A New Ripper Book

[Robert]

Nats, I see what you're saying. The Jackie Kennedy thing was a one-off - I assume she changed her dress next day. If you click all the links on the left of the page, you'll see each page headed by little photos - maps, the backyard of Hanbury St, Michael Maybrick (I think), Carrie Brown (but in life, not the morgue pic). Well, if Stephen had put in one of Kelly there so that people would see it, but not see it, every time the page came up - that's the kind of thing I mean.

[Jeff Leahy]

While I would agree, that your view on this cover is a moral, and thus a personal issue, I also think you have all got a rather over inflated and romantic view on the reality of business.

If Andrew Cook is to be condemned it is for the basic dishonesty of trying to defend the cover on intellectual grounds..

When in reality a simple….”actually I had no choice that’s what they decided” might have been a more reasonable and honest reply to the situation. I think you all over estimate the control authors have over their work in a commercial environment.

Authors and Producers with control tend to have so because of very small copy runs and or commercial potential, not because of integrality and honesty…

That said; thank God someone is prepared to remind us that we have responsibility..

If only to our own sense of morality.

Pirate

PS I hope you don’t mind if I don’t post on both Cook threads…this new casebook craze of 'multi threading' is doin’ my head in

[jmenges]

When in reality a simple….”actually I had no choice that’s what they decided” might have been a more reasonable and honest reply to the situation. I think you all over estimate the control authors have over their work in a commercial environment.

Actually, rather than this being "more reasonable and honest" Cook insists that the reality was quite the contrary. He has said numerous times to me, in more than one conversation, that he worked closely with the publisher and had an absolute say so on what went on the cover.

JM

[The Good Michael]

Actually, rather than this being "more reasonable and honest" Cook insists that the reality was quite the contrary. He has said numerous times to me, in more than one conversation, that he worked closely with the publisher and had an absolute say so on what went on the cover.

It came out that way in the interview too, that it was his choice.

Mike

[Jeff Leahy]

Hi Jonathon

Well firstly it strikes me from the podcast that there are a number of claims that don’t ring quite true. In his own admission he also claimed that he was commissioned to right the book by the TV production company, presumably Lion. So you cant help wondering if there was more than one person involved in the concept?

However you roll the dice this cover has been perceived as ‘commercially exploitative’ and to claim you were trying to do the exact opposite by putting the ‘bake beans’ on the label of a bean tin, just seemed a little hollow, to me it seemed like an excuse.

But let’s give Cook the benefit of the doubt break out the can opener and taste his beans. And those Beans are certainly NOT Heinz, in fact the whole premise of the book is certainly Not original. The central premise of the book, the idea of a lone serial killer was a deliberate and knowing circulation-building invention by O Conner and the Star is very far from made. As Paul stated in his question: “three extremely brutal murders in the same area and in such a short space of time would very reasonably suggest that there was a single homicidal maniac at large”,

Again there seems another strange anomaly in Cooks reply that there were hundreds of un-reported murders, when in his book he states “murders in Whitechapel were uncommon”.

Bizarrely in the interview he also told us to check out Scotland Yard Investigates and Letters From Hell. Both books don’t seem to support his argument about Best. In fact they do the opposite. And he doesn’t mention in his book that Best actually confessed to writing the letters, which one might have thought rather central to his theory?

The idea that the Whitechappel murders were as a whole committed by different people is a no brainer…of course they were I havn't heard anyone making a claim for all seventeen apart from Patricia. The argument that a lone serial killer was invented by journalists to increase circulation is just another similar madcap ripper theory that will further muddy the public perception about the truth behind the crimes.

Pirate

[George Hutchinson]

Actually, rather than this being "more reasonable and honest" Cook insists that the reality was quite the contrary. He has said numerous times to me, in more than one conversation, that he worked closely with the publisher and had an absolute say so on what went on the cover.

JM

And we certainly now know that telling convenient lies to save his own bacon is part of Mr Cook's make-up, don't we, Jonathan? Unfortunately, he has very much dug his own grave. Let's just say he won't be walking away from this book with his ethics perceptions intact, if they weren't in tatters already, and it has nothing to do with the atrocious cover.

