Feedback for Prisoner 4374

[m_w_r]

Sorry - just to add to that... I really don't mind which one it is - that is, whether it's a documented fact or not. But I always get intrigued by things like this. I'm interested in the disconnects that sometimes occur between what people say about their books and what their books say about the things their authors say about them, if you see what I mean. It's nothing personal.

Regards,

Mark

[Amanda]

Sorry - just to add to that... I really don't mind which one it is - that is, whether it's a documented fact or not. But I always get intrigued by things like this. I'm interested in the disconnects that sometimes occur between what people say about their books and what their books say about the things their authors say about them, if you see what I mean. It's nothing personal.

Regards,

Mark

Hi Mark,
There is a documented connection between 'R' and Cream. It doesn't necessarily mean that 'R' was someone that you would know or be familiar with.
There were many people in Cream's life that were little known before I 'brought them to life' in my book e.g. Mrs. Gridley, the McClelland family & Eva Adams.
I have documents that name every single one of them. They were all real people.
It's interesting that you say 'it's nothing personal' but making comments like the book was written with no 'scholarly apparatus' IS personal.
This is the first book I've ever written, and I'm very very proud of it.
Amanda

[John G]

Hi John,

Actually, I think George Bernard Shaw had something to say about that - although, of course, he wasn't aiming for 'objectivity'. Surely reviews are by their very nature subjective?

I think the question Tom was asking was whether Amanda's book tells us something about Cream's whereabouts in 1888 that other books (like Don Rumbelow's) don't. As far as I can tell - and, yes, I did buy it - the answer is 'No'.

Perhaps I'm missing something. If so, someone will have to help me out. I'm not getting it.

Regards,

Mark

Hello Mark,

But you can't even write a subjective review about something you have no experience of. That doesn't make any logical sense.

[GUT]

Is m.w.r talking about the same book? If he thinks prisoner 4374 is a bad book (which it certainly isn't) then I can point him in the direction of a few ripper related books that would have him self harming by chapter 2.

I don't think he is saying it is a bad book per se just that he questions some on Amanda's opinions.

[GUT]

And perhaps her methodology.

[m_w_r]

.
It's interesting that you say 'it's nothing personal' but making comments like the book was written with no 'scholarly apparatus' IS personal.
This is the first book I've ever written, and I'm very very proud of it.
Amanda

Hi Amanda,

You've misunderstood the term 'scholarly apparatus'. I meant that it doesn't have footnotes, citations, a bibliography, or anything that would enable anybody else to retrace your footsteps (if they wanted to). That's an observation, not an insult.

The presence of scholarly apparatus of this sort is one of the things that characterises non-fiction texts, although it's still the prerogative of the reader to check the accuracy of the details provided.

Regards,

Mark

[m_w_r]

Hi John,

You're right to that extent. I started off looking at the free sample of Amanda's book, but I ended up buying the Kindle version because I wanted to know whether the free sample did less to vouch for the book than it should. As it turned out, the expectations established by the free sample were not changed by the book as a whole.

I thought it was George Bernard Shaw who gave a book a bad review and returned his copy to the author. The author had taken the precaution of gluing together two of the pages some distance into the book, and, when he got it back and found that the pages were still glued together, protested that Shaw had not read the whole thing. Shaw's response was to the effect that you don't need to eat the whole egg to know that it's rotten, which was a rather rude way of expressing it, but also quite a valid point.

I'm not saying Amanda's book was rotten, but my expectations were not confounded by the complete text, despite my reservations about the free sample.

Regards,

Mark

[Pcdunn]

Hi Amanda,

You've misunderstood the term 'scholarly apparatus'. I meant that it doesn't have footnotes, citations, a bibliography, or anything that would enable anybody else to retrace your footsteps (if they wanted to). That's an observation, not an insult.

The presence of scholarly apparatus of this sort is one of the things that characterises non-fiction texts, although it's still the prerogative of the reader to check the accuracy of the details provided.

Regards,

Mark

Amanda,

First, congratulations on your first book! You may well be proud of it.

I am an academic librarian, and Mark is correct. Scholarly biographies will have all of the things listed above, and are one of the very things that makes them scholarly. At the least, it should contain a list of the books (or other sources) which you consulted in writing your book.

I will admit I wondered at your description of it being told in the first person by Cream himself. That could make it seem, at first glance, to be a work of biographical fiction, where the rules are looser. I get the impression, however, that this is more intended to be a popular book, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that.

[Amanda]

Dear Mark/Pat,

I absolutely see what you're getting at, perhaps due to my inexperience I omitted a bibliography as I didn't realise I should.
However, in the acknowledgement page. I do list all of the people and resources that were used to find documents, photos and information.

I wanted to make this a readable book for the general public and not focus too much on the 'Ripper' aspect.
Lesson learned and book number two will enable you to 'retrace my footsteps'.
Amanda

[Amanda]

For the public...

Sorry, posted twice due to being overseas with internet issues.

[Pcdunn]

Dear Mark/Pat,

I absolutely see what you're getting at, perhaps due to my inexperience I omitted a bibliography as I didn't realise I should.
However, in the acknowledgement page. I do list all of the people and resources that were used to find documents, photos and information.

I wanted to make this a readable book for the general public and not focus too much on the 'Ripper' aspect.
Lesson learned and book number two will enable you to 'retrace my footsteps'.
Amanda

Thank you very much for your gracious reply, and good luck with the second book!

[Amanda]

Thank you very much for your gracious reply, and good luck with the second book!

Thanks Pat,

Your constructive criticism is much appreciated, it will no doubt help me to improve.
Amanda

[pinkmoon]

I'm really looking forward to the next one.

[Amanda]

Ripper Conference Sales

For those who are interested, 'Prisoner 4374' will be on sale at the a Ripper Conference in Nottingham.

Amanda

[Barnaby]

Congrats, Amanda. This is quite an accomplishment. I just bought the Kindle version and I'm very excited to read it.

I agree with the other posters that the product itself is not scholarly for the reasons provided. But that is not to say that you yourself did not engage in scholarly pursuits in the course of creating it. There is an old saying that you have to read a library in order to write a book; in my opinion any good novel of historical fiction probably requires hundreds of hours of research.

Good luck and I will be sure to review it on Amazon when I have read it!