A Monstrous Commotion: The Mysteries of Loch Ness

This exquisitely written and exhaustingly researched book first presents the Nessie phenomenon in chronological order and then doubles back and presents all the facts in a more objectively logical perspective. As an acolyte since Dinsdale, this gets my vote on the best modern interpretation of the perplexing plesiosaur.

The book on Loch Ness I've been waiting for. Gareth Williams successfully shows how a myth can gather momentum without the need for any facts or solid science to back it up. Especially if that myth is an incredibly attractive one, such as the idea of a plesiosaur-like beast lurking in the inky depths of a Scottish loch.This book focuses on the main players in the Loch Ness story over the decades, and it becomes clear (to me at least) that if you strip away the wishful thinking, the misidentifications of natural phenomena, the hoaxes. . . then you are really left with nothing at all in terms of anything unusual at the loch. The myth self-perpetuated from 1933 onwards, that much is evident.I always had my misgivings about Tim Dinsdale's role in the entire Loch Ness story. He was clearly hell bent on accepting even the most obviously fake images as genuine. The author has finally dared to say what a lot of us have long thought - Dinsdale was by no means a rational, level-headed or calm judge of either his own 1960 film, or the eyewitness testimony and images of others. Dinsdale was by all accounts a likeable man, but as a judge of the evidence he was severely lacking.This book gives me the feeling that the final chapter in the Loch Ness Monster story has now been written, and there is very little, if anything, to add. The author pretends to leave the final verdict to the reader at the end, but it would be nigh on impossible to read this book without concluding that the monster is an entirely human construct.A very impressive addition to the long list of Nessie titles. Congratulations to Gareth Williams.

