A Petticoat Parley: Women in Ripperology

[jmenges]

(everyone who writes about Crippen looks for new information, so if it hasn't been found it is probably hard to find).

Being that Hallie Rubenhold is the author...don't believe it will be your run-of-the-mill Crippen book.
Last I heard she aims to explore the lives of the members of the Music Hall Ladies Guild who first became suspicious of Crippen and who initially notified the police, and that of Charlotte Bell Crippen, his first wife who was possibly murdered in Salt Lake City and of course Cora Crippen. The book's focus will be on the women.
With regards to Cora, I believe she'll argue that the press and subsequent authors took Dr. Crippen's self-serving portrayal of his deceased wife (a nag, spendthrift, blowzy, over-sexed, addicted to drink) straight to heart and have been unjustifiably maligning Cora for the past 100 years.
I believe HR has researched the life of Charlotte Bell Crippen back to Ireland along with her family members who stayed in Ireland to whom Charlotte wrote saying that Dr. Crippen was experimenting on her and might kill her.
So if she does manage to give us a good book about these women, it has the potential to be the most information that's ever appeared about them before.
One problem might be- who will care? I could be the only person on the planet who would enjoy such a book.
A second problem might be- given the "padding" in 'The Five' and how much was already known by Ripperologists about the Ripper's victims, we could easily spot the new information (not much) the old information (quite a lot) and the fictional information (barrels full). Will the reader be able to discern the difference when the real lives that she's 'novelizing' aren't very well known?

JM

[PaulB]

Have you received your review copy already then Paul?

No. It was just a thought based on some half-witted argument I read somewhere.

[Herlock Sholmes]

No. It was just a thought based on some half-witted argument I read somewhere.

[Ally]

A second problem might be- given the "padding" in 'The Five' and how much was already known by Ripperologists about the Ripper's victims, we could easily spot the new information (not much) the old information (quite a lot) and the fictional information (barrels full). Will the reader be able to discern the difference when the real lives that she's 'novelizing' aren't very well known?

JM

And that's the chief problem of course. She palms her trashnovellas off as non-fiction and how much damage will she do to the historical record by including her pure fiction into the record as "fact". That's the cancer of Hallie of and her ilk -- lazy people who care more about their own commercialism than the historical record, polluting it with their drama and nonsense. I wouldn't trust anything she writes, because she has proven she can't separate fact from fantasy, if she's got something to sell. TV writers. Geesh.

[Herlock Sholmes]

The Five is the only thing that I’ve read and by that alone I’d say that it doesn’t bode well for her book on Crippen. Ive been trying to imagine what kind of angle she might use as a selling point in the absence of being able to demonise ‘Crippenites.’ (And no, that’s not the stuff that Superman hated)

[PaulB]

And that's the chief problem of course. She palms her trashnovellas off as non-fiction and how much damage will she do to the historical record by including her pure fiction into the record as "fact". That's the cancer of Hallie of and her ilk -- lazy people who care more about their own commercialism than the historical record, polluting it with their drama and nonsense. I wouldn't trust anything she writes, because she has proven she can't separate fact from fantasy, if she's got something to sell. TV writers. Geesh.

It's the pollution of the historical record that's always been at issue. Just the other day I read a Tweet from someone who was saying that there's no evidence that Jack the Ripper's victims were prostitutes and that the police just branded them prostitutes because they were poor and homeless. As we know, that isn't true. It seems to be based entirely on Rubenhold's false claim that there is no evidence Jack the Ripper's victims were prostitutes. It's not the only argument advanced by Rubenhold that's similarly specious, but Rubenhold has never addressed her critics and people seem happy and content to accept her word. And they do! And the consequence will be that the Victorian police will be forever damned as branding poor and homeless women prostitutes on no evidence whatsoever.

[PaulB]

And if you can give me the opportunity to empty my spleen a little...

Varsity appears to be a student newspaper. It recently published a review of The Five written by Quincy De Vries (https://www.varsity.co.uk/arts/22188) and someone Tweeting as 'Wolfson History Prize', which is, as it describes itself, ‘the most prestigious history writing prize in the UK’, observed that the review ‘argues why more attention needs to be given to the lives of Jack the Ripper’s victims in popular culture’. I don’t want to get into whether the review does that or not, or whether Ripperologists, so long the only people who gave a damn about the victims and who were responsible for finding most of the factual data about them in Rubenhold’s book, should be given the credit for their efforts on that direction. What intrigued me is that Quincy De Vries wrote, ‘The backlash against this book from ‘Ripperologists’, the community that studies the murders, has been quite fierce. This reaction is both disheartening and shows why books that focus on social history and non-traditional narratives are so important.’ I found this intriguing because Quincy De Vries is aware that the backlash has been fierce, but doesn’t give any indication that she knows why. It’s astonishing - to me, anyway - that not only does Quincy De Vries not know why Ripperologists are critical, she apparently can’t be arsed to find out. Now, if I was reviewing a book and a bunch of people were vehemently criticising it, I’d hopefully be sufficiently interested to find out what the criticism was all about in case it had a bearing on my review and recommendations.