PHILIP

[caz]

Finally,I am not convinced that the picture should not be on the cover.Jack was not nice,not at all nice and you cant hide from that fact when you look at the corpse of this once pretty, twenty five year old woman, who called herself Marie Jaenette Kelly.

But Nats, the author is not using Mary's picture to show that Jack was 'not nice, not at all nice', because his aim is to show that Jack was not at all anything, having been invented by the Star, after which one of Mary's band of merry men presumably decided that she was not nice, not at all nice, and could be got rid of on the strength of this invented fiend. So Cook himself must be finding it a doddle to ‘hide’ from that very fact when he looks at her corpse. The theory is barking.

...Jack the Ripper has been somewhat glamourised over the years and his actual deeds obscured and minimised by the length of time that has passed since he committed the murders.
Therefore it is good to let people see the monstrosity of his crimes, and the vandalism of what he actually did to those who became his knife victims.

Isn’t Cook attempting to obscure and minimise the monstrosity and vandalism of what the ripper actually did by going into total denial mode about his very existence?

Love,

Caz
X

[Scotland Yard]

I keep coming across conflicting dates for when this book is released.

I have to say, I'm intrigued by Cook's premise. Is this book out now and, if so, anyone here actually read it? I know its caused controversy on another thread for its use of the Mary Kelly photo on the cover but is it any good?

[Stephen Thomas]

Who cares? I, for one, won't be buying it.

[caz]

So Stephen, can I take it that you are a Triple Velvet man? Or a Sainsbury's own brand? Quilted or plain? Soft white or cool aqua?

I tend to play it by ear and go for any special offers. But I'm with you. I'd be put off by an image of the 'does what it shows on the packaging' variety.

Love,

Caz
XXX

[Cap'n Jack]

It is hard to actually imagine this book on public display in a book shop, whilst carrying its present cover; and although my faith in human nature has reached an all time low after hearing Cook's ridiculous defence of his personal choice of such a blatantly provocative and commercially inspired cover, I somehow hope, and feel, that it will not be publicly displayed.
But as Pirate points out, if the tv documentary inspired the book, then it would be useful to know from whom, and how Cook was advised to use such a cover. As I said, on the podcast Cook called himself 'we'.
I'd like to know who that 'we' was.

[Jeff Leahy]

My guess AP would be someone called Bill Locke

http://liontv.demonweb.co.uk/_london/about/bill_locke.html

http://www.liontv.com/London/Our-People/Bill-Locke

I note that Lion have a new children's series 'Horrible Histories' about to start.

Actually their history out-put is fairly impressive.

Pirate

[Natalie Severn]

Hi Caz,
Thanks for your post and ofcourse we are all free to interpret what a writer states the way we want.
I am actually quite looking forward to reading the book because as I said earlier, the one book I have read by Andrew Cook [referencing Inspector Melville / the Irish question etc] addressed many areas that I am interested in and provided plausible reconstructions of certain activities -some of which could be linked back to Anderson,Monro and Littlechild.

[Tom_Wescott]

AP and all,

I'm confused. Is this a crass money making scheme or is it literary suicide? One would think this was some type of money-making ploy, what with the amount of press blurbs and the documentary and such. But if you were trying to make money off your research, would you package it so that it would only appeal to angry, fat teens who can't get a girl? Because, honestly, that's the only type of person who would be attracted to a cover like the one we've seen. This is the thing that has confused me the most. An author of a well-received book making such a stupid blunder AND being proud of it.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Natalie Severn]

Actually, rather than this being "more reasonable and honest" Cook insists that the reality was quite the contrary. He has said numerous times to me, in more than one conversation, that he worked closely with the publisher and had an absolute say so on what went on the cover.

JM

Hi JM,
Then do you think he chose the image to use on the cover for sensationalist reasons ?

Norma

Tom,
you have said it better than me here-the posts must have crossed-but that is exactly what has puzzled me over all this.