A New Ripper Book

[Archaic]

Hi, everyone. I have to say, my very first impression of the new book on seeing it yesterday on Amazon was that the cover was extremely offensive and its use represented very poor judgment on the part of all concerned. I am trying to picture how 50 of them will look, artfully arranged front & center on the "New Arrivals" stand the next time I walk into Borders or Barnes & Noble... Ugh.

Maybe they can issue it in one of those teasing brown paper "modesty" wrappers- sure to pump up sales! (Anyway, you'll need one if you plan to read yours on the bus.)

That being said, perhaps it wasn't Mr. Cook's choice after all. Perhaps he even objected to it. I'd like to hope so, anyway. I remember Paul Begg in a Rippercast saying that he didn't want his own Ripper book titled "The UNCENSORED Facts", and even fought against the idea, but was completely over-ruled by the publishers... so maybe Mr. Cook is in the same predicament?

*I was wondering if anyone has any more info or photos of Best & Bulling? I know there is a small thread on Bulling; just wondering if there might be a bit more which could be shared? Seems to be very little out there on either of these two men. - Thanks!

[Brenda]

Ah jeez. They should have used the other MJK pic. Then people on the bus could think I was just reading a book about the world's ugliest bolster.

[Cap'n Jack]

That's a good and kind thought, Archaic, but I do believe Amberley Books is one of these pay as you go publishers where Cook would have had considerable financial input and say so.
I take solace in the fact that the author probably won't be paid.

'Alan Sutton is planning a return to the world of local interest and specialist history publishing with the launch of a new company this August. Amberley Publishing, which will be based in Sutton's native Gloucestershire, is currently recruiting, and has plans to grow the team to 30 by this time next year. Sutton, who is heading up the venture, told The Bookseller: "We are launching at the moment, and more information will follow."

Forthcoming titles from Amberley include The Complete Diary of a Cotswold Parson, Volumes One and Two, by Francis E Witts, and The Complete Diary of a Cotswold Lady by Agnes Witts. The rest of its product development is currently under wraps. "Our plans are going to be announced shortly, and we are confident our new products will bring an entirely new dimension to local and specialist history publishing," Amberley's website said.

The website also requested authors and potential staff to "make contact, and then come and see us to talk face to face". It added: "Notwithstanding the economic gloom, we have faith in our people and in our new and exciting products, and we know we shall thrive. We hope to encourage the right people to join us to share in the fun one gets from building something new and successful."

Last December, Sutton left NPI Media Group, which he set up in order to buy back Sutton Publishing along with a number of other imprints, after it was bought out by The History Press. He then acquired the assets of the printing side of his former business, Oaklands Book Services, through new company Asterim in February.

Sutton played down any current association with THP, which has been criticised by authors for failure to pay royalties. The Society of Authors said it had received "conflicting reports" from authors owed royalties, with secretary general Mark Le Fanu saying that while some authors have received full or partial payment, others had still not seen any remuneration. No one from THP was available for comment.

Le Fanu characterised the situation as having "stabilised markedly, but not satisfyingly", and stressed the number of staff departures had made it increasingly difficult for those dealing with THP. The most recent departure from the company came from Martin Palmer, sales director, who resigned a fortnight ago, THP confirmed.'

[Ally]

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

I think putting goldfish in a blender and inviting visitors to hit the on button if they wish is obscene and has no artistic merit whatsoever. I think hanging a painting entirely painted with poop in a museum is obscene and has no artistic merit whatsoever. However, "pornographic" isn't the adjective I would use to describe either work.

Like I said, the fact that it's your word of choice is ...telling.

[Robert]

I remember the first time I saw the photo of Kelly, in Dan Farson's book. It was a long, long time ago but if I remember correctly, I'd read the section on her murder before I looked at the photo. I do remember feeling sad.

I think it's a shame that this photo was severed from its natural home - which would be inside the book - and used as a selling point. It somehow depersonalises the photo.

[Sam Flynn]

I think it's a shame that this photo was severed from its natural home - which would be inside the book - and used as a selling point. It somehow depersonalises the photo.

