Dee is not Ian, but John Molony is Ned Kelly:

“I am Ned Kelly” was published in 1980, a century after Ned Kellys execution, and was re-released as just "Ned Kelly” in 2001. Author John Molony says in the Preface that he decided to write it when he learned in 1976 that the State Government of Victoria had decided not to formally recognize the anniversary. He claims till then to have regarded Ned Kelly as “someone best forgotten” so why  he decided to ‘remember’ him when the Government was proposing to do exactly what he thought was “best” is something of  a mystery. But this whole book is something of a mystery.

“The historian like the lawyer, holds a brief but his is for the dead whose lips are sealed. He is not compelled to pick up the brief but, once done, his task takes on its own sacredness”

These revealing words of John Molony, also in the Preface to “I am Ned Kelly” are the key to understanding what this book is all about, and unless you understand them first, you will misunderstand the entire book. From what I have read of others reviews of this book, I think very few people have “got it” – most I think have missed it completely.  What he is saying there is that in writing about Ned Kelly, he regarded it as his sacred duty to speak for him, to unseal his lips and to tell the story from the place where Ned Kelly stood and from where he viewed the world, to say what Ned might have wanted to say, perhaps to try to show what it might have been like to actually be Ned Kelly, perhaps to try to get into his mind and understand his thinking.

This deliberate and extremely subjective approach to history telling is  the opposite of mainstream academic approaches to history telling, which prizes objectivity. But a subjective and personal approach arguably makes biography a lot easier to write, because the entire “other side of the story” can just be ignored, balance is not required, the context is narrowed down to the immediate confines of the protagonist, and because state of mind and motivation, indeed all thought is unseen and untraceable, anything can be postulated about it. Never the less, conceivably you might gain some useful insight into the mind and motivation of the subject. What it would be a mistake to do,  reading a work of this kind is to believe you are necessarily getting the full picture, or all the relevant facts, or an understanding of what REALLY happened, because you are not. And that’s because a biography written on behalf of “the dead whose lips are sealed” is not intended to be that kind of biography, one that puts things in context and tries to see the whole picture. No, this kind of biography is intended to tell one mans story, and in this case its Neds: it is absolutely crucial to understanding this book to understand that truth about it. If you read it thinking it’s a history book about the facts, you’ve got it wrong : the clue is in the title - its about being Ned Kelly.

The first thing that strikes the reader of this book is the style of writing, which is closer to the rhythms and phrasing and language of an epic poem than ordinary prose. It reminded me at first of Shakespeare and the King James Bible,  or perhaps the Book of Mormon, definitely not “Jerilderie letter” but more than anything of translations from Greek of the Legends about  Ulysses, another Hero. I wonder if it was these Epics that informed Molonys decision about how  he would tell Neds story, mimicking the style of Homers Odyssey? -  read these extracts and you will see what I mean:

“Here in the home of his grandparents Ned first heard the tales that bade fair to make him an alien in the new land in which his sinews had been moulded and quickened. No history in the traditional sense  was ever taught by Old Quinn, nor by Red Kelly as they talked in the lilting soft tones of their people but in the tongue of a victorious invader, for the Gael was no longer theirs except in the brief  greetings, Diaduit –‘God be with you’ – or the fleeting wheel of Marys mysteries of the Rosary”

_____________________________________________

“Those years in which the clan in the northeast shaped its tortured destiny, etched out also to the inexorable path followed by others who quickened to that mountain air and grew to another fullness. Across the plains at Chiltern an eager child rapturously watched the wattle bloom and breathed in the heavy aroma of those golden pods scenting the air of spring afternoons”

_____________________________________________

“These new ones were not as those who had taught him a little of their wondrous skills as a boy at Avenel. They had not come in communion as fellow Australians  with the simple purpose of tracking game for the campfire. They had come to hunt Ned and those who  went with Ned, and their coming cast fear and pitched deep resentment into his soul. For he now knew that in very truth he was an outcast and a fugitive in the land that had given birth both to hunted and to hunters. One of them called Sambo longed for the far places and the familiar faces of his people in the north. He fell ill , pined away and died to be buried in anothers tribal ground, and it was fitting that he was put to rest as a pauper for he had come owning nothing and his spirit left the northeast as it had come”

  

