So why did "Jack" reach near mythical status?

[RivkahChaya]

I'd like to suggest two other reasons:

1) the literacy rate in Britain was very high, which was why newspapers were big business, and a story like this which could sell newspapers was big business.

2) crime & mystery fiction was a relatively new genre-- I mean, I guess Shakespeare and Chaucer had stories of gruesome murders ("The Prioress' Tale" gives me the creeps, every single time I read it), but the "whodunit" was new. It went back to Poe, and his Dupin tales (beginning 1841), and The Moonstone, 1868, the first detective novel, which was British. That was the seed of the idea of crime as entertainment, but what really gave the public an appetite was the publication of Sherlock Holmes stories, which began just about a year before the first Whitechapel murder. The Moonstone was really pivotal it was probably not as widely read on first publication as the Holmes stories (although, it was popular), but it let the publishing world know there was a market for that sort of thing.

So, in 1888, when reporters had a true crime to write about, a real-life whodunit, it might as well have been gift-wrapped.

It's sort of like asking why The Beatles were the first pop music superstars, and the first phenomenon, and was it really because their music was so much better than anything anyone else has ever written.

Of course, The Beatles' music was very good. It had to be, or they would not have become such sensations, but there were other circumstances, and one was television, giving them exposure other musicians had not had, plus the portable radio, smaller, cheaper records, and then the LP, and concept album, with its cover art. Those things all came together at about the same time, and it happened when very young people were a cultural force, because of their sheer size. The birthrate was down during the depression, and the war, a lot of people born in the 20s died in the war, and then suddenly there were all these very young people. The Andrews Sisters were as popular in their own time as the Beatles were in theirs, at least at the beginning, but they weren't on TV, and never had a concept album.

I think the Zodiac was deliberately trying to be another JTR, and he certainly did become famous, and leave an enduring mystery, but he didn't have the convergence of cultural touchpoints and technology that made Jack the Ripper something of a superstar.

[RivkahChaya]

"Which serial killer would you most like to have a beer with?" etc. It's also how we pick our Presidents in the U.S.

I don't like beer. But this reminds me of a conversation I had with a friend about why the general public found Jeffrey Dahmer so repulsive, when his story first broke, but we personally, didn't find him as frightening as other serial killers. We realized after a bit, it was because he didn't target women. I would be absolutely safe passing Jeffrey Dahmer in a dark alley, or even letting him walk me to my car after a movie. Charles Manson, scary, Ted Bundy, terrifying. Jeffrey Dahmer, I might as well have cloak of invisibility.

But I think that's why the general reaction was so extreme. Generally, men's experience is the objective reality, and women's experience is special. What men find scary is objectively scary, and what men find funny is objectively funny. Men's problems are humanity's problems. What women find scary are "women' fears," and what women find funny is "women's humor." Women's problems are "Concerns of women"-- or they are completely turned on their ear, so that the problem of men who beat their wives becomes the problem of "battered women."

[caz]

It's sort of like asking why The Beatles were the first pop music superstars, and the first phenomenon, and was it really because their music was so much better than anything anyone else has ever written.

Pretty much.

The press, the police and the public alike in 1888 absolutely knew something was happening in the Whitechapel vicinity that was off the scale, as early as August 31. Whoever invented the nickname "Jack the Ripper" knew it too, in the wake of Chapman, but before C3 (Stride).

The murders themselves, in all their gory but very real detail, were and remain shocking enough - without the accompanying media circus of the last 125 years.

Love,

Caz
X

[Errata]

Hi Errata,

That Heroes and Villians class sounds interesting! Discussing the popularity of Jack in this context makes me start thinking of things like "Which serial killer would you most like to have a beer with?" etc. It's also how we pick our Presidents in the U.S.

It was a great class. Our midterm was Star Wars.