Interesting, Rob. A "meta-depersonalisation", perhaps?

[Chris]

However, "pornographic" isn't the adjective I would use to describe either work.

Like I said, the fact that it's your word of choice is ...telling.

Of course, the literal meaning of "pornography" is simply "writing about prostitutes", but somehow I doubt that's what A.P. had in mind. And, sadly, on that interpretation a large proportion of Ripperology would by definition also be pornography ...

[Robert]

Hi Gareth

Well, of course the killer had already depersonalised Kelly. But after reading about the woman you get more of a sense of tragedy when you see the pic. I know that most books will have their photo pages in two or three bunches and so people will come upon them at any time, whether it's while browsing in the shop or later when they get home and maybe look at the photos before they start reading. Still, it seems wrong to just stick the thing on the front for people to see casually out of the corner of their eye or while searching for a different book.

[Christine]

Well, if your definition is "appealing solely to prurient interests with no redeeming social value," I don't think it appeals solely to prurient interests as it is not at all arousing to most of us, nor is it without redeeming social value as it was made as part of a criminal investigation.

That said, I don't see why it's on the cover of the book, nor do I see why it's on the cover of that book in particular. If Kelly was a copycat crime, why single her out? And doesn't the very ferocity of the crime make it that much less likely that a series of unrelated killings were linked together?

[Sam Flynn]

I'm not really commenting on the rights or wrongs here, Rob, I was interested in the idea of a "depersonalisation of a depersonalisation".

For my part, I too was saddened (and deeply shocked) when I first saw the Kelly picture - in Knight's book - so much so, that I couldn't bring myself to look at it for a while.

[Chris]

Getting away from the cover illustration for a moment - the report in the Times says:

"The evidence unearthed by Dr Cook includes the forgotten account of Percy Clark, the Assistant Police Surgeon for the Whitechapel Division at the time of the murders, who inspected all of the victims. Asked about the so-called “canonical five” Jack the Ripper murders by the East London Observer in 1910 he said: “I think perhaps one man was responsible for three of them. I would not like to say he did the others.”

Thomas Arnold, the most senior police officer on the ground in Whitechapel when the murders began, said in his retirement dinner address that he never believed that Mary Kelly was a Ripper victim, Dr Cook added."

Can anyone more knowledgeable than I am confirm that these are indeed new discoveries?

I note that a newspaper interview is already known in which Arnold states that "for reasons which I am sure you would consider sufficiently convincing, but which are too long to detail now" he believes that no more than four of the Whitechapel Murders were committed by the same hand. Unfortunately the report specifies ones of these as "Mary Kelly in Mitre Square", rendering it doubtful whether he intended to exclude Eddowes or Kelly:

http://www.casebook.org/press_reports/eastern_post/easternpost930203.html

[Roy Corduroy]

The entire 1910 Dr. Clark ELO interview is on pages 238-9 of Evans & Rumbelow.

[Rob Clack]

Hi Chris,

I'm familiar with the East London Observer interview with Percy Clark. 14th May, if I remember correctly. I've got a photocopy of it somewhere. And I'm fairly certain I've heard it mentioned elsewhere as well.

Rob

[Chris]

The entire 1910 Dr. Clark ELO interview is on pages 238-9 of Evans & Rumbelow.

Thank you. I really should have checked before posting, shouldn't I?

[Archaic]

I think Christine made a very good point when she asked why they would single out one victim, Mary Kelly, for the cover photo if this book was actually written to expose the shameless manner in which the Press hyped a series of random or copy-cat murders, and cynically invented Jack the Ripper just to boost sales... Bit of Doublethink there.

(Of course, if they'd REALLY been thinking, they'd have TRADEMARKED him!)

But doesn't it seem rather ironic that the crass machinations and sensationalized commercialism of the Print Industry should be exposed and indicted in a book with that cover??
("Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose" or something, I guess.)

We can be pretty sure the publisher's lawyers checked, and know Mary has no known living relations who can sue them.