If you were already familiar with more than just the barest outlines of the story, then at many places as you read, you would be surprised, because this version tells many things differently; if you were unfamiliar with the story you would miss them. Take the early incident involving Ned, McCormack, Gould , calf’s testicles and an assault. Ned ends up in Prison for the first time as a result of this fracas which in Molonys retelling, begins with this:

“One thing was certain to the good constable. Greta and even the bush would be better places were young Kelly to find a more suitable residence during the coming summer. The presence in the township of a former Policeman, Jeremiah Cormack and his wife Margaret offered the possibility of arranging a respectable place for Ned to live”

I have to confess I haven’t come across this suggestion before, that the “incident” was in some way a set-up involving the local Police and a retired Policeman, and neither Max Brown nor Ian Jones describe it in that way in their versions of the story, but Molony does. So who is right you might be tempted to ask ? Did Brown and  Ian Jones miss something? Or is Moloney making something up? The answer is actually that these are the wrong questions to be asking about this apparent difference : that’s because Molonys version is what he thinks was Neds understanding of what happened – that there must have been some sort of collusion between the Policeman and the former Policeman, that they were out to get him. And so that’s how he wrote the story, not to necessarily be true to the known facts, if indeed there were any, but to be true to the way he thinks Ned would have seen it.

When you get to the Fitzpatrick incident, there is something even more surprising, but only to anyone who has already seen Molonys 2011 video of the life of Ned Kelly. In that video he states bluntly that the Policeman was caught in the Kellys house, “trying to rape Kate” who was 14 or 15 at the time. In the book however, he tells a completely different story :

“Dan requested a breathing space to take a meal before departing for Greta lockup as he had been out riding all day, so he and Alexander went back inside  where Ellen began to remonstrate with the Constable for his breach of hospitality, and asserted that her son would not be taken out from her presence that night. Actions followed words and Alexander was struck with the fire shovel which wounded him in the wrist”

The clue to understanding this peculiar and dramatic variation  between Molonys versions is given in the video, where he goes on to say that because rape was such a dreadful social stigma, Ned insisted it be hushed up and not mentioned. In the video Moloney is telling us what he thinks actually happened – attempted rape – but in the book he is telling us the story he thinks Ned would have told : to protect his sisters reputation Ned wouldn’t have mentioned the rape and would have created a different story to hide it. And thats what is told in "I am Ned Kelly"

When you read about Glenrowan, among many things that surprise, is the assertion that Neds plan for Aaron didn’t involve killing him, that Ned was never told about what really happened to Aaron, that Ned intended to stop the train rather than allow it to crash, and that after tricking the Police into getting off, he would then commandeer the train and head south on a Bank robbing spree!

Remember that this is the story that Molony thinks Ned would have written, and then you understand what youre reading: its what Ned would have wanted you to believe, and its not necessarily the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Its actually Ned Kellys spin, putting the best possible face on everything – denying he wanted Aaron killed, denying he knew anything about the murder, denying he ever intended mass murder at Glenrowan, and the Police are corrupt and not to be trusted.  

Someone on the Iron Outlaw site gave this book 4.5 out of  5 stars in a brief mention, saying they regard this work as “one of the most accurately researched accounts of the Kelly outbreak”. I think this person missed the point of the book completely – it wasn’t intended to be a source of accurate facts about the Kelly outbreak, but a view of the outbreak from inside Ned Kellys helmet. So actually, it’s a rather clever book, closer in type in some respects to Peter Careys work of declared fiction the somewhat ironically titled “The True Story of the Kelly Gang”.

The last mystery of this work to be explained is why the title was changed from “I am Ned Kelly” to just “Ned Kelly”  in 2001, because as far as I can make out, thats the only difference between these two books. My guess is this : after 21 years looking out from inside that helmet, Molony became convinced that Ned Kellys view was all that there was to see, that the work was not just one persons view of the outbreak but the truth about it. The helmet became a trap from which he couldn’t escape, and so by the time of his You Tube lecture in 2011 he had forgotten he still had it on.

So, if you want to know what Ned wanted you to believe, read this book. But if you want to know if what Ned wanted you to believe is actually the truth about the Kelly Oubreak then you need to look elsewhere! This Blog is a good start! “I am Ned Kelly” is an interesting read and an unusual almost poetic book, but its too close to fiction for my liking. 

3 stars.