[mklhawley]

I would like to add another reason: Transatlantic cable communications in conjunction with the associated presses (e.g. New York Associated Press, Reuters). Readers around the world were experiencing the fears of East Enders AT THE TIME OF THE MURDERS. If there was no 'immediate' newscasting, the Ripper murders might only have been a British experience, while the rest of the world would have only read recent history.

Sincerely,

Mike

[ChrisGeorge]

I would like to add another reason: Transatlantic cable communications in conjunction with the associated presses (e.g. New York Associated Press, Reuters). Readers around the world were experiencing the fears of East Enders AT THE TIME OF THE MURDERS. If there was no 'immediate' newscasting, the Ripper murders might only have been a British experience, while the rest of the world would have only read recent history.

Sincerely,

Mike

Very well said, Mike. Besides London being the capital of the English-speaking world, the hub of the British Empire, and news being disseminated worldwide. It's not surprising then that the murders became an international sensation.

Best regards

Chris

[TomTomKent]

Very well said, Mike. Besides London being the capital of the English-speaking world, the hub of the British Empire, and news being disseminated worldwide. It's not surprising then that the murders became an international sensation.

Best regards

Chris

Then we have to ask why the Torso murders are less sensational.

[mklhawley]

Thanks Chris.

Then we have to ask why the Torso murders are less sensational.

Hi TomTomKent,

The good news is we really don't have to, since my point is that international cable communications and AP news was just another reason and not the only reason, albeit a big reason.

Sincerely,

Mike

[ChrisGeorge]

Hi Mike and TomTom

Actually it was the case that some of the torso crimes were lumped by the press in with the other murders as each of them yet another bloody and mysterious crime, blending in with the sensationalism generated by the Ripper murders. The Pinchin Street Torso crime particularly comes to mind as seen as part of the same bloody series as the Ripper crimes since as with the Whitechapel murders the victim was found in the East End.

Best regards

Chris

[RivkahChaya]

I would like to add another reason: Transatlantic cable communications in conjunction with the associated presses (e.g. New York Associated Press, Reuters). Readers around the world were experiencing the fears of East Enders AT THE TIME OF THE MURDERS. If there was no 'immediate' newscasting, the Ripper murders might only have been a British experience, while the rest of the world would have only read recent history.

I forgot to put that on my list, but yes, I think that was a big deal.

Then we have to ask why the Torso murders are less sensational.

I have three suggestions.

1) the "C5" did not become established until years after the fact, so at the time, there wasn't a "JTR," and a separate "torso killer." As far as people knew at the time, any body in the East End, including the torsos, might have been the work of JTR.

2) however, the C5 made better press because the victims were known, so sketching in fact of their lives, and making them real to readers made the stories juicier, and also more touching. People wanted the police police to get someone killing real women with real names, and who were, except for Kelly, mothers.

Yes, I know some torso victims were identified, but all the Ripper victims were.

3) the torso victims were not found close to the moment of murder. Some of the Ripper victims were found, apparently, minutes after being killed. That was a more exciting story, but also, the reporters probably were taking a chance that the police might well catch the Ripper in the act, so the "near-miss" killings got the most attention. The reporters couldn't know at the time of the Chapman murder, that "JTR" would kill Mary Jane Kelly, and then disappear.

4) because more details about the C5 murders were known, there was the opportunity for someone to write a letter giving the phantom the name "Jack the Ripper," and that name has a lot to do with his sticking power.

5) so does the Mac Mem. No one has ever suggested that the police were within inches of the torso killer, but the idea that JTR was just out of reach helped keep the story exciting through the years.

I think by the time The Lodger was published, "Jack the Ripper" was running on its own momentum. The more you heard about it, the more you heard about it, if you get my meaning. Marie Belloc Lowndes (who was British, but grew up in France) sat next to someone at dinner some time in 1910 or 1911, who confided that she thought she might have rented a room to Jack the Ripper, and Mrs. Lowndes didn't say "Who?"

