A Re-read of the JtR Literature

[andy1867]

Sad end to an interesting thread in my opinion.
I suppose a lot of us were brought into the question of "Who was Jack the Ripper" by lies and distortions in the first place, I'm not condoning it , but I understand how it happens.
First your interest is piqued, by the extraordinary, maybe by books that carry more fact than fiction, or by films, that do the same.
I remember the old Barlow and Watt documentary, The Michael Caine film, full of errors to the "Expert" Ripperologist...full of interest to the rest of us, So you read on, you mature, you filter fact from fiction..(thats alliteration that is).
Its like telling your kids Father Christmas exists...all lies...but you sort it sooner or later.
Folk like me rely on folk like Stewart, Phil and the rest on here to finish our education on the subject, I don't post much, because I know little, and some do not have the time or finances to follow the subject as we would like, and there is sometimes a guilty feeling of hanging onto the coattails of the experts, but they choose to post, its meant to be read, so you take what you can get.
This website, as well as being extremely informative, can be very intimidating, luckily I'm of the persuasion that I hardly give a flyer what folk who do not know me, think about me, its the internet and leaves hardly any bruises.
Some of the Egos on here are quite frankly laughable, they seem to treat the subject as their own private property and hackles are raised as they are gainsaid, or questioned...its not your subject, you did all the research and such, which we all appreciate, simply because you wanted to, you share it because you want to, but the subject is still an open question to all, its British history, that belongs to ALL of us...anyroad up rant over...see you in a year or so
Andy

[Tecs]

Some of the Egos on here are quite frankly laughable, they seem to treat the subject as their own private property and hackles are raised as they are gainsaid, or questioned...its not your subject, you did all the research and such, which we all appreciate, simply because you wanted to, you share it because you want to, but the subject is still an open question to all, its British history, that belongs to ALL of us...anyroad up rant over...see you in a year or so
Andy

Hi all,

Regarding the above, I've always considered the subject a great leveller and in some way, that is part of the appeal of it. What I mean is that you could be the greatest expert on the Ripper in the world, be able to quote the police documents perfectly, remember all of the facts of each of the murders but at the end of the day, somebody who has virtually no knowledge of the case is just as likely to pick the real Ripper. A bit like the "expert" who stands in the bookies all day studying the form of the horses, knows every jockey, trainer etc and then someone dashes in, picks a horse at random and wins!

Although we may have informed opinion as to who a likely Ripper might be, there's every chance he was just an unknown nobody who we will never know about.

regards,

[andy1867]

Hi all,

Regarding the above, I've always considered the subject a great leveller and in some way, that is part of the appeal of it. What I mean is that you could be the greatest expert on the Ripper in the world, be able to quote the police documents perfectly, remember all of the facts of each of the murders but at the end of the day, somebody who has virtually no knowledge of the case is just as likely to pick the real Ripper. A bit like the "expert" who stands in the bookies all day studying the form of the horses, knows every jockey, trainer etc and then someone dashes in, picks a horse at random and wins!

Although we may have informed opinion as to who a likely Ripper might be, there's every chance he was just an unknown nobody who we will never know about.

regards,

Or maybe someone who who thinks "From Hell" is a documentary has a look in the attic cos his interest is piqued...because I believe thats the only thing that will answer this question, something totaaly outta the box...all other avenues seem to be cul de sacs

[Tecs]

Or maybe someone who who thinks "From Hell" is a documentary has a look in the attic cos his interest is piqued...because I believe thats the only thing that will answer this question, something totaaly outta the box...all other avenues seem to be cul de sacs

Hi Andy,

The problem now is that even if a document was found in someone's attic, the people who have a vested interest in that person not being the ripper would go into overdrive to discredit it. Before we knew it we would have such a fog around it that we would have difficulty remembering just what it said.

I know the diary is a bad example, but just look at how people have "fogged" whatever is in the diary, arguing over minutiae, arguing over every tiny scientific point. It would be awful. I can't imagine everyone joining together to say, "Right, once and for all this could be a chance to close the lid on it and discover what we are all desperate to know. Let's work together on it."

