Worst artists in the world?

Wood

McGonagall

Was William Mcgonagall the 19th century Ed Wood?
 Whilst it would be great to get Johnny Depp to play the official worst poet in the world (Vogon poetry doesn't count), are there any parallels between these two curious cultural icons?
 Both are regarded as the 'worst' in their fields. Not merely bad, anyone can simply be bad at something, but comically bad. Their work contains what the industry and the public regard as elementary errors that are so apparent that they are comical.
 However, the key is unintentional errors. If the errors appeared to be intentional, then they would lose their comedic appeal. The comedy arises from the delusion of greatness.
 William McGonagall was poet, and didn't he know it. His poems inadequately use poetic metaphor, and don't scan properly. Here's a sample of his most famous, the Tay Bridge disaster:

Beautiful Railway Bridge of the Silv'ry Tay!
Alas! I am very sorry to say
That ninety lives have been taken away
On the last Sabbath day of 1879,
Which will be remember'd for a very long time.

 Edward Wood was an American filmmaker from the 1950s, who produced, directed, edited, authored, and starred in his own films. His productions were B-movies, with little commercial success, and were also created by his enthusiasm and lack of recognition of his limits. It was only decades later that his movies acquired a cult status, and as a result he is one of the most famous movie makers of Hollywood.
 William McGonagall also had no care for recognition from his peers, and made his money from performing his work in front of a crowd. Audiences would jeer and pelt him with fruit, for which he would recieve up to 15 shillings a night. He seemed to believe that the queen had enjoyed his work, due to a polite letter from the palace thanking him for his poem, and tried to perform for the queen after walking from Dundee to Balmoral. He was stopped by security. Whilst it has been suggested he was playing up to the crowd for money, I don't think this is the case. He went out of his way to perform, going over to America or walking 60 miles to see the queen, the sort of poetry most people write in primary school. I think he genuinely did believe in his talents. Like Ed Wood, who continued in his career long after common sense should have told him to stop.
 Both died penniless and were cruelly mocked by their peers and the public. Both had to be rediscovered by later generations. And both took mediocrity and produced strangely timeless work that's quite enjoyable.

George square statues

I've walked past the statues in George square hundreds of times, and I was vaguely aware of a couple of the historical characters they're based on, but to be honest I didn't really give them much thought - they were just background to wherever I was going (possibly a pub). However, apart from the Cenotaph, the Robert Burns and James Watt Statues, I didn't really know the rest, so it was a bit of a surprise to find out that they read a bit like history's who's whom:

Sir Walter Scott
Queen Victoria and Prince Albert
Sir Robert Peel
William Gladstone
Thomas Graham (Chemist at Glasgow uni)
Thomas Campbell (poet)
Field Marshall Lord Clyde (Soldier, obviously)
Sir John Moore
James Oswald (MP from 1832)

I know that most British cities have these tableau of famous historical people, but I do find them fascinating; these are records of what the people of a city found important at one time. They wanted the present and the future to know that they respected these people, it wasn't so much the image of the person being celebrated, it was also the image (usually Victorians) wanted to present of what the implied values were of celebrating such people, because these things cost money and valuable space so political consensus would be needed. The statues are a combination of politics, fighting, poetry, and science. Just like the Victorian era, really.

A Scottish Murder, part 1.

 I've been reading a book on the Madeleine Smith story (the title of this blog), and in it the author (Jimmy Powdrell Campbell) makes the interesting claim that she was actually innocent. I have no idea if this is true, but he does make some good points, which I'll post, as I continue to read the book.
 In case anyone isn't familiar with the story, a young Glasgow Victorian socialite has an affair with an older Frenchman (Emile L'Angelier), she jilts him, he threatens to tell her family, and she poisons him with arsenic. That she was guilty is the prevailing consensus, because she did act oddly - the houseboy reported her as wanting arsenic as soon as she got the blackmail letters. She claimed it was for cosmetic purposes, but she did get rather a lot of arsenic in the period Emile was dying, and the claim that she did really use it for cosmetic was disputed in court as being quite unusual.
But...
 In the murder trial, it turned out Emile was an 'arsenic eater', someone who consumed small amounts of arsenic in the belief that this promoted good health. And when Madeleine went to buy arsenic, she would go with a friend, and use her real name in the poisons register (a book that you had to sign if you bought poison), indicating that either a) she was careless, or b) not intending to use it for poison.
I will post more on this as I read more of the book! Because it is fascinating - Glasgow in the Victorian period is an amazing time in the city's history. Glasgow in the 19th century was undergoing massive expansion and refinement as a result of empire, world-class education, and of civic pride. There were protests and disorder, terrible poverty and a feeling that things had to get better. On top of this, there was an absurdly-respectable upper class, effectively living in another world. And when this case happened, the world did pay attention - this repeatedly made the international news when it came to court. The book makes a good effort to describe what's happening beyond the particulars of the case, which fleshes out the world that these real people lived in.