A New Ripper Book

[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 ...

[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

[Tom_Wescott]

Can somepost post the cover everyone is talking about?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Cap'n Jack]

Nicely done, girls.

Tom, go to Amazon, you'll find it there. I don't know for how much longer though as I've just filed an official complaint with the Internet Watch Foundation, and I would urge others to do the same.

Just outta interest, Tom, what did you plan to put on the cover of your book?

[Tom_Wescott]

I'm still planning to do a book. I thought about using contemporary illustrations on the cover to give it a sense of the time and atmosphere. Having really put too much thought into it yet. I'll go check it out at amazon.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Archaic]

COOK`S BOOK COVER (sounds odd, huh?)

Hi, Tom; here is a link to the cover in question.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/s/ref=nb_ss_b?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=Andrew+Cook%2C+Jack+the+Ripper&x=9&y=21

And I forget who asked, but while I was reading the online news articles quite a few of them did mention an upcoming Channel 5 TV Show based on the book. Several said it's coming in May, but I don't know any more about the show than what the articles said. (We probably won't even get it in the States, unless it eventually ends up on Cable TV.)

Wouldn't it be interesting to send a Casebook link of this debate directly to the publisher and ask them for their thoughts? -Archaic

[Chris]

Tom, go to Amazon, you'll find it there. I don't know for how much longer though as I've just filed an official complaint with the Internet Watch Foundation, and I would urge others to do the same.

I'm afraid that would be a waste of time, because it would fall within the IWF's remit only if the photo were "criminally obscene".

http://www.iwf.org.uk/howto/page.11.htm

[Tom_Wescott]

Thanks, Archaic. That is probably the worst cover he could have settled on. Makes me wonder about Cook's scruples. Bad, bad, sophomoric idea. Looks like th cover of a death metal album. And what an unispired title. I was looking forward to reading the book, but I think I'll wait until the softcover with the inevitable cover change.

I'm not at all offended with using victim photographs. It's one of the main reasons people pick up true crime books. But imagine a JonBenet book with a photo of her broken and defiled body on the cover. How would that go over? Just because this photo is 120 years doesn't make it less effective, particularly to someone who has never seen it before. It belongs INSIDE the covers.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Jeff Leahy]

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

I think I'll reproduce Caz's post because as always she hits the nail on the head......we may be an in fighting bunch of lunatic's but it seems this cover has almost united casebook....much though it sticks in the throat I even agree with Tom.

Pirate

[Stephen Thomas]

I'm not at all offended with using victim photographs. It's one of the main reasons people pick up true crime books. But imagine a JonBenet book with a photo of her broken and defiled body on the cover. How would that go over? Just because this photo is 120 years doesn't make it less effective, particularly to someone who has never seen it before. It belongs INSIDE the covers.

Well said, Tom

That's what all this discussion is really about.

Inside the book, fine. On the cover, NOT.

Someone along the line has screwed up here.

[Cap'n Jack]

Chris, I'm assuming then that this obscene cover enjoys your full support, and that you are more than happy to see the book published so?
I just thought it might be useful to get your point of view as well as your critic of my actions.
At least I do something, whilst you shoot peas.

[Tom_Wescott]

Just so there's no misunderstanding my stance, I think Andrew Cook's cover is appalling. Photo aside, it's amateurish and gaudy. Having said that, I think other Ripper books which feature victims on the cover have done so with taste, such as Neal Shelden, and with proper effect, such as Evans and Skinner with Letters From Hell.

I hope all on here would agree there's not an issue with using victim photos on the cover of a book, as long as discretion goes into the choice of photo and how it's presented.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Jeff Leahy]

Tom

I have Neal's book infront of me, and as you well know it has his classic discovery......a picture of Annie Chapman, most probably on her wedding day, on the front cover. Probably the most tasteful cover ever created...and a fabulous discovery.

Now if your going for the back cover.....clearly he could have done with a shave...or was he trying to empress Mrs Sheldon? with the clint Eastwood look?

Go ahead Neal, make my day

Pirate

Ps I might add a signed copy!

[Archaic]

Shouldn't Cooks' Book Be Out By Now?

Tom, you're right; it DOES look like a ''Death Metal'' album cover! Hasn't Manson or somebody tried that by now? Frankly, I bet they have, but maybe it didn't make it as far as a finished product, even on an Indy label.

The Amazon said the books publishing date was March 15, but it's 'Not Available' and can only be 'Pre-Ordered', at about 30% Off, I believe.

My question is: Shouldn't it be out on the shelves by now? I know very little about publishing, so maybe one of you bookie-types can tell me if this delay is indicative of problems...little things like ''UnMarketability!'' - Archaic

[Chris]

Chris, I'm assuming then that this obscene cover enjoys your full support, and that you are more than happy to see the book published so?

Some people will assume anything, apparently.

Actually, I think Tom has hit the nail on the head by saying it should be inside the covers, not on the cover. And as Jeff said, we all seem to agree on that - amazingly enough.

On the other hand, the image isn't pornographic, and it isn't criminally obscene. It's a historical document, and - of course - a crucial piece of evidence about the Whitechapel Murders.

As for the IWF, I simply thought that - as you couldn't be bothered to check their terms of reference before contacting them and encouraging others to do so - it would be useful if I pointed out that this falls outside their remit.

As I've said, I thought the advice you received from the court official made sense. If the book does end up being printed with this image on the cover, you can alert the retailers to the unsuitable nature of the material, and no doubt many of them will use their discretion and refrain from displaying it where children can see it.