Feedback for Prisoner 4374

[m_w_r]

Hi John,

You're right to that extent. I started off looking at the free sample of Amanda's book, but I ended up buying the Kindle version because I wanted to know whether the free sample did less to vouch for the book than it should. As it turned out, the expectations established by the free sample were not changed by the book as a whole.

I thought it was George Bernard Shaw who gave a book a bad review and returned his copy to the author. The author had taken the precaution of gluing together two of the pages some distance into the book, and, when he got it back and found that the pages were still glued together, protested that Shaw had not read the whole thing. Shaw's response was to the effect that you don't need to eat the whole egg to know that it's rotten, which was a rather rude way of expressing it, but also quite a valid point.

I'm not saying Amanda's book was rotten, but my expectations were not confounded by the complete text, despite my reservations about the free sample.

Regards,

Mark

[m_w_r]

.
It's interesting that you say 'it's nothing personal' but making comments like the book was written with no 'scholarly apparatus' IS personal.
This is the first book I've ever written, and I'm very very proud of it.
Amanda

Hi Amanda,

You've misunderstood the term 'scholarly apparatus'. I meant that it doesn't have footnotes, citations, a bibliography, or anything that would enable anybody else to retrace your footsteps (if they wanted to). That's an observation, not an insult.

The presence of scholarly apparatus of this sort is one of the things that characterises non-fiction texts, although it's still the prerogative of the reader to check the accuracy of the details provided.

Regards,

Mark

[GUT]

And perhaps her methodology.

[GUT]

Is m.w.r talking about the same book? If he thinks prisoner 4374 is a bad book (which it certainly isn't) then I can point him in the direction of a few ripper related books that would have him self harming by chapter 2.

I don't think he is saying it is a bad book per se just that he questions some on Amanda's opinions.

[John G]

Hi John,

Actually, I think George Bernard Shaw had something to say about that - although, of course, he wasn't aiming for 'objectivity'. Surely reviews are by their very nature subjective?

I think the question Tom was asking was whether Amanda's book tells us something about Cream's whereabouts in 1888 that other books (like Don Rumbelow's) don't. As far as I can tell - and, yes, I did buy it - the answer is 'No'.

Perhaps I'm missing something. If so, someone will have to help me out. I'm not getting it.

Regards,

Mark

Hello Mark,

But you can't even write a subjective review about something you have no experience of. That doesn't make any logical sense.

[Amanda]

Sorry - just to add to that... I really don't mind which one it is - that is, whether it's a documented fact or not. But I always get intrigued by things like this. I'm interested in the disconnects that sometimes occur between what people say about their books and what their books say about the things their authors say about them, if you see what I mean. It's nothing personal.

Regards,

Mark

Hi Mark,
There is a documented connection between 'R' and Cream. It doesn't necessarily mean that 'R' was someone that you would know or be familiar with.
There were many people in Cream's life that were little known before I 'brought them to life' in my book e.g. Mrs. Gridley, the McClelland family & Eva Adams.
I have documents that name every single one of them. They were all real people.
It's interesting that you say 'it's nothing personal' but making comments like the book was written with no 'scholarly apparatus' IS personal.
This is the first book I've ever written, and I'm very very proud of it.
Amanda

[m_w_r]

Sorry - just to add to that... I really don't mind which one it is - that is, whether it's a documented fact or not. But I always get intrigued by things like this. I'm interested in the disconnects that sometimes occur between what people say about their books and what their books say about the things their authors say about them, if you see what I mean. It's nothing personal.

Regards,

Mark

[m_w_r]

Hi Amanda,

Thanks for taking the time to reply. You might be right - perhaps I am jumping to conclusions - but your response is a bit confusing, and, from the point of view of trying to substantiate the book's claim to be both 'true' and 'biographical', not entirely reassuring. Perhaps I should reframe my question:

Have you found irrefutable documentary proof that 'R' was a part of Cream's life? Or is the idea one which you came up with by using your imagination?

Thanks for indulging my curiosity about this.

Regards,

Mark

[Amanda]

Thanks Mark,

Of course you are entitled to your opinion. However, how do you know that 'R' wasn't a part of Cream's life? And how could you possibly guess at his identity?

I think you may be jumping to conclusions. I'm staying tight lipped at the moment but let me just say that my research so far hasn't only involved Cream and I have found some amazing coincidences and hard facts that connect more than one Ripper suspect.
All of this information, including census reports and other documents, will be included in my next 'Ripper-related' publication.

Finally, I appreciate you taking the time to read 'Prisoner 4374' and for that you are fully entitled to criticise my work as much as you please
Amanda

[m_w_r]

c) I have written a true biographical account of Cream's life

Hi Amanda,

This can't be accurate. The character of 'R' isn't a part of Cream's actual, historical life. It's easy to guess who he is, and I won't spoil it for other readers, but this is an interpolation by the author, and neither 'true' nor 'biographical' in any sense. Am I right?

To me, the first-person perspective, the colloquial narrative voice and the absence of any scholarly apparatus combine to make this 'true' and 'biographical' account look very much like a fiction book, albeit one which is no doubt based on the facts. But I think it's an important distinction to make, and I think that authors have a responsibility to their readers to ensure that there is no confusion about this matter. The identification of knowingly fictional interpolations within the text would be the final straw in this matter, in my view, and anybody intending to buy the book on the basis that it is either 'true' or 'biographical' would be better advised, I think, to keep their money in their pocket.

Regards,

Mark

[Amanda]

I have just finished reading the book and can recommend it.It is Cream's story told in autobiographical fashion.I really didn't know about him before,but this enlightened me and I want to learn more - the sign of a good book.It is obvious half way through who Cream is and not ( Ripper related),so I appreciated a well researched book ( as was Jack the Ripper At Last?) about a character of the time.

Thanks Daisy,
Glad you enjoyed the book, appreciate your feedback.
Would you mind leaving a review on Amazon for me please?
Thanks,
Amanda

[Daisyhall1]

I have just finished reading the book and can recommend it.It is Cream's story told in autobiographical fashion.I really didn't know about him before,but this enlightened me and I want to learn more - the sign of a good book.It is obvious half way through who Cream is and not ( Ripper related),so I appreciated a well researched book ( as was Jack the Ripper At Last?) about a character of the time.

[Tom_Wescott]

Steadmund,

Well said and quite fair. And thanks for the kind words. Amanda got the impression her work was being criticized, but it wasn't. It was being questioned. There's a BIG difference.

Simplest thing to do is buy the book and read it

Sure, I'll just buy every book that comes out and read it to decide if I want to buy it. That makes sense.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Steadmund Brand]

Anytime a book is written about anyone ever named as a "Ripper" that book gets marketed as a ripper book.....however this book is called Prisoner 4374" and not anything "ripper" related.....it is as Amanda said a "Cream biography"...not a "Ripper" biography......and I must add a damn fun one to read...yes I learned about it the thru a Ripper message board....but it is not a RIPPER book per say...which is why in my reviews I always call it a "ripper" (note the quotes!!!) book.......what I can tell you is it made me far more interested in Cream then I ever was.....not as a Ripper suspect...but as the sick bastard he was....for that again I say thank you Amanda....and I encourage everyone to give it a read......much like I did with Toms book...which IS a ripper book in the purest sense and I will add the best one of those lot that I have read in a long time....all in all a good year for reading so far for me...and I look forward to both Tom and Amanda's next efforts....

Steadmund Brand

[pinkmoon]

Simplest thing to do is buy the book and read it I don't think you will disappointed I've read dozens of ripper books and this one certainly stands out.