Which one next?

[Mike Covell]

And that also includes Jonathan Menges excellent Rippercast!

[Ron Beckett]

Libraries and JTR

Dear Roy Corduroy, In reply to your Query about library selections, my local library has a fairly good representation of JTR books. From memory there is a few early books such as The True Face of JTR by Melvin Harris, The Mammoth Book of JTR,and the one that first brought M Driuitt out as a suspect, by Stewart Evans and a co-author, I think. Then there is The Diary of JTR, and Paul Feldman's book on the Diary. The Many Faces of JTR,by Monica Trow, Ivor Edwards book on Black Magic Rituals and JTR. Of course they have Patricia Cornwell's book on Walter Sickert. There is probably a few I have missed but overall they have a good selection on most subjects I follow. In reply to the general thread of what to read on JTR I find that some of the more reputable tomes are not as interesting a read as some of the other books that seem to attract derision and even deep vitriolic comments from some quarters. For example The Ripper and The Royals by Melvyn Fairclough is widely put down as nonsense by many people but it and Stephen Knight's original book are both engrossing reading and shed many sidelights on the Royals and the Masons. The graphic novel From Hell by Alan Moore and Eddie Campbell has 42 pages in appendix One which are very interesting even if historically false. The juxtaposition of Abberline, Lees and the work of Nicholas Hawksmoor(the architect of Christchurch Spitalfields among others) in From Hell make one feel the atmosphere in which JTR worked
more than some of the more politically correct JTR books, in my humble opinion. Jack London's People of the Abyss is next on my list. I also have a book by Robert James Lees called Through The Mists, but it doesn't seem to have a connection with JTR although one narrator is called FRED(Abberline?)
so I will read it soon-I have only skimmed it yet. Anyway I suppose the point I am belabouring here is that Feldman,Fairclough and Stephen Knight's books don't meet with universal acclaim, they still make for interesting reading. I also quite enjoyed some of the articles in The Mammoth Book of JTR.

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Ron,

The Ripper and The Royals by Melvyn Fairclough is widely put down as nonsense by many people but it [sheds] many sidelights on the Royals.

...many of them inaccurate. The problem with the more "readable" books of this type is their very accessibility and appeal - which perhaps reflects the motive for their being written in the first place.

...make one feel the atmosphere in which JTR worked more than some of the more politically correct JTR books, in my humble opinion.

I wouldn't knock From Hell, which never pretends to be a serious account of the murders, in contrast to some of the other allegedly factual books out there. However some of those in the latter category may seduce one with facts and figures... but when those are distorted or made up, the authors are frankly taking their readers for a ride. Many of the more persistent and inaccurate myths about the Ripper case have either started or have been reinforced in that way, unfortunately, and I wouldn't recommend books of this type for that reason alone.

Anyway I suppose the point I am belabouring here is that Feldman,Fairclough and Stephen Knight's books don't meet with universal acclaim, they still make for interesting reading.

Indeed, some of them do, but for someone starting to learn about the case, they should really stick to more factual accounts, some of which are equally readable - if not more so. There'll be plenty of time to read the more entertaining "factional" accounts after one has obtained a good grounding in the case first.

[downonwhores]

Paul Feldman

I just read Paul Feldman's book and I'm just wondering why Keith Skinner and Paul Begg who worked on the research didn't point out to Paul all the mistakes in the Diary. OR Did Paul just not put their comments in his book in order to defend his theory. Either way it's a shoddy book.

[caz]

OR Did Paul just not put their comments in his book in order to defend his theory.

Something like that.

The clue's in the words: 'his book'.

Love,

Caz
X

[downonwhores]

Caz

Thanks Caz,

When I first started reading it, I thought Paul would be open-minded and balanced more than Shirley Harrison but when he ignored or left out information I realized that he's just the same and especially the last chapters when he mixes his theory with the Sickert theory. He has connected James Maybrick to almost every Ripper suspect. What a hack! Paul F does nothing but insult other authors especially Begg and Sudgen. I wish I didn't buy the book because why should I give him my money. Oh well.

[dmcdonald@onwight.net]

The Don Rumbelow one is a classic - my only complaint would be lack of references. His is probably the best one to read first and then graduate to Philip Sugden which you have already read. If you want to get everything from primary sources then try 'The Ultimate Kack the Ripper Sourcebook' eds Evans and Skinner. However, most of that is on this website.

Regards
Deborah McDonald

[Sam Flynn]

try 'The Ultimate Kack the Ripper Sourcebook'. However, most of that is on this website.

...true, Deb, and I've contributed most of that "ultimate kack" myself