Scheduled Chat on Ripper Magazines

[mariab]

The announced chat ended up being less business-like and more reminiscent of Ripperolgy's old times, possibly due to one editor missing for technical reasons.

Originally Posted by Scott Nelson

possible topics of discussion include:
1) Are there too many?
2) Has content become diluted?
3) Or maybe, deluded?

In my opinion it would help if the mags became bi-monthly or quaterly. I think it's real good to have two main mags (plus Ripperana and the WSJ, whom I assume only British people follow up).

Originally Posted by Scott Nelson

Why don't individual contributer's views ever seem to change very much?

The real experienced ones do. See how SPE, Paul Begg, Martin Fido have adapted their views over the years.

[AdamNeilWood]

Maria,

Ripperologist is already published bi-monthly, which I'm sure our readers will agree has resulted in a stronger contents list.

The WSJ has a worldwide circulation, I understand.

Finally, I believe Scott was questioning why research undertaken and viewpoints expressed by contributors to the magazines don't seem to influence thinking on the case, rather than individuals' outlook changing.

This is a good question. Many times Ripperologist or one of the other mags will publish a piece of outstanding research, which seems to be met by a collective shrug of the shoulders.

Best wishes
Adam

Executive Editor,
Ripperologist magazine

[Supe]

Aye, I will be aboard next Sunday in chat, having succesfully eliminated the problem that prevented my participation last week.

As for questions raised, I think I would go even farther than Scott and Adam and wonder why articles other than those introducing new suspects get such little attention. A case in point would be Adam's exhaustive investigation of the long-awaited "Abercoway version," which, except for an aborted attempt to suggest forgery, was met by that "collective shrug" he mentioned. In the same way, an in-depth analysis of the apron part found in Goulston Street in NIR was met with that same shrug despite considerable previous interest in the topic on Casebook's message boards.

In contrast, two recent articles that brought new suspects to the fore were the subject of considerable and lively discussion. The lesson, I suppose, is that aspiring authors with articles on various important aspects of the case should somehow sneak the name of a new suspect into their effort and they will reap the rewards of readership.

Anyway, I shall be on hand next Sunday and I hope others will as well.

Don Souden
Editor New Independent Review
http://newindependentreview.com/

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Scott. Do you ever actually read the journals or are you just talking out your arse?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Scott Nelson]

Talking out of my arse, of course.

[PaulB]

Originally Posted by Supe

Aye, I will be aboard next Sunday in chat, having succesfully eliminated the problem that prevented my participation last week.

As for questions raised, I think I would go even farther than Scott and Adam and wonder why articles other than those introducing new suspects get such little attention. A case in point would be Adam's exhaustive investigation of the long-awaited "Abercoway version," which, except for an aborted attempt to suggest forgery, was met by that "collective shrug" he mentioned. In the same way, an in-depth analysis of the apron part found in Goulston Street in NIR was met with that same shrug despite considerable previous interest in the topic on Casebook's message boards.

In contrast, two recent articles that brought new suspects to the fore were the subject of considerable and lively discussion. The lesson, I suppose, is that aspiring authors with articles on various important aspects of the case should somehow sneak the name of a new suspect into their effort and they will reap the rewards of readership.

Anyway, I shall be on hand next Sunday and I hope others will as well.

Don Souden
Editor New Independent Review
http://newindependentreview.com/

Not wanting to be rude, but it takes a depth of knowledge (and interest) to discuss Adam's Article in Rip or Nick Connell's in NIR, but doesn't necessarily require so much to be able to speculate and argue about suspects.

[Hunter]

You've got that right, Paul.

[Tom_Wescott]

Originally Posted by Supe

In contrast, two recent articles that brought new suspects to the fore were the subject of considerable and lively discussion. The lesson, I suppose, is that aspiring authors with articles on various important aspects of the case should somehow sneak the name of a new suspect into their effort and they will reap the rewards of readership.

That can be a double-edged sword. My Le Grand article in CE 1 certainly sparked lively discussion, but it was mostly of the Tom-bashing variety. The old guard doesn't like new suspects. By contrast, my Berner Street articles have over time produced much discussion, most of the positive variety, which I found far more enjoyable. Most of my stuff has come and gone with little or no comment, and sometimes it's left me scratching my head. But I've also noticed that sometimes it can be years before a well-written piece finds its audience and starts getting noticed. I advise writers to post their best stuff to the Casebook Dissertations page a few months after the journal comes out. People really do read those.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[PaulB]

Originally Posted by Tom_Wescott

That can be a double-edged sword. My Le Grand article in CE 1 certainly sparked lively discussion, but it was mostly of the Tom-bashing variety. The old guard doesn't like new suspects. By contrast, my Berner Street articles have over time produced much discussion, most of the positive variety, which I found far more enjoyable. Most of my stuff has come and gone with little or no comment, and sometimes it's left me scratching my head. But I've also noticed that sometimes it can be years before a well-written piece finds its audience and starts getting noticed. I advise writers to post their best stuff to the Casebook Dissertations page a few months after the journal comes out. People really do read those.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

I thought your article about Le Grand was excellent and that you made your case against him very powerfully. From what I recall of the 'Tom-bashing' discussion, there was some disagreement over your interpretation of some evidence, Balfour in particular, which, typically on message boards, occupied more space than it merited, got a tad heated and embarrassing, and obscured the good and important stuff. It wasn't anything to do with the old guard, new guard, or any guard being resistant to a new suspect though.

As for posting to the Casebook Dissertations, what point is there in having the magazines if authors do that? Let's scrap the mags altogether.

[Debra A]

Originally Posted by PaulB

I thought your article about Le Grand was excellent and that you made your case against him very powerfully. From what I recall of the 'Tom-bashing' discussion, there was some disagreement over your interpretation of some evidence, Balfour in particular, which, typically on message boards, occupied more space than it merited, got a tad heated and embarrassing, and obscured the good and important stuff. It wasn't anything to do with the old guard, new guard, or any guard being resistant to a new suspect though.

As for posting to the Casebook Dissertations, what point is there in having the magazines if authors do that? Let's scrap the mags altogether.

It wasn't Tom bashing in that case. That was Tom's interpretation.
It occupied more space, got heated and embarrassing because a genuine doubt about Balfour's suspect, shared by me and a couple of other people, was seen as a personal attack.
The thread I started on the subject of Balfour's suspect ended up with me discovering exactly who was the detective in Parkhurst who suspected Le Grand. I wouldn't have even bothered about looking for that information otherwise.

...maybe this is why people don't bother discussing the magazine article?