Shame.

regards,

[andy1867]

Hi Andy,

The problem now is that even if a document was found in someone's attic, the people who have a vested interest in that person not being the ripper would go into overdrive to discredit it. Before we knew it we would have such a fog around it that we would have difficulty remembering just what it said.

I know the diary is a bad example, but just look at how people have "fogged" whatever is in the diary, arguing over minutiae, arguing over every tiny scientific point. It would be awful. I can't imagine everyone joining together to say, "Right, once and for all this could be a chance to close the lid on it and discover what we are all desperate to know. Let's work together on it."

Shame.

regards,

I don't have a problem with people arguing the minutiae, its something that probably has to be done, its the acrimony that seems to come along with it

[Stephen Thomas]

Which invention would that be? Thanks.

A little late but I thought someone might have answered this by now.

Click on Dissertations here and read the one by Melvin Harris entitled

The Maybrick Hoax: Donald McCormick's Legacy

[Digalittledeeperwatson]

Thank you kindly ST.

A little late but I thought someone might have answered this by now.

Click on Dissertations here and read the one by Melvin Harris entitled

The Maybrick Hoax: Donald McCormick's Legacy

So the claim is the Eight whores poem is a fake, so the diary is also. I get that right? I had read that before at the beginning of my Casebookings.

[Digalittledeeperwatson]

Manners.

And thank you Caz.

[Mayerling]

The "Eight Little Whores" poem was also used (somewhat) by Michael Harrison in his "Clarence: Was he Jack the Ripper?" to advance his theory that it was James Kenneth Stephen who was the killer. So it also injures that theory (if anyone was serious about it too).

Jeff

[curious4]

Don't stop

I return to say this - if normal service were to be returned it will not be until there has been a braek to catch breath.

I am grateful for the support some of you have shown and sorry for this turn of events.

But I do not see the point of trying to look at a book, with an open mind and in some detail, if judgements on it are to be made at the outset. That surely colours people's judgement from the start. I do not question, deny or seek to forbid the expression of views on any JtR related issue, but when the leading factual authority on the subject intervenes with thunderous declamations of "hoax" and an insistence that a book is rubbish - what am I to do?

I do not have an expert's and publish author's standing - yet when I seek to inject a different view I am told I am childish and defensive. I cannot contribute under those circumstances not do I find it an encouraging background under which to continue. How am I going to tackle a writer like Knight, if this is what happens with McC?

I see no point in continuing at all, unless the discussion of each book is on its merits, without retrospective judgement, labelling or anachronistic views.

I am sorry Jonathan, but when you write: "Back at the start what was needed was a writer-researcher relatively free from commercial pressures, to take control of the subject in 1959-61," How was McC to know he was "at the start" of anything? Pre-1970 (and since outside enthusiasts like us) JtR means sensationalism. We don't criticise films like Study in Terror, JtR (1959), Murder by Decree etc even from Hell because they are inaccurate or invent things or fictionalise. So why the venom directed at McC - if there is criticism let it be from the book, arising from a study of it and not of the man (whom I for one did not know). I say again, it is not his responsibility if a book he wrote many years ago is now regarded as important.

Is Shakespeare to be abused because his play on Richard III shaped minds and opinions for generations and was long regarded as history? It is an issue. But first and foremost we should surely regard it as a PLAY.

So there you have it.

Once and for all I am no apologist for Donald McCormick, though I have a soft-spot for the book which was the first on JtR I ever bought. But I will not simply kow-tow to an authority who wishes to tell me the opinion I should have. If I do finish my review/critique I will set out my conclusions, but I refuse to judge until I have looked at the evidence.

Phil

Hallo Phil H,

Please, please don't let anyone put you off. I have been too busy to follow the boards for a week or so, but was really enjoying your posts - up-dating my christmas list as I write. I think what you are doing is very valuable and it would be such a pity to stop now.