This year brings us a new and informative history of the Loch Ness Monster and her detractors and adherents. The last one was Nicholas Witchell's revised 1989 edition of "The Loch Ness Story", and November 2015 brings us Gareth William's "A Monstrous Commotion".However, it would be fairer to reverse terms and say this is a history of the adherents and detractors of the Loch Ness Monster as it seeks to present the human side of an endearing and enduring mystery.Now, my own interest in the Loch Ness Monster dates back to when Witchell's first edition came out in 1974. Forty years on, I may have thought I had a pretty good grasp of the Monster and its pursuers, but it seems to be a truism (certainly for me), that we forget more than we remember about even favoured subjects.So, it was certainly a refresher lesson for me to again read of the exploits, successes and failures of the monster hunters that stretched back to 1933 (and before). One can argue that the failures outweigh the successes and that is certainly writ large as the trials and tribulations of various small and large expeditions are charted from the semi-serious joints of meat hurled by hook into murky waters to the hi-tech, multi-disciplinary technologies of later hunts.None of them delivered the conclusive proof that hard nosed scientists demanded and with that all of them fell into the annals of cryptid history. Gareth Williams revisits those heady days of Edward Mountain, the Loch Ness Investigation Bureau, the Academy of Applied Sciences and Operation Deepscan. Each brought something new to the table in the great chase, but what about the people and personalities?Gareth Williams' book breaks new ground by tapping into the archive of a central figure in that most intense period of Nessie fervour, the 1960s and 70s. That figure was Sir Peter Scott; naturalist, Olympic medallist and Nessie believer. In fact, one gets the impression this was the catalyst and motivation for writing the entire book in the first place.Peter Scott was a major influence in how the monster hunting scene of the 1960s developed as he tried to bring together the scientific community and the monster hunter community. Throughout this period and into the 1980s, he regularly communicated with various names familiar to us such as Tim Dinsdale, Constance Whyte, Robert Rines and so on. Those letters have been preserved and in them we see not only the opinions of people as regards the existence or non-existence of exotic creatures, but also their opinions regarding other people and the various Loch Ness projects.This is where "A Monstrous Commotion" begins where the more anodyne "The Loch Ness Story" ends in exploring the dynamics of human relationships in the great monster quest. Of course, such opinions were deemed confidential at the time, but since the vast majority of all these players are now dead, the negative and positive comments inked onto paper can now be revealed.One would have suspected that what we know of human nature would reflect in the all too human world of monster hunting. That has been confirmed by Gareth as people like Tim Dinsdale and Robert Rines do not come out of this smelling of roses. One however wonders if there is yet more to tell concerning people who are still alive and have been spared embarrassment?Certainly, it has been told me that Rines, in a burst of American forthrightness, told a current Loch Ness researcher to "Piss off, Sonny!". One suspects Rines was not the most angelic of figures (though what elicited that outburst is not known to me).The other aspect of taking up the hunting of this Scottish Snark was the detrimental effect it seemed to have on other aspects of one's career and relationships. The obsession with the monster has closed many a door which otherwise was wide open to those with the undoubted talents to do so. It seems an undue focus on Nessiteras Rhombopteryx aided and abetted by an actual sighting of the creature led to blindness in other areas. Let that be a lesson to us all.Gareth extends this thought into how monster hunters selectively picked or ignored various sightings to bolster their beloved plesiosaur theory. That may be true, but he omits to mention that those on the other side of the debate are also guilty of bias driven analysis. To wit, he mentions how Gould rejected the un-sea serpent-like sighting of a crocodile like creature in the River Ness in 1932.However, sceptic Adrian Shine, in an attempt to bolster his roaming sturgeon theory, holds up the exact same account as a possible sturgeon sighting, rather than consign it to one of the more humdrum creatures that frequented the river and loch. My own feeling was that sceptics got off too lightly in parts of this book, as if they were uninfected by the human frailties of their opposite camp.Perhaps the approach here is like a controlled debate or a court case. The defence for the monster made their case between 1933 and 1980. The prosecution then stood up and made their case from 1980 to the present day. However, the process is more complex than that as counter arguments bounce around to the present day.One case in point is the Peter MacNab photograph. Gareth gives us the flow of debate around this picture as even the Professor of Zoology at Oxford, Sir Alister Hardy, became an advocate of the photograph. When he comes to Roy Mackal's treatment of the photograph, the problem of why foliage in the foreground is present in one version of the picture but not another is again presented as a reason to reject this photo.However, this argument is forty years out of date as recent research has adequately demonstrated that the reason for the difference is that one picture is more enlarged than the other and thus cuts out the foreground foliage as a result.This is a problem noted before in recent publications on the monster. There is the printed matter published between 1934 and 1976. However, the debate has now moved onto the Internet and that is where authors need to go to get the latest thinking (be it of an anti-monster or pro-monster cast).Having said that, new books do address old arguments and I am tempted to send Gareth a free copy of my "The Water Horses of Loch Ness" book as he also travelled down the well-trodden sceptical path of saying there is precious little monster tradition prior to the Nessie era of 1933. Since Gareth acknowledges Dick Raynor and Adrian Shine were heavily involved in the editing of the document and "correcting my many errors of fact, chronology and interpretation", it is not difficult to see their sceptical influence on how the Loch Ness mystery should be "interpreted". Facts and chronology can be objective, interpretation is more subjective.But perhaps subjective interpretation even trumps objective chronology? In Gareth's book, it is stated that Peter MacNab took his picture on the 21st October 1958 (page 67). However, MacNab always said he took it in the Summer of 1955. If the aforementioned advisors did indeed correct him on chronology, it suggests that they "decided", on their assumption it was a fake photo, that it was actually "taken" only days before its publication. That is not objective chronology, that is subjective interpretation.Typographically, the book has few errors and that is a credit to the proof readers. The only thing I would seriously query is plate 46 which shows the 1972 flipper photograph. The bottom picture does not look like the JPL enhanced picture, but another one called the "two body" picture.But how do you tell the tale of an unproven monster swimming along the borders of human fantasy and objective reality? Gareth does the right thing in telling it from the perspective of the actors in this play. So, we get history new but also history old as respect is given to the eyewitnesses. Thus, the look and feel of the saga is preserved as tales of long necks, humps, flippers and outsized flanks creating a terrific commotion in the midst of the waters reflects and catalyses the commotion playing out on terra firma.Ultimately, the shadow of the sceptic intrudes as Gareth goes through the various theories which try to explain these incredible sights without the need for a plesiosaur, sea serpent, giant salamander, tullimonstrum gregarium or giant eels.As I read through his veritable blizzard of so called ordinary things seen in extraordinary circumstances, it struck me how virtually anything that has existed near the loch has been employed as an explanation. From cars to boats, from dogs to ducks, from deformed cows to dead trees, this blunderbuss approach spins the mind and one soon realises it is easier to state what has not been employed in this revisionism rather than what has.If almost anything can be employed as an explanation, one wonders how that devalues the whole approach?I would have liked to have seen the history extended further. Witchell's "Loch Ness Story" took us up to 1989, but Gareth's book only really goes a few years further to include the 1993 "Project Urquhart" and the 1994 expose of the Surgeon's Photograph. Apart from a brief biopic on Steve Feltham, the period between 1995 to 2015 is still largely a black hole to readers.However, Gareth's book is a good addition to the Loch Ness literature in how it lifts the lid on the human side of the Loch Ness Monster hunt. From Crowley's "Koloo Mavlick" to Torquil MacLeod's swan-off shotgun and Dinsdale's preoccupation with the Queen, there is plenty to inform and entertain. Whether that takes us closer to deciding whether there is an exotic creature in Loch Ness is another matter. Gareth wisely leaves that conclusion to the reader. I personally think it does not, but it does reveal to what extent this phenomenon drives both believer and sceptic.Gareth's postscript ends on an ironic and perhaps unintended note. He begins with a Colonel Lane's sighting of a torpedo like object ploughing a watery furrow through the loch in the 1940s. He ends it with current monster hunter Steve Feltham also witnessing a torpedo like object cutting speedily across the loch. Loch Ness history continues to beat the same rhythm and that perhaps sums up the ongoing hunt for the beast of the loch.I thank Gareth for bringing these things to the attention of Nessie people everywhere and recommend it as a worthy addition to their crypto-bookshelf.

