Cornwell's next Ripper Book, "Ripper: The Secret Life of Walter Sickert ", is set for publication on January 17, 2017. I'll likely pick it up at library sale in a year or two (as I did with her first Sickert/Ripper book). However, last night, with nothing to read, I happened upon her "Kindle Single", "Chasing the Ripper", (FREE!) on Amazon. In it she describes the UK publicity tour for her fist book as "hell", saying that the "Ripperolgists were laying in wait" and that the "message boards" (without naming "Casebook") were "going crazy" attacking her and her "suspect", Sickert.
I wonder if anyone here had any contact with Cornwell, either on the UK tour or otherwise?
In reading "Chasing the Ripper" I realized, to my astonishment, that Cornwell, in the 15 years since the publication of "Portrait of a Killer" has gained virtually no clarity with respect to the Whitechapel murders. She has clearly, instead, spent the ensuing years reinforcing her fixation on Walter Sickert as Jack the Ripper while completely disregarding any suggestion (or evidence) that does not reinforce her conclusions. Ironically, she spends a bit of time in her e-book debunking the "Eddowes shawl" while attempting to deflect the identical arguments she uses to refute it's provenance away from the conclusions she presented in her own book (i.e. Sickert's DNA on Ripper correspondence).
Ultimately, I'm left to wonder if Cornwell is genuine in her believe that Sickert was the Ripper. Has she contented herself with the knowledge that fans of her novels will come away convinced? Perhaps the odd reader with no real understanding of the crimes might be swayed? I'm also left to wonder if she'll engage with the "Ripperoligists" this time around? For her sake, I hope not. I dare say she'll come out rather worse off for the experience.
I wonder if anyone here had any contact with Cornwell, either on the UK tour or otherwise?
In reading "Chasing the Ripper" I realized, to my astonishment, that Cornwell, in the 15 years since the publication of "Portrait of a Killer" has gained virtually no clarity with respect to the Whitechapel murders. She has clearly, instead, spent the ensuing years reinforcing her fixation on Walter Sickert as Jack the Ripper while completely disregarding any suggestion (or evidence) that does not reinforce her conclusions. Ironically, she spends a bit of time in her e-book debunking the "Eddowes shawl" while attempting to deflect the identical arguments she uses to refute it's provenance away from the conclusions she presented in her own book (i.e. Sickert's DNA on Ripper correspondence).
Ultimately, I'm left to wonder if Cornwell is genuine in her believe that Sickert was the Ripper. Has she contented herself with the knowledge that fans of her novels will come away convinced? Perhaps the odd reader with no real understanding of the crimes might be swayed? I'm also left to wonder if she'll engage with the "Ripperoligists" this time around? For her sake, I hope not. I dare say she'll come out rather worse off for the experience.
Comment