The Complete Jack the Ripper A-Z

[Stephen Thomas]

Not long to wait now. First view of the cover.

http://www.amazon.com/Complete-Jack-Ripper-Z/dp/1844547973/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1241854244&sr=1-1

[The Good Michael]

Stephen is this updated including things that came out after The Facts?

Cheers,

Mike

[Stephen Thomas]

Yes, Mike. I read here that it was still being revised a few months ago.

I've got the two previous editions and am really looking forward to this one.

[Robert]

I suppose it's inevitable that the more compendious the book, the faster it starts to go out of date. I will definitely be buying this, though.

What about that boring cover? Tsk, tsk - no corpses.

[ChrisGeorge]

Hi all

My understanding is that the new edition of A to Z will represent a complete updating of the contents, although it will contain less on "cultural" treatments of the case, i.e., fictional or movie portrayals of the Ripper story, and more on the actual case.

In other words, in the new edition, the editors don’t touch on the fiction, films, or geography.

Let me clarify what I meant when I said "geography." In the first edition of A to Z, the authors included coverage of the streets and buildings of the East End. In the new edition, with a few exceptions, this discussion mainly has been eliminated to make space for new information on the case.

The book has been thoroughly rewritten and, of course, brought up to date, the main focus to this edition being sourcing and extensive "further reading" in the shape of references to books and articles in journals like Ripperologist.

Chris

[sdreid]

Does anyone know how many pages are in this release? I would think it would either have to be twice as thick (like 1000+ pages) or 6 point type to include all the new stuff.

[John Malcolm]

Amazon says 288 pages.

[sdreid]

Hmm, then I hope it's in coffee-table format.

[Tom_Wescott]

I like the cover alot.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Bailey]

The new title is intriguing - sounds like they've joined forces with Rumbelow

B.

[Tom_Wescott]

I just hope it really is complete. I offered Begg a bunch of info and because of some politics brewing at the time he told me where to stick it. His call, but a strange move for someone wanting relevant info for an 'encyclopedia', let alone a 'complete' one. In editions past he as completely failed to mention Stewart Evans at all (first edition, I believe) and also used the book to disparage other authors or theories. I suppose that's his right as an author, but some feel it's a little out of place in a reference work. Nevertheless, I will be among the first to read and devour this edition. And among the first to point out errors and omissions in the areas I would have been able to help in.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Jeff Leahy]

Well it’s pretty unlikely that Tom Westcott could possibly be of any use to anyone, in particular Begg, Fido and Skinner. From his post Westcott has clearly forgotten that the A to Z is a co-authored book over which Paul Begg only has one-third vote on what it contains. And by its very nature it cannot contain everything. I believe a decision was made not to include living authors, as there are now so many.

I’m most interested in Westcott’s claims that Paul Begg “told me to Stick it” doesn’t sound like the Paul Begg I know?

I therefore challenge Tom Westcott to produce said email/correspondence or apologize publicly for being a half-witted ‘Ludwig’.

Lets see if he has any backbone.

Pirate

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Pirate. I challenge you to kiss my hairy white ass. And although it's true that I've forgotten more about this case than you'll ever know, I have not forgotten that the A-Z is co-authored. However, Begg is the main writer behind it, and anyone familiar with his style knows this.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Jeff Leahy]

Your ignoring the question. Can you prove that Paul Begg told you to 'stick it' or not?'

Or is this just another Tom Wescott makes it up as he goes along futile post, best ignored?

Pirate

[Tom_Wescott]

Did I use quotation marks anywhere in my post, Pirate? I don't think so. You claim to be a journalist, but you seem incapable of taking statements in their proper context. I've read your exchanges with Chris among others, so I know this is no isolated event (nor even a 'double' one).

And who is this 'Westcott' you keep referring to?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott