From Hell, A Graphic Novel

[spyglass]

"FROM HELL" the graphic novel is indeed a fine peice of work, the film however was just ok. But if you people out there enjoyed the film for what it is, then I strongly advise you to watch a film made in the 70's "MURDER BY DECREE" starring christopher Plummer as Sherlock Holmes. It is basically the same story but with names changed for some reason, but still a better effort.
As for graphic novels on the subject of JTR, a must have is the fantastic "JACK THE RIPPER" written and drawn by Rick Geary. The art work is fantastic and spot on accurate.

[DirectorDave]

I got given this off an Avid Allan Moore fan to read, I skimmed it first and recognised it was a take on the Royal Conspiracy so put it to one side for a few days.

A couple of nights later....when the telly was crap and it was cold outside I built a fire in the hearth and sat down and gave it a chance.

In front of the roaring fire I was transfixed and could not put it down....that was a long night into morning and finished it just as the embers of the fire was fading and the light of morning peeking through the curtains.

My throat was sore with the amount of cigarettes I had smoked and my pupils dilated with the amount of coffee I had drank.

To anyone who has not read it please do not be put of by the fact it is a comic, or that it is (another) take on the Royal conspiracy and please, please, please don't think it has anything to do with the film of the same name (even though it is !?!).

And if you can.....read it in front of a roaring fire on a dark and windy night!

[DarkTaleProductions]

So I just finished reading it and it's not my favorite work of Alan Moore, but it was really well written and well researched. Like any Alan Moore story, you have no idea what's going on in the beginning and then everything starts picking up in the middle. Great ending as well, kind of reminds me of the ending to Watchmen. Definitely better then the FROM HELL movie adaption as well. Overall, 7.5/10.

[DarkTaleProductions]

I'm currently reading it, as I am a huge Alan Moore fan.

[Christine1932]

That's fine. I wasn't having a pop at all, I just found it 'odd' to see your view on a forum where most folk can't wait to stick the knife in to someone (so to speak). I don't have a suspect either, and keep an open mind as to the possibilities. As for you saying that certain people are named for reasons other than the actual likelyhood of them being the Ripper, I agree, I also get the feeling that some people are named out of class or racial bias (whether knowingly or not).

I like the sound of your short story too! Perhaps you should take a gander at the screenplay I offered on a thread on General Discussion - it's not that different in some respects (the Ripperologists get taken out in my version though!).

Thank you for understanding my point! I must watch it!

[Radical Joe]

Yes, perhaps I am in wrong place - I have not suspect myself and I believe most Ripper suspects, like Queen Victoria´s doctor Gull, are accused for mere spite - "I loathe this person and now call him as Ripper". I even once wrote a short story about a Ripperologist who wrote slanderous Freudian filth about some Victorian schizophrenic and then used time machine to do Ripper murders!
Hm, perhaps I should revisite the story, but I can´t write fiction.

That's fine. I wasn't having a pop at all, I just found it 'odd' to see your view on a forum where most folk can't wait to stick the knife in to someone (so to speak). I don't have a suspect either, and keep an open mind as to the possibilities. As for you saying that certain people are named for reasons other than the actual likelyhood of them being the Ripper, I agree, I also get the feeling that some people are named out of class or racial bias (whether knowingly or not).

I like the sound of your short story too! Perhaps you should take a gander at the screenplay I offered on a thread on General Discussion - it's not that different in some respects (the Ripperologists get taken out in my version though!).

[Christine1932]

I'm not sure I understand this. If you have a problem with a dead man being named as a killer in a book that labels itself as 'historical fiction', then what do you make of the countless JTR books which name dead men as the killer, and present them as 'non-fiction'? Not to mention the many posts on forums like this which point the finger at dead men as the culprit.

Surely anyone who names someone as JTR is, by definition, accusing, without evidence, a dead man of murder. Your position, with respect, seems a strange one to hold on a JTR forum, of all places.

Personally, I thought it was a great read. Intelligent, shocking and compelling. I especially liked the little touches throughout, such as known witnesses being introduced alongside the fiction, and thus adding a different dimension to them and putting their statements in a completely new context. And Gull's tour of London's Masonic sites with Netley, when he outlines his philosopical justification for his crimes, was absorbing. It's rare to see a JTR story told primarily f

Yes, perhaps I am in wrong place - I have not suspect myself and I believe most Ripper suspects, like Queen Victoria´s doctor Gull, are accused for mere spite - "I loathe this person and now call him as Ripper". I even once wrote a short story about a Ripperologist who wrote slanderous Freudian filth about some Victorian schizophrenic and then used time machine to do Ripper murders!
Hm, perhaps I should revisite the story, but I can´t write fiction.

[Radical Joe]

What slanderous rubbish. Gull was old stroke victim. I am not a fan or something, but it is so easy to accuse, without any kind of evidence, people who are conveniently dead...

I'm not sure I understand this. If you have a problem with a dead man being named as a killer in a book that labels itself as 'historical fiction', then what do you make of the countless JTR books which name dead men as the killer, and present them as 'non-fiction'? Not to mention the many posts on forums like this which point the finger at dead men as the culprit.

