The Complete History of Jack the Ripper

[Fictionnaire]

Now I hope I hope I got the right book coming now. LOL. Oh well can't hurt to have both I guess.

[Hunter]

The only book I had read on the subject before Sugden's was Cullen's "When London Walked in Terror" and that was 25 years earlier. While I thought Cullen was a better writer as far as a captivating storyline goes, Sugden is more thorough and evenhanded though maybe a bit dry. He was trying to get the contemporary evidence across and disspell some myths (which Cullen had in his book).

Best Wishes,
Hunter

[The Grave Maurice]

Dry? Rubbish. It's a page-turner, mate. Sugden's pacing and the manner in which he unfolds the information are impeccable.

[Phil Carter]

Hello TGM, all,

Agreed.
I must say it is one of the very finest of the books on JTR. I would love to see an updated version, as the last 15 or so years has given us so much more information pertaining to the case. The work of, amongst others, the Casebook contributions, The Whitechapel Society, The Cloak and Dagger Club, Periodicals such as Ripperologist and Ripperana, have advanced our knowledge tenfold.

So yes, up until THAT point in time, the 2nd edition, I agree.. it is impeccable.

best wishes

Phil

[The Grave Maurice]

True, Phil. But Hunter and I were discussing style, not content. My response was to his comment that he found Sugden’s book “a bit dry”. Come to think of it, what book on JtR is completely up to date? The most recent ones don’t have the detail, and the ones with the all the detail don’t contain the most recent developments. Still, all newcomers have to start somewhere, and I would continue to maintain that Sugden is the boy to begin with. Once you have a general understanding of the case and its setting, you can start dealing with newer discoveries.

And, unfortunately, as SPE explained on another thread, it is very unlikely that Sugden would be interested in doing a revised edition.

[perrymason]

Hi Grave Maurice.,

I would suspect that some people find A-Z awkward to use and The Complete History "dry", maybe that also might include Don Rumbelow's book as well...but one reason for me believing them to be the 3 finest books to-date on the subject of the murders is that none are intended to be suspect based theorizing.

The only real value the data has is in its "dry" form....anything that might "whet" the appetite of a reader in terms of drama or suspense has historically been suppositions about the killers true identity.

The real issue about the determination of the Ripper identity, IMHO, is that we most likely do not have an accurate profile of the murderer based on a Canonical Group. If youre looking for a needle hiding in a haystack, you'd better at least be sure you're searching the right haystack first.

Best regards all.

[Phil Carter]

Hello GM, and Seasonal Greetings from Scandinavia!

Agreed, as a starter, it is probably the best. And impeccable.

Have a superb Xmas!!

best wishes

Phil

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi all,

To any newbie to the case, I recommend a good place to start as Evans & Rumbelow's Scotland Yard Investigates or Begg's The Facts because they're more recent and up to date. But Sugden's would be one of my most recommended reads after that. You'll catch something new everytime you read it, just like 'The Ultimate JTR Companion', which I consider to be the most important Ripper volume ever produced. In spite of my past bitching, I hope that the new edition of the A-Z will be equally as indispensible.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Hunter]

A bit dry

Hello All,

I stated the Sugden was "a bit dry" as compaired to Cullen. Maybe Cullen made an impresion on me because I was 14 at the time. Writers sometimes have to paint the picture for you and since I had never been to London I thought he did a good job at that.

I was in my 30s when I read "The Complete" and it gave me the information I needed to really study the case. Maybe a bit more straightforward was what I should have said instead of "dry".

"The Complete" is still my go to book for the same reasons others have stated.

I don't know what he could update except a few more theories and suspects (Tumbelty, Kelly, the morgue attendant... etc. Since he was trying to cover the contemporary evidence I believe he achieved his goal.

Merry Christmas,
Hunter

[DVV]

Hi Hunter,
I too have always enjoyed Sugden's work. He could update a lot, though.
There are also minor flaws, such as the Wilson case accepted as a "robbery who badly misfired"...

Amitiés, best wishes,
David