A New Ripper Book

[Chris]

Thanks for posting that extract [from T. P. O'Connor's memoirs]. Not unknown, evidently, though I hadn't seen it before (not that that means much).

And also cited by L. Perry Curtis, in Jack the Ripper and the London Press (2001).

[caz]

Hi Don,

Agreed. One's own work is always the most difficult to proofread. I proofread our collective efforts for Ripper Diary, then Sutton proofread the result and sent it to me to proofread their proofreading, and I walked up to the post office to send it all off to them for a final proofread - and still my bloody brother (who is a patents attorney - and a bloody nice bloke actually) found a few slips of the pen in the final version.

Unfortunately, if one chooses to write publicly for pleasure, profit or punishment, one is going to be judged on one's writing skills and one has to jolly well get on with it. So whenever I make a mistake I jolly well deserve to be spanked just like anyone else - but no harder, please.

Love,

Caz
X

[Jeff Leahy]

I doubt you'd do any worse than some of the proofing efforts in books I have read lately.

Don.

Now that truly is frightening…

My sword and my dagger are at your disposal any time you require them, however. I haven’t forgotten my promise.


Pirate

[Supe]

Chris,

I'm sure there are some. But as I cautioned AP, proofing our own copy is never wholly successful.

Don.

[Chris]

Now of course we're all going to be trying like mad to find a typo in Don's post ...

[Supe]

Caz,

I'm not keen on "former-tabloid editor" as well. Does he edit a newspaper that used to be a tabloid and is now a broadsheet? But the language continues to be debased. On another thread I pointed out that an Australian publishing house, which purports to do straight as well as vanity publishing, had four errors in the opening paragraph describing itself. As it is, we all know how useless electronic proofing can be. I write a fair amount of fiction and of course the proofing programs have an absolute nervous breakdown trying to deal with dialogue.

O tempora, o mores.

AP,

Laudable on your part to do proofing yourself, though the rule at newspapers were I worked that high standards was that the author never did the final proof because, knowing what he intended to say, too many mistakes would slip through.

Jeff,

I shall not be doing the proof reading

I doubt you'd do any worse than some of the proofing efforts in books I have read lately.

Don.

[Jeff Leahy]

You can all sleep safely in the knowledge that should such an event ever arise

I shall not be doing the proof reading

Pirate

[Cap'n Jack]

Quite right, Caz
I remember when I first fired the Myth off to my agent in London and they sent me a fax back saying 'this is not fish or fowl, sort yourself out'.
Personally I do believe the author should have the last proof read, I always do.

[caz]

Sadly, that is a quotation from Andrew Cook's preface.

Thanks for that, Chris.

It doesn't bode well for media literacy as a whole, does it? Nobody in the media seems to know how to write proper English these days - or recognise improper English. I took the quote from this:

'In this programme, former-tabloid editor, Kelvin Mackenzie re-examines the Ripper murders, uncovers startling documentary evidence and identifies a new set of suspects; the crooked journalists who faked evidence, printed fantasy and mislead the police investigation, all to keep the Ripper murders on their front pages.'

And the irony is that Cook has the ultimate ripper murder splashed all over his own front cover and inside he has presumably misled his readers with the fantasy (by which I mean no evidence) that this was a one-off copycat domestic inspired by those naughty old Star men.

I suppose nobody can blame Amberley if authors can be flattered into lining up in their hundreds to offer their precious work without the safety net of an agent, little or no advance and nobody with enough proofreading skill to give it even a basic touch of professionalism.

Love,

Caz
X

[The Grave Maurice]

Well, you're probably right, Bulldog, but it's still a shame. Here's a blurb from Amberley's website. You'd think someone from this "formidable company" could actually look at the books before they are inflicted on an unsuspecting public.

Amberley Publishing is the fastest-growing history publisher in the UK with a team of 23 employees based in the Cotswolds. Amberley provides a fresh approach to local and specialist history publishing, with a 2009 publishing program of 450 new titles including 150 in the full-colour Through Time series.

A formidable company with an unparalleled depth of knowledge of local interest and specialist history publishing, we focus on quality, excellence and commitment. The Company is led by Alan Sutton, who has more than thirty-five years experience in local and national history books and whose name is synonymous with local history publishing in the UK, USA, France, Germany, Belgium and Spain. Amberley Publishing is based in Stroud, Gloucestershire.

In July 2008, Amberley opened its first international office in Madrid, Spain

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Bulldog. That news isn't just sad, it's tragic. Even scarier is that the author may have the spelling correct when he turns the work in, only to have an electronic program screw it up! But whatever their resource, publishers have no excuse for allowing anything to print with as many typos as everyone on this thread is reporting to appear in Cook's book.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Bulldog]

but, for heaven's sake, have they never heard of proofreaders at Amberley? I lost track of the number of typos, spelling errors, and omitted words. The author, editor, and publisher should hang their collective heads in shame.

Sadly, they probably don't employ a proofreader. More and more publishers have done away with proofreaders and are relying on computer programs to identify typographical and grammatical errors. That's why you see errors such as mislead instead of misled. It's not a spelling error.

The employment outlook for proofreaders is in decline, and is expected to continue declining for at least the next five years. It's all about keeping the cost down.

Bulldog

[Jeff Leahy]

To be honest guys I don’t think I can criticize Lion TV for getting the odd spelling error….

And to be fair Lion TV aren’t a bunch of cow boys, this isn’t Ruggie Media we are discussing, they are a production company with an excellent track record in making History programs…

And on some level they may have a point, the letters were almost certainly NOT written by the serial killer, known as Jack the Ripper.

It’s how far they intend to stretch the truth that bothers me. There simply appears to be no evidence to support the claim ‘that the story of a lone serial killer was invented to increase the Star newspaper circulation’. And despite all the casebook infighting I see no evidence to suggest that a serial killer didn’t kill at least four, probably six, perhaps more…

In JtR terms this documentary seems to be dead in the water before it starts. And worryingly supported and created by people who should have known better…

Pirate

[Chris]

"...the crooked journalists who faked evidence, printed fantasy and mislead the police investigation..."

Bloody hell, this lot are cowboys too - they don't even know that the past tense of mislead is 'misled'.

Sadly, that is a quotation from Andrew Cook's preface.

[caz]

Re: My earlier posts on Lion Television Production. I noted that they currently have this up on there website:

http://www.liontv.com/London/Productions/Jack-the-Ripper---Tabloid-Killer

Looks like we now know where all the interesting publicity came from.

Pirate

"...the crooked journalists who faked evidence, printed fantasy and mislead the police investigation..."

Bloody hell, this lot are cowboys too - they don't even know that the past tense of mislead is 'misled'.

I saw that and didn't bother with the rest.

What a shower.

What a crock.

Philip, I suspect they may have taken it too far the other way this time from the loony theories that used to have public appeal. In the wake of Stephen Wright I doubt very much that the public are going to think this one has legs.

Apart from the three on the cover that is...

Love,

Caz
X