Surely anyone who names someone as JTR is, by definition, accusing, without evidence, a dead man of murder. Your position, with respect, seems a strange one to hold on a JTR forum, of all places.

Personally, I thought it was a great read. Intelligent, shocking and compelling. I especially liked the little touches throughout, such as known witnesses being introduced alongside the fiction, and thus adding a different dimension to them and putting their statements in a completely new context. And Gull's tour of London's Masonic sites with Netley, when he outlines his philosopical justification for his crimes, was absorbing. It's rare to see a JTR story told primarily from the view of the Ripper.

[Christine1932]

And that's why it's fiction -- admitted fiction, unlike Knight's theory which was at least part of the inspiration. I seriously doubt that From Hell is the only fictional undertaking ever done that "accuse[es], without any kind of evidence, people who are conveniently dead" -- it can't have been the first (I'm not even sure Shakespeare got there first), and it will not be the last. Goodness knows there's plenty of that to be found on the true crime shelves, just under Jack the Ripper, the Black Dahlia, and Lizzie Borden alone.

There's much worse to be found on fiction shelves. It's fiction, and very enjoyable fiction. If some 12 year old reads it who can't tell the difference, I really only would want to know what the hell their parents were doing letting them read From Hell in the first place! (Although it could be worse, as they could be letting the kid read Preacher or that Twilight crap.)

Sorry, we must agree to disagree. I see From Hell´s plot as spineless, slanderous garbage, using real people in their "fiction".

[Khanada]

What slanderous rubbish. Gull was old stroke victim. I am not a fan or something, but it is so easy to accuse, without any kind of evidence, people who are conveniently dead...

And that's why it's fiction -- admitted fiction, unlike Knight's theory which was at least part of the inspiration. I seriously doubt that From Hell is the only fictional undertaking ever done that "accuse[es], without any kind of evidence, people who are conveniently dead" -- it can't have been the first (I'm not even sure Shakespeare got there first), and it will not be the last. Goodness knows there's plenty of that to be found on the true crime shelves, just under Jack the Ripper, the Black Dahlia, and Lizzie Borden alone.

There's much worse to be found on fiction shelves. It's fiction, and very enjoyable fiction. If some 12 year old reads it who can't tell the difference, I really only would want to know what the hell their parents were doing letting them read From Hell in the first place! (Although it could be worse, as they could be letting the kid read Preacher or that Twilight crap.)

[Christine1932]

What slanderous rubbish. Gull was old stroke victim. I am not a fan or something, but it is so easy to accuse, without any kind of evidence, people who are conveniently dead...

[AdamWalsh]

Slightly off-topic maybe - but William Blake has an exhibition on at the moment in the Tate Britain. Blake is of course mentioned and held in high esteem by Sir William Gull in From Hell.

The show is a close reproduction of Blakes original show 200 years ago featuring the same exact pieces.

http://www.tate.org.uk/servlet/CollectionDisplays?venueid=1&roomid=5649

From Hell as the graphic novel makes the otherwise ludicrous Royal Conspiracy viable by presenting the how and why things might have happened that way by showing Gull's development of an internally consistent but otherwise abnormal and abhorrent view on time and the world. I think that is quite an achievement. I love how Moore manages to make a whole out of the gritty reality of the epoch and the surrounding and underlying culture. It is really a gem.

Ah, well you know nothing like a bit of the Royal Conspiracy to hit the movies, it was a bit like that i'll bet with the ordinary folk in Whitechapel, but on the scale of pub talk and street gossip....Maybe that was it's humble beginnings.

I mean if you were to portray a shabbily dressed sailor, or a madman from the back streets of the east-end going into a mental asylum, with a fungus ridden Flower & Dean Street full of drunken fallen duckies with a shiner to show off....Ooo, Yuck.. it doesn't exactly feel like a thrilling leg jerking hollywood blockbuster does it?

[JSchmidt]

From Hell as the graphic novel makes the otherwise ludicrous Royal Conspiracy viable by presenting the how and why things might have happened that way by showing Gull's development of an internally consistent but otherwise abnormal and abhorrent view on time and the world. I think that is quite an achievement. I love how Moore manages to make a whole out of the gritty reality of the epoch and the surrounding and underlying culture. It is really a gem.

[Pablito]

From Hell

Ahh, so you meant "are they making another film..". Gotcha! Sorry.

I think the novel is pretty unfilmable in regards to a cinematic release. It would be much better off adapted as a 12 part mini-series, preferably in my opinion by HBO and the BBC. They'd have more room to work with all the plot threads and actually bring the graphic novel to life.

Hi there,

Talking of From Hell, in the novel, in the appendixes, Moore describes how in the book London under London there is discussion of a freemason's temple under Piccadilly, a freemason's court room to be exact, but I cannot find it in the latest edition. I have already found a few hidden temples at Piccadilly. And I have found some more evidence on the web, but I am looking for more info and prefferably some literature. Can any of you guys help me?

Have a look at the 'Mason's Temples Under Piccadilly' thread in 'General Discussion'

Thanks,
A struggling writer