A New Ripper Book

[perrymason]

Just a little insertion from someone outside the Ripperology ring...it seems to me with Stewarts unparalleled knowledge of the relevant places, people and events, ...and with AP's unique talents with the putting of pen to paper, you would be unbeatable working together at some point.

Best regards to both, and all.


editted to add.....there is no intended inference that both authors are not equally talented.

[Cap'n Jack]

Thanks Michael
but when you put two old whores to bed together nobody makes any money.

[Jeff Leahy]

I
It was a good year for the roses.

Really? Didn't it snow in June and Rain all summer? I seem to remember Kate gave up on hop picking as there were no crops and headed back to London.

Pirate

PS if you and Stewart require an editor give us a buzz

[Chris]

There's an article on Andrew Cook's book in the Times today:

Jack the Ripper was the fictional creation of journalists who linked together a series of unrelated murders into one sensational killing spree to sell newspapers, a new book suggests.

Dr Andrew Cook, a historian who has spent the past year investigating London’s most notorious criminal, argues that the five generally accepted “Jack the Ripper” murders committed in the East End amid an atmosphere of rising panic in 1888 were actually the work of several different men.

http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/books/article6201628.ece

[Cap'n Jack]

I'm posting this from the Forums site here for comment.
It is a letter I sent to Amberley Books yesterday:

Greetings
I am an author working in the realms of the Jack the Ripper saga, and have just seen the cover of your new release by Andrew Cook on the subject.
I view this cover image as pornographic, brutal and potentially damaging to young minds that might view it.
I strongly urge you to reconsider the use of such a brutal and pornographic image; and I will be contacting the relevant authorities and distributors in an effort to ensure that such a brutal and pornographic image does not appear in the public domain.
best
ap wolf

[John Bennett]

AP

I have to agree with your sentiment there. Although this image is well and truly in the public domain and is obviously inside many books on JTR, putting it on a front cover is quite frankly an outrageous error of judgement. That's putting it mildly.

Whoever thought of doing that needs a bloody good slap.

JB

[The Good Michael]

Don't buy the book if you don't like the cover. Allow the public to decide. I wouldn't want to carry it out of a store, not would I want it on my shelf, but it isn't up to me to censor someone's idea of what they may like or think is appropriate.

Mike

[John Bennett]

Don't buy the book if you don't like the cover. Allow the public to decide. I wouldn't want to carry it out of a store, not would I want it on my shelf, but it isn't up to me to censor someone's idea of what they may like or think is appropriate.

Mike

Can you imagine handing it over to the cashier...? Funny looks all round.

[The Good Michael]

Real uncomfortable I imagine. I couldn't even buy a Playboy magazine to tell you the truth.

Mike

[Ally]

I don't know what I find more hilarious. That the publishers got what they wanted instantly by choosing that cover, or, imagining their faces when they read AP's letter and find out he thinks that sick and disturbing image is pornographic. Gives a whole new insight into ole AP doesn't it?

[Brenda]

Which image did they pick to use?

[John Bennett]

Which image did they pick to use?

This one...

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Jack-Ripper-Closed-Andrew-Cook/dp/1848683278

[Bailey]

Definitely a dubious choice for cover art... and for applying the word "pornographic" to.

B.

[babybird67]

i dont think it's pornographic

but it's disrespectful of Mary Jane Kelly imo.

[Cap'n Jack]

Ally
I regard the image as obscene, and with no artistic merit whatsoever... therefore it is pornographic.