[Errata]

Then we have to ask why the Torso murders are less sensational.

You know, it's funny, but there is a level of atrocity that is apparently cool, and then levels that are not cool. I've actually spent a bunch of time trying to figure this out. But there is stuff that goes on that while the press covers it, somehow it just doesn't catch on. Nobody is interested, nobody wants to talk about it.

It's not numbers. In the US, the award goes to Gary Ridgeway, and nobody cares about him. I don't even care about him. And I can't say why. Ted Bundy, lots of interest, killed maybe 30 fewer women.

Nor is mutilation, or even a level of mutilation. People are all about Jeffrey Dahmer, but there was a guy in England who did the exact same thing maybe ten years previous that no one cared about. John Wayne Gacy was super famous, and he killed a lot of teenage boys, but he just killed them. Robert Hanson hunted women like deer a la the very popular short story "Most Dangerous Game", nobody cares. Ed Kemper did terrible things to women's corpses, but Richard Ramirez gets psycho prison brides.

It's not even about the level of crazy. Lake and Ng are about a 9.5 on the Weird ****-O-Meter, and the average person has no idea who they are. Richard Chase, Albert Fish, Ed Gein, all certainly above an 8. But the epitome of "crazy" is Jeff Dahmer. I'm not saying Dahmer didn't have some issues, but everything he did was totally explainable. Ed Gein? Box of vulvas. 'Nuff said. But nobody knows who he is, they just know the characters based off of him.

So I have no idea. If there is a theme, I can't track it.

[RivkahChaya]

You know, I remember when the Jeffrey Dahmer story broke, and people were just disgusted with him, and scared. He was a monster, literally, it seemed. If you Google up the Newsweek cover when the story was new, they have a photo of him looking really frightening, like someone who would stab kids coming off a school bus for their lunch money.

After his trial, when he spoke, and gave some interviews, and his backstory came out, he turned out to be kind of a geeky guy, not someone who would strike you as frightening if you ran into him. He wasn't even someone who got off on torture, it turned out: he was a necrophile who didn't even like the actual murder part of what he was doing all that much. And he became a Christian in prison.

So, once he became a little less scary, and people could look, the contrast between what he seemed at first blush, and what he really was, was fascinating to people.

Gary Ridgway in interesting, because when he was the mysterious "Green River Killer," more people knew about the case, and were interested. Once it was resolved, and he was kind of a loser, who got bored with being a serial killer after a while, or outgrew it, or something, not so interesting.

Also, I think there's an aversion to gay serial killers who kill men, that there isn't to men who kill women, just because of the general men-as-default, so that what is scary to men is objectively scary, and someone who might kill you to rape you corpse-- if you are a man-- is therefore objectively scary, while someone who lust-kills women isn't as objectively scary, or repulsive. We're even allowed to refer to it as "lust-killing," and I've never seen John Wayne Gacy's murders referred to that way.

Bundy was a character. I don't know how old you are, Errata, but I remember when his trials were in the news. He defended himself, and since he'd actually been to law school, he wasn't a nutball like Charles Manson (who, I personally think, was given a lot of freedom to be wacko in the courtroom, because the judge, and everyone, figured his conviction and death sentence* were a foregone conclusion), he did a decent job, but he still was putting on a show, and was very melodramatic. There's some footage of it (which must have been clandestine, but it exists), and it was a cross between Perry Mason just before he gets the real guy to confess, and some of the loonier defense attorneys on Law & Order. Also, he escaped prison, twice. I think he is remembered for the escapes, and the pro se defense, more than the murders themselves. Plus, he was the subject of Ann Rule's first book, as she had known him personally, and she later became a very well-known true-crime writer.

