A New Ripper Book

[caz]

In case anyone thinks that only men seem to find the Cook cover offensive, I feel I should state that I am female, and I find it very offensive. In fact, bad taste & sensationalism on this scale might backfire... I believe many of the major Booksellers will find this cover quite problematic, and in a weak economy the LAST thing they need is offended, upset , irate customers! (Picture the hub-bub if any local bookstore has to deal with the irate mother of just one traumatized 6-year-old who happens to see the cover! Yikes! Besides, who in their right mind is going to want talk into the bookstores attached cafe & purchase an over-priced latte and a gloppy pizza-bagel after seeing THAT?) Think about it: we are USED to seeing this image, and yet many of US are deeply offended... image how Jane & John Q. Public might react! It is bound to be a big headache for all booksellers, and we can reasonably expect that one large book-selling chain has more clout than all of us Casebook posters put together. I therefore expect the book-selling chains to exert their own commercial might and force some alternative cover to be used.

Hi Archaic,

Spot on.

It might backfire even more if potential buyers, who would otherwise have been 'strangely drawn' to this book by its cover alone (presumably the purpose of whoever chose that image for it), find out in advance, thanks to the additional publicity provided by the controversy, that the theory within is about playing down the 'orrible murders, and suggesting the ripper publicity machine in 1888 was ruthlessly bigging 'em up into something they weren't. Talk about tasting the irony.

An own goal in more ways than one, I'd have thought, since the image on the cover would be proof positive that no newspaper man was over-egging the pudding that came out of the oven on November 9.

Love,

Caz
X

[Chris]

Jeff

It's nothing to do with semantics, grammar or spelling. I'm just baffled by why you should have replied to my post by saying "I’m sorry Chris, I don’t ever remember having said I’d either read the book or seen the finished program", when I hadn't suggested you'd said any such thing.

But never mind ...

[Jeff Leahy]

Jeff
Wouldn't it be better to wait until we've seen the documentary, and read the book, before passing judgment?

There.

Is this another one of your pointless and futile arguments about Pirate Jack writing as he speaks rather than using the queens english?...Because if it is would you kindly take it to another Latin for school boys thread where it belongs.

I have no intension of engaging in futile conversation about samantic's, grammar or spelling.

All the best

Pirate

[Chris]

I’m sorry Chris, I don’t ever remember having said I’d either read the book or seen the finished program.

Where in my post do you see any suggestion that you had claimed to have read the book or seen the programme?

[Jeff Leahy]

I’m sorry Chris, I don’t ever remember having said I’d either read the book or seen the finished program. In fact I clearly stated that I was speculating on what was known and what I had gleaned (Obviously based on passed experience and how these things usually work). And you claimed you were NOT interested in speculation, which is your choice. Although you seem as hungry for information s the rest of us.

Clearly passing final judgment happens after broadcast. Again I’ve never said otherwise.

However from what is currently known and has been placed in public domain, it does not seem over encouraging. And we have the right to speculate on that.

The use of the term ‘Caseclosed’ is at best in poor taste. But we will have to wait and see if Channel five are also adopting this claim? Which should be soon.

I refer you back to their previous program to why I’m skeptical about their commitment to Ripper FACT rather than viewing figures.

Pirate

[Chris]

Jeff

Well, obviously we all know that the book and the TV programme are associated with each other.

But what I'm saying is that whatever publicity there has been in the press evidently doesn't emanate from "Five", as the articles don't even mention the TV documentary. So I think the "farcical channel 5-champain" that you're complaining about is a figment of your imagination, unless you've seen some other advertising that you're not telling us about.

Wouldn't it be better to wait until we've seen the documentary, and read the book, before passing judgment?

[Jeff Leahy]

The book does contain the strap line....Now a major TV show.

It's fairly common knowledge in the industry that the book and the program are linked. However, as you say its unlikely that the book jacket was Channel Five, in house...

There is a publicity machine at work already. It is usual for Channel Five to publicize programs and maximize audience, i would imagine some of this is out sourced. Lets see what transpires over the weekend.

Pirate

[Chris]

My guess is that this is just a start of a publicity campaign, todays reviews being stage one. They will probably have features set of the weekend papers over the next couple of weeks. perhaps even national radio.

It may be the start of a publicity campaign for the book but, as far as I can see, none of those articles even mentions the TV documentary, so I can't believe the TV channel is involved. I certainly can't imagine the TV channel had any involvement in selecting the cover illustration.

[Jeff Leahy]

I understood it was due for broadcast in May. However there is no listing in the next 14 days.

The book is tied to the documentary so perhaps they intend to wait until its in the shops before they broadcast.

My guess is that this is just a start of a publicity campaign, todays reviews being stage one. They will probably have features set of the weekend papers over the next couple of weeks. perhaps even national radio.

Pirate

[Chris]

I am fairly annoyed about another farcical channel 5-champain claiming that they have a program that finally solves the Jack the Ripper murder mystery.

Has "Five" really been running an advertising campaign for this programme? I have just been searching for some information about it, and can find nothing at all on the channel's website, and very little elsewhere.

[babybird67]

i'm female too

just in case anyone had any doubt!

[Cap'n Jack]

Thanks for that, Archaic, many round here think that I'm a girl as well, simply because I appreciate the female aspect and opinion.

[Archaic]

In case anyone thinks that only men seem to find the Cook cover offensive, I feel I should state that I am female, and I find it very offensive. In fact, bad taste & sensationalism on this scale might backfire... I believe many of the major Booksellers will find this cover quite problematic, and in a weak economy the LAST thing they need is offended, upset , irate customers! (Picture the hub-bub if any local bookstore has to deal with the irate mother of just one traumatized 6-year-old who happens to see the cover! Yikes! Besides, who in their right mind is going to want talk into the bookstores attached cafe & purchase an over-priced latte and a gloppy pizza-bagel after seeing THAT?) Think about it: we are USED to seeing this image, and yet many of US are deeply offended... image how Jane & John Q. Public might react! It is bound to be a big headache for all booksellers, and we can reasonably expect that one large book-selling chain has more clout than all of us Casebook posters put together. I therefore expect the book-selling chains to exert their own commercial might and force some alternative cover to be used.

[John Bennett]

Okey dokes. I'm going to create a thread on pub talk about how the Ripper, his victims and suchlike are marketed.

I've long been fascinated by this subject as it informs public opinion on the case in mysterious ways, regardless of what we (who consider ourselves to be a bit knowledgable) believe.

I just thought I'd do it as this could compromise the current thread about the issues surrounding Andrew Cook's book, which I believe isn't even out yet, despite the relevant arguments about the cover.

This would be a good forum for AP (for example) to expand on his ideas about the reproducing of the victim photographs (if he is so inclined), as well as other posters with other fish to fry.

"I predict a riot" as the Kaiser Chiefs would say, so I'm going straight to pub thread.

[anna]

Jeff.............


Kelly's last image is not there to use up air time for Channel 5!

She suffered enough...........

Let her R.I.P.