Ah well, I think I'll go and make a sandwich....

[Ally]

And if you can give me the opportunity to empty my spleen a little...



Ah well, I think I'll go and make a sandwich....

As splenic venting is my raison d'etre, I could hardly object to another's indulgence in the occasional purge. I only mind when someone does it with more skill than I do. I hate being shown up.

[Varqm]

And if you can give me the opportunity to empty my spleen a little...

Varsity appears to be a student newspaper. It recently published a review of The Five written by Quincy De Vries (https://www.varsity.co.uk/arts/22188) and someone Tweeting as 'Wolfson History Prize', which is, as it describes itself, ‘the most prestigious history writing prize in the UK’, observed that the review ‘argues why more attention needs to be given to the lives of Jack the Ripper’s victims in popular culture’. I don’t want to get into whether the review does that or not, or whether Ripperologists, so long the only people who gave a damn about the victims and who were responsible for finding most of the factual data about them in Rubenhold’s book, should be given the credit for their efforts on that direction. What intrigued me is that Quincy De Vries wrote, ‘The backlash against this book from ‘Ripperologists’, the community that studies the murders, has been quite fierce. This reaction is both disheartening and shows why books that focus on social history and non-traditional narratives are so important.’ I found this intriguing because Quincy De Vries is aware that the backlash has been fierce, but doesn’t give any indication that she knows why. It’s astonishing - to me, anyway - that not only does Quincy De Vries not know why Ripperologists are critical, she apparently can’t be arsed to find out. Now, if I was reviewing a book and a bunch of people were vehemently criticising it, I’d hopefully be sufficiently interested to find out what the criticism was all about in case it had a bearing on my review and recommendations.

Ah well, I think I'll go and make a sandwich....

It was about survival for these women, early in the morning with no money and an alcohol vice, it was\is not about moralization. These people are just naive, more interested in the pretty pictures inside their heads as opposed to the harsh realities outside of it. These people are not really interested in the case. Anyways back to the inquests and newspaper reports.

[PaulB]

It was about survival for these women, early in the morning with no money and an alcohol vice, it was\is not about moralization. These people are just naive, more interested in the pretty pictures inside their heads as opposed to the harsh realities outside of it. These people are not really interested in the case. Anyways back to the inquests and newspaper reports.

I know. It's just me. I honestly expected these people to have respect for the truth, that they'd at the very least listen to what Ripperologists had to say and correct our wayward thinking, if it was wayward. I suppose I'm just disappointed in their closed-mindedness.

[Varqm]

I know. It's just me. I honestly expected these people to have respect for the truth, that they'd at the very least listen to what Ripperologists had to say and correct our wayward thinking, if it was wayward. I suppose I'm just disappointed in their closed-mindedness.

Got you. It would have been a good, if sensible, discussion. It helped participating in ripper blogs where things are discussed right down to the bones.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I know. It's just me. I honestly expected these people to have respect for the truth, that they'd at the very least listen to what Ripperologists had to say and correct our wayward thinking, if it was wayward. I suppose I'm just disappointed in their closed-mindedness.

You were expecting a normal, reasonable, reasoned reaction Paul but what we got was reaction from people who were immediately on board with the agenda. They had no desire to scratch beneath the surface and do a bit of digging. They had a ‘cause’ they had a a ‘heroine’ and they had ‘the enemy.’ They didn’t want anyone disturbing the narrative so silence the enemy, endlessly praise the heroine and demonise the enemy.

They couldn’t silence the panel though.

[PaulB]

You were expecting a normal, reasonable, reasoned reaction Paul but what we got was reaction from people who were immediately on board with the agenda. They had no desire to scratch beneath the surface and do a bit of digging. They had a ‘cause’ they had a a ‘heroine’ and they had ‘the enemy.’ They didn’t want anyone disturbing the narrative so silence the enemy, endlessly praise the heroine and demonise the enemy.

They couldn’t silence the panel though.

Maybe I did expect a reasoned and reasonable reaction, although I think I have been around Ripperology long enough not be so naive, and the initial behaviour of Hallie Rubenhold strongly suggested that I shouldn't be surprised by anything to which she resorted. But it's not her camp followers that concern me, but the people who don't share the 'cause' and still don't question what they read.

[jmenges]

Like Dr. Matthew Sweet in front of an audience of 41,000 Twitter followers telling me I should delete what I wrote without first determining if it was true or not.
Fun times.

JM

[Ally]

Like Dr. Matthew Sweet in front of an audience of 41,000 Twitter followers telling me I should delete what I wrote without first determining if it was true or not.
Fun times.

JM

Don't be ridiculous. He's with the media. He doesn't have to actually verify the facts on anything before jumping to a conclusion and putting it before the public. We've left that world behind.