Tweet
Hi folks,
Since joining this discussion group I've been struck by the degree of passion the Ripper mystery inspires. It was interesting to observe the break-out of hostilities over on the 'Dutfield's Yard Photo' thread and I find myself wondering about the Ripper's place in history if we didn't have so many question marks to debate and argue over.
On a visit to the JTR exhibtion in London, I read an interesting comment made by someone on the message board at the end. It said simply 'If they'd caught him, there'd be no Ripper industry.' The truth of this seems undeniable. The global 'brand' (if you will) of JTR would not exist. If captured, his cultural impact would have remained to some extent as he was a first perhaps, in terms of this kind of global notoriety. But without the decades of snowballing media from books to films to international conferences that are undoubtedly a reaction to the 'mystery' of the Ripper, it seems to me unlikley these murders would have transcended the sordid banality of the Victorian streets. Given a name, the Ripper would just be another entry on the list of psychopathic creeps.
Clearly, we're all drawn to a good mystery. There's a part of us that's driven by the tantalizing, almost painful need to know, especially when its apparently unknowable. I recently startled my wife when, after throwing down a Ripper book in exasperation, I was filled with the spirit of Peter Cooks' hilarious Sherlock Holmes take-off, shouting 'Whodunnit!!???.....Who-BLEEDIN'-dunnit!!!'
As gruesome as the Whitechapel murders were, the passing of more than a century and the continuing conundrum of the Ripper's true identity seems to have added an almost romantic flavour to what were, after all, a series of ghastly sex murders. Supposing the happenstance of history had played out differently and a copper on the beat succeeded in capturing the killer coming out of Mary Kelly's room? Supposing he'd done so in such a fashion that the man's guilt was beyond doubt and Abberline had subsequently secured a full confession? What then would be the Ripper's legacy?
Whoever he actually was and however fascinating learning of his personality and motives might be, the full details would have long since lent the case an element of mundanity that would have denied it the near-mythical status it has today. The moniker of Jack the Ripper would always be followed by the name of the man who gave rise to it and so rob it of, at least some, of its devilish power.
I'd be interested to hear other people's thoughts on this. Speculation and disagreement is very much the name of the game in a case with so many dark corners.
Since joining this discussion group I've been struck by the degree of passion the Ripper mystery inspires. It was interesting to observe the break-out of hostilities over on the 'Dutfield's Yard Photo' thread and I find myself wondering about the Ripper's place in history if we didn't have so many question marks to debate and argue over.
On a visit to the JTR exhibtion in London, I read an interesting comment made by someone on the message board at the end. It said simply 'If they'd caught him, there'd be no Ripper industry.' The truth of this seems undeniable. The global 'brand' (if you will) of JTR would not exist. If captured, his cultural impact would have remained to some extent as he was a first perhaps, in terms of this kind of global notoriety. But without the decades of snowballing media from books to films to international conferences that are undoubtedly a reaction to the 'mystery' of the Ripper, it seems to me unlikley these murders would have transcended the sordid banality of the Victorian streets. Given a name, the Ripper would just be another entry on the list of psychopathic creeps.
Clearly, we're all drawn to a good mystery. There's a part of us that's driven by the tantalizing, almost painful need to know, especially when its apparently unknowable. I recently startled my wife when, after throwing down a Ripper book in exasperation, I was filled with the spirit of Peter Cooks' hilarious Sherlock Holmes take-off, shouting 'Whodunnit!!???.....Who-BLEEDIN'-dunnit!!!'
As gruesome as the Whitechapel murders were, the passing of more than a century and the continuing conundrum of the Ripper's true identity seems to have added an almost romantic flavour to what were, after all, a series of ghastly sex murders. Supposing the happenstance of history had played out differently and a copper on the beat succeeded in capturing the killer coming out of Mary Kelly's room? Supposing he'd done so in such a fashion that the man's guilt was beyond doubt and Abberline had subsequently secured a full confession? What then would be the Ripper's legacy?
Whoever he actually was and however fascinating learning of his personality and motives might be, the full details would have long since lent the case an element of mundanity that would have denied it the near-mythical status it has today. The moniker of Jack the Ripper would always be followed by the name of the man who gave rise to it and so rob it of, at least some, of its devilish power.
I'd be interested to hear other people's thoughts on this. Speculation and disagreement is very much the name of the game in a case with so many dark corners.
Comment