fiction in Joan Lindsay's "Picnic at Hanging Rock", cites The Secret of Hanging Rock without apparent apprehensions). In fact, the closest thing to any reservations I could find is McCrick (1987), "More on Hanging Rock" , where we may perhaps detect a degree of dubiousness, although he never explicitly disputes the account: "Some might find the literary value of this chapter so poor as to wish that it was never released. Its release after her death, apparently, was what Joan Lindsay wanted [...]. I do not intend to comment on any of these matters"
 * Personally I don't dismiss the idea that the whole thing could be a hoax: I consider it a definite possibility. But that's just my own private judgment; if it's not a view that has been endorsed (or even acknowledged) by reliable sources, it's not Wikipedia's place to propagate such an argument, no matter how surreptitiously. The principle at stake here is WP:NOR: It's not a question of whether you are right, but whether what you're saying is verifiable by reference to reliable sources. —Snarkibartfast (talk) 13:06, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * As an example of the kind of sources that might be used to support the argument you want to make, compare the discussion of the controversy over Go Set a Watchman. —Snarkibartfast (talk) 09:47, 13 July 2016 (UTC)