Ignore the nay-sayers, touch of jealousy there I sense.

Best wishes,
C4/Gwyneth

[Phil H]

Curious

I return to the thread having been notified by automatic e-mail of your kind post.

I am grateful for yuor and others' support, but my position remains (I regret) that "I see no point in continuing at all, unless the discussion of each book is on its merits, without retrospective judgement, labelling or anachronistic views."

I cannot stop people having certain views or expressing them. But it does not assist those wishing to recapture something of the flow and evolution of Ripperology, if pre-judgements are floated at the outset. I know there are several of you who were finding the review intersting and information. I hope you will understand that I do not feel I can continue in the face of such strongly expressed scorn from the leading authority in the field today.

My JtR library is now packed away and it is likely it will be some time before I return to the case-based threads.

My apologies not to be able to return.

Phil

[curious4]

Shame

Hello Phil,

So sorry you feel unable to continue - shall have to be content in the meantime with what there is. Such a shame, the boards have been very same old, same old for a good while now and when something new comes around the bullies seem to push it out.

Never mind, all good wishes for the rest of the summer, perhaps you will return when the nights draw in.

Gwyneth/C4

[Phil H]

Thank you, Gwyneth, for what you have said.

Now, back into retirement.

Phil

[Phil Carter]

Such a shame, the boards have been very same old, same old for a good while now and when something new comes around the bullies seem to push it out.

Hello C4,

and exactly who are you calling a bully.. I quote myself...

The choice is as one sees it....one may choose what one wishes to do... I am not preventing anyone from doing anything...far from it, infact!

Have a look at the reviews on this forum from the creators and see what they have to say about the many books around. I don't happen to agree with them all. I'm sure many probably don't. But there is nothing stopping anyone trying to show the newcomer the books we have been presented with...

and finally...

I was looking forward to your reviews actually. As someone who has (gratefully, with the various author's permission) done exactly that, I can see where the intention is coming from. I encourage you to continue.

and by the way, have a good look at the comments about McCormick's book....

http://www.casebook.org/ripper_media...mccormick.html which says...


Jarrolds 1959 (hardcover)

Jarrolds 1965 (paperback)

Arrow Books 1970 (paperback)

John Long 1970 (hardcover)

Donald McCormick
The Identity of Jack the Ripper
Jarrolds, 1959. 224pp. bib. index.


Casebook Review:

Considered by many to be one of the worst Ripper books ever published. Almost all the evidence cited by McCormick was either completely falsified or significantly altered to fit his Dr. Pedachenko theory. Recommended only for collectors.

[my emphasis]

That is from the CASEBOOK SITE REVIEWERS. Not any individual on this thread, There for all to see amongst nearly every other book as well...for all newcomers to read.


So having established that there is NO bullying from my part.. do name the bullies for us all, if you would be so kind. Thank you kindly.





Phil

[Stewart P Evans]

Scorn?

...
I cannot stop people having certain views or expressing them. But it does not assist those wishing to recapture something of the flow and evolution of Ripperology, if pre-judgements are floated at the outset. I know there are several of you who were finding the review intersting and information. I hope you will understand that I do not feel I can continue in the face of such strongly expressed scorn from the leading authority in the field today.
...
Phil

Indeed, everyone should be able to express their views (not 'pre-judgements' whatever that is supposed to mean).

The review is interesting, it's always of interest to learn how various works are seen by others. A reading of all the earlier books on the subject is essential for a better understanding of those that follow. And I have never said otherwise. I have always encouraged others to read such authors as Matters, Stewart, McCormick, Stephen Knight et al. Many of them are a 'fun' read, but the reader should be aware of the caveats that apply.

I presume that I am supposed to be 'the leading authority in the field today', a title that I, and I know others, would dispute. If so, and a reading of this thread leaves me in no doubt, I should like to know what 'strongly expressed scorn' I am guilty of.

Hey-ho, that's the nature of Ripperology, you can't please 'em all.