I don't think there's a rubric, by which you can predict that this or that serial killer will gain a "following." I think it's in every case sui generis, and dependent on its own time and tenor, and, as much as I hate the word, "zeitgeist." John Wayne Gacy's trial and appeals were in the news, along with images of him as "Pogo the Clown," around the time Stephen King's It was released, and then the very scary (until the stupid ending) TV movie with the terrifying clown Pennywise. It fixed Gacy in people's minds as the "Killer Clown," although he never dressed in the clown costume when he killed people.

The Dahmer story broke at a pivotal time in Gay rights, during the "Silence = Death" campaign, when a lot of people were coming out, and others were being "outed," something very controversial. Some of Dahmer's victims were "outed" when they were revealed to have been Dahmer's victims. 10 years earlier, and probably no one would have used the word "gay in the Dahmer stories; his victims names might have been kept secret. The latter is even more likely 20 years earlier. 30 years earlier, people might not even have "clicked" that Dahmer was in any sense gay, while other people would use him as a reason to say that all gay people are potential serial killers. If a serial killer happens to be gay now, the gay aspect is a much more matter-of-fact part of the story-- unless he kills a woman, then people scratch their heads, and think, maybe she was a witness.

In other words, you are right that there's not much rhyme to why which ones become famous, and which don't, but there are certainly reasons. They aren't general reasons, though. In fact, they aren't really "reasons," just explanations.


*Manson, and three of the women, all got death sentences, but the US moratorium was put in place before they could be carried out, so all the sentences were commuted to life in prison. The possibility of parole was automatic at the time, but none has ever been granted. Even Susan Atkins was denied compassionate release to die at home when she was completely incapacitated by metastatic brain cancer, and had lost a leg to gangrene that resulted from a bedsore.

[RavenDarkendale]

Jack the Ripper reached mythical status because of the number of deaths in Whitechapel in a relatively short time period, and the massive newspaper coverage of the crimes keeping the public in a fervor. And like Voltaire's definition of God. If Jack the Ripper did not exist, it would have been necessary to invent Him. People needed someone to blame, someone they could all rail against, some with a name they could shout at the police, and above all, someone unknown, so they could all pretend it was impossible for anyone they knew to be guilty. I have mentioned elsewhere how the British Populace desperately wanted to say Jew (Foreigner) rather than believe an Englishman guilty; how the people of Whitechapel wanted it to be a visiting toff rather than believe one of their own guilty, and how the "toffs" that entered the East end seeking prostitution and/or homosexual encounters were adamant it was a local rather than believing one of their own, regardless of the depth of their sexual depravity (read young kids here) was guilty.

[Phil H]

So where does your evaluation leave us, Dale?

And what if the entire persona of "JtR" was a media construct?

Whence do you arrive at your assessment of local and middle class aspirations re the culprit (i.e. sources)?

Phil

[RivkahChaya]

So where does your evaluation leave us, Dale?

And what if the entire persona of "JtR" was a media construct?

Whence do you arrive at your assessment of local and middle class aspirations re the culprit (i.e. sources)?

Phil

While that post did lack analysis, I think there were good points. Social consciousness was reaching a point where have and have-nots were becoming less accepting of the way things were as somehow just the way they were supposed to be, and people in both upper and lower classes were just beginning to agitate for things that would level the ground just a little. There was even a theory floating around that I'm not sure anyone took literally, but it was interesting rhetoric, that JTR was doing what he was doing to call attention to the horrible conditions of the very poor. JTR was, in a round-about way, a spectre of poverty. Women being pushed into circumstances into casual prostitution, roaming the streets at night because they had no where else to go, or sleeping in doorways, came from poverty, and provided JTR with victims. I won't go so far to say that poverty produced JTR, because the final, and most important ingredient was the decision of one person to kill other people. However, poverty provided him with easy victims, and so did city life.

Tabloid journalism was new also, and two things which contributed to its development were a new very high level of basic literacy which was made possible by city life, and more people being able to take advantage of public (US use of word) schools, as well as cheap raw materials for paper and ink available from the colonies. Not to mention, a distribution system and ready market made possible by the industrial revolution and city living.