What is the worst Ripper book you've ever read?

[sdreid]

Why did you waste your time reading some of these books in the first place?

[Suzi]

Cos that particular one HAD to be 'read' Stan!!! and it made a lot of money at the auction c/o Jeremy! xx

[The Grave Maurice]

Chris Miles’s 2003 effort On the Trail of a Dead Man doesn’t get mentioned much (probably because nobody read it) but it deserves a place on a list such as this. Although the details are getting a little foggy in my mind now, he seemed to pride himself on not having done any background reading and introduced, what he thought, was a brand new suspect (George Hutchinson). Most of the book seemed to involve his sitting around pubs in Brighton and wondering what to do next. His idea of research was to phone unfortunate archivists and librarians and browbeat them into doing his work for him. Then he wandered around the East End for a while trying to locate a mysterious informant. The only new things in the book were some rather boring reminiscences about his somewhat shady past. This one is justifiably forgotten.

As to anyone who doesn’t appreciate Rumbelow’s groundbreaking The Complete JtR which, even now, holds up remarkably well…..Well, I can only say that I disagree strongly.

[Stephen Thomas]

Plimmer's was the worst. I gave up when he had the Ripper fleeing over Tower Bridge which hadn't even been built yet!

Hi Andy

Too true. Here it is at the time.


Very nice to meet you at the WS meeting.

[Ben]

Right you are, GM. The best Hutchinson books are Garry Wroe's Person or Persons Unknown and Bob Hinton's From Hell.

Regards,
Ben

[Monty]

Guys,

Woodhall is the worst Ive got but, perversely, I kinda enjoyed it.

Monty

[Stephen Thomas]

Woodhall is the worst Ive got but, perversely, I kinda enjoyed it.

Hi Monty

There you go. I think it was H G Wells but it may have been G B Shaw, who said that there was no such thing as a bad movie because the simple fact that it 'moves' is wonderful. Likewise any JTR book can't be bad if one is interested in JTR simply because it's about JTR. Even if it's a rubbishy book.

[John Bennett]

If your thinking of Robert D'Onston Stephenson, Harris presented a readable book on him, in The True Face, but then Ivor Edwards presented his spin on Harris's suspect by adding weird charts and vesica pescies in Black Magic Rituals!

Ahhh, I've got a soft spot for Ivor Edwards' book. The theory is, ahem... well... you know, but I found it a pleasant read, nonetheless.

[John Bennett]

Likewise any JTR book can't be bad if one is interested in JTR simply because it's about JTR. Even if it's a rubbishy book.

Unless it's "Epiphany...." (in my opinion). Quite awful.

[George Hutchinson]

Stephen - magical photo and quite eerie too.

Regarding the Holgate book, it's published by one of my other publishers and when I first presented the idea of the book Rob and I eventually did for another company, they were all for the idea but said that Holgate's was already in production. I'm so glad we cast the net further - it would have had nothing like the effect it had in softback and half the amount of pages (though a similar price).

Of course, The Tren has to be right up there as one of the worst along with anything by De Locksley (how come no one's mentioned him yet?!) and the Morrison. My personal zero is DEATH OF A PRINCE by Annette Han and Ann Ann (published only in Australia, I think). Dear God, it makes you want to burn down public buildings. On a totally different tack, DER TEUFEL VON WHITECHAPEL (apologies to Christian and Thomas if I've screwed up the spelling; I've not checked my cover) is pretty vile also.

I'm liking this thread.

PHILIP

[Rob Clack]

Terence Sharkey's 'Jack the Ripper: One hundred Years of Investigation' is utter drivil and full of errors.
'The Ripper Code' by Thomas Toughill isn't far behind.

Rob

[The Grave Maurice]

Why did you waste your time reading some of these books in the first place?

Speaking for myself, Stan, I suppose it's because I often order non-fiction books on JtR before they are published and, consequently, I don't have the benefit of hearing the opinions of knowledgeable people such as those who gather here. What has always interested me most is the historiography of this subject, one example of which is the facts that authors choose to select or omit from their books in order to support their particular theories. I find that quite fascinating, much like a theme and variations in music. And, as Stephen Thomas says, all books about JtR hold some interest for many of us. I have learned something new, or gained a new perspective, even from the worst of them.

[Bailey]

My personal zero is DEATH OF A PRINCE by Annette Han and Ann Ann (published only in Australia, I think). Dear God, it makes you want to burn down public buildings.

Not only a rubbish suspect (Eddy) but extremely poorly written and, at least for me, being uninclined to grant media psychics any credence, complete and utter claptrap to boot. Dreams, visions and automatic writing indeed! I have a copy going spare if anyone wants it?

As for my other favourite stinkers, I still rate Murder & Madness best of all - Eddy again, complete rubbish again, but a very entertaining read. So bad it's good, kind of the Ripper book equivalent of Attack Of The Killer Tomatoes. Funnier though, because Killer Tomatoes didn't take itself anywhere near as seriously. I particularly enjoyed the theory that one of the two killers (JK Stephen being the other) left Miller's Court in MJK's clothes - the proof of this is that gay people like to dress in women's clothes, and go visit a drag club if you don't believe it's true.

And as I mentioned elsewhere in the last couple of days, I found Paul Harrison's book quite unreadable purely on the grounds of it being desperately in need of the touch of a good editor - by the end of the first chapter I was so overwhelmed by the horrifying errors of grammar, syntax and spelling that I gave up. I may have just been in a bad mood, so perhaps it'll come off the shelf some day and get another chance.

B.

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
From a personal view, I always find the most recent book published the most annoying, for it is simply repeating the same old story, with very little [if any]points that fuel a justification to have bought it.
Therefore I would say the best book I have read was the first, that being'Autumn of Terror' simply becausethe Ripper was relatively new to me way back then.
'The first is always the best'
Regards Richard.

[Sam Flynn]

Good answer, Nunners, and a good choice. "Autumn of Terror" is still one of the most enjoyable books on the subject ever to have been written, even after all these years.