Selten habe ich ein Buch gelesen, das mich derart unterhalten hat und sich doch eigentlich mit einem trockenen und vielfach ausgelutschten Thema befasst.Williams führt den geneigten Leser denn auch erst einmal auf den buchstäblichen Holzweg. Wer nur den ersten Teil seines Buchs liest, erfährt viel über die Geschichte des berühmten "Monsters", lernt die Akteure kennen und wird mit den sogenannten Beweisen für die Existenz "Nessies" vertraut gemacht. Das alles geschieht mit viel trockenem britischen Humor, der mir eins ums andere Mal ein Grinsen ins Gesicht getrieben haben, aber ohne jegliche Wertung....Ist Williams also ein "Believer" ? Den Eindruck könnte man gewinnen, wenn man nicht weiterlesen würde.Jetzt - im zweiten Teil - räumt der Autor mit Legenden, Lügen und veritablem Betrug auf, indem er mit intensiver Recherche und schonungsloser Offenheit einen der sogenannten Beweise um den anderen als gefaked entlarvt. Das reicht von kleinen U-Booten mit Nessie-Köpfen (das berühmte "Foto des Chirurgen") bis hin zur Entlarvung von Selbstdarstellern und Hochstaplern. Dass diese sowohl in der wissenschaftlichen wie auch der politischen Prominenz des Königreichs zu finden sind, stört Williams in keinster Weise.Derart vorbereitet konfrontiert Williams im abschliessenden Teil seines Buchs mit der (vermeintlichen ?) Realität: das Monster erblickte Anfang der 30er Jahre als Werbegag das Licht der Welt, mit dem man erhoffte, dem von der Weltwirtschaftskrise schwer gebeutelten Tourismus in den Highlands neues Atem einzuhauchen. Das ging gründlich in die Hose, aus der Idee wurde eine selbsterfüllende Prophezeiung, die bis in unsere Tage Massenhisterien und vermeintliche Sichtungen des Monsters zur Folge hat.Am Ende zeigt sich Williams trotz der Demontage des Mythos versöhnlich. Fast schon wehmütig schildert er im Nachwort seine Reise um den Loch Ness und taucht die Orte der Nessie-Sichtungen in ein nostalgisches Licht. Fast könnte man am Ende solchermassen den Eindruck gewinnen, es wäre ihm lieber gewesen, das Geheimnis nicht entzaubert zu haben.Was bleibt dem Leser ? Ein amüsanter Trip durch eines der "letzten Rätsel des Planeten", vergleichbar mit Yeti und anderen kryptozoologischen Absonderlichkeiten. Mag sich doch jeder selbst seine Meinung bilden: einen Nessie-Gläubigen wird Williams mit seinem Buch nicht vom Wege abbringen. Für mich war es das klassische: "Wenn es schon nicht wahr ist, ist es wenigstens gut erfunden".

A MONSTROUS COMMOTION ist eines der unterhaltsamsten und liebenswertesten Sachbücher, welches mir in den letzten Monaten untergekommen ist. Man merkt bei der Lektüre sofort, dass dieses Projekt eine echte Herzensangelegenheit für seinen Autor Gareth Williams war, der hier einfach mit Leib und Seele bei der Sache ist.Aber neben dem immer wieder augenzwinkendern und einfach sehr unterhaltsamen Schreibstil muss man A MONSTROUS COMMOTION bescheinigen, dass es wohl das beste, informativste und spannenste Buch über das Phänomen des "Loch Ness Monster" ist. Gareth Williams hat natürlich seine eigene Meinung und legt diese schlüssig dar, aber er ist bei allem fair: er schildert objektiv auch Theorien, welche von seiner eigenen Ansicht abweichen.Denn egal ob man an die Existenz des Monsters glaubt oder nicht: die Geschichte rund um das Loch Ness Monster ist es unbedingt wert erzählt zu werden, und sie ist eigentlich gar nicht wegen einer vermeindlich immer wieder gesichteten, mysteriösen Kreatur so unterhaltsam, sondern eben (und vor allem) auch wegen der involvierten Personen. Die Erforschung des Loch Ness Monsters hat eine Schar von wirklich bemerkenswerten Charakteren angezogen, und es ist spannend, ihre Lebenswege zu lesen.Das Ergebnis dieses Buches dürfte nach der Lektüre eigentlich keinen wundern: auch wenn Gareth Williams die Frage bewusst augenzwinkernd offen lässt, wenn man sehr viel Wunschdenken und "I want to believe" Mentalität mal außen vor lässt bleibt von Nessie, zumindest in der klassischen Plesiosaurier-Form oder ähnliches "Monster", leider nicht viel übrig - weder Beweise noch eine auch nur entfernt plausible Erklärung, sondern eher mehr oder weniger schlecht gemachte Fälschungen, urbane Mythen und Täuschungen.Aber: das, was alle eint, die sich für das Thema interessieren, vom größten Skeptiker bis hin zu bekannten Figuren wie Dinsdale oder McNab, ist ja, das sich alle WÜNSCHEN, dass es Nessie gibt - auch wenn es noch so unwahrscheinlich ist.Alles in allem: eine enorm unterhaltsame Lektüre rund um das bekannteste cryptozoologische Phänomen - welche mir auch gezeigt hat, dass die Menschen hinter dem Mythos mindestens so spannend sind wie Nessie selbst.

Definitely a detailed record of the history of the myth...However it also has a habit of waffling about non relevant stuff to make the pages pad out. I found myself skipping 5 or 6 pages at a time occasionally as it would start talking about some persons experiences in the world war or some crap. I also didn’t care for the records of biologists arguing with each other in meetings about research papers, get back to the sightings and theories about the monster please.

A fantastic and detailed run through of this most bizarre of mysteries/myths. In the 21st century, it's hard to credit how belief in the Loch Ness monster was relatively mainstream back in the 1970s (it might lead to you being shunned by the scientific establishment, but it was not seen as a joke in many quarters and certainly not in the media).Without drifting into detailed theories of social psychology, Williams' book provides a powerful insight into the "I WANT TO BELIEVE" tendency we find in all of us.The real making of the book comes in the final chapter, where the author puts forward a genuinely compelling explanation for the Loch Ness Monster phenomenon. What makes it even more delicious is that he could have simply ended the book without doing so, but once you've read his conclusion, it's clear that it had been signposted right the way through the text.This is the definitive Loch Ness Monster book that effectively closes a case that has teased, tormented and tantalised us for nearly a century.

A very comprehensive title which seems to cover all the angles of what Nessie might or might not be and why. At the end he challenges the reader to make up their mind there and then which shouldn't really work for a non-electronic, non-social medium but somehow it does. Yes, the author does repeat some items several times but not ad nauseam. Particularly interesting and new to me was the part played by Peter Scott. He mentions the tensions building in the 1930s surrounding Hitler's expansionism but, surprisingly, that he didn't mention the Kreigsmarine visitors on a tour after the British German Naval Treaty of 1935. Why did they visit Loch Ness which is freshwater non-naval site rather remote from obvious naval bases?