How much does accuracy matter to you?

[Wickerman]

Hi Helena.
Thankyou for the expose on Thurgood's work.
How many ordinary readers are going to know this?

I was wondering to what extent casebookers feel that it's OK to "pep up" someone's testimony in this way? Not even saying that this is what HE thinks really happened, but presenting his version as factual. The little details (what he called himself, whether the child got better or worse) are pretty immaterial, does that make it worse, because the fabrication is of no consequence, or does it mean it's OK to make things up if they have no real bearing on the story?

What's your opinion?

Helena

Why can't these people just write what is there and refrain from adding 'sweeteners' to spice it up!!

No, I don't find it acceptable. Some might think there is no harm done seeing as how he was a poisoner anyway, but that is not the point.

Regards, Jon S.

[Scott Nelson]

This subject is all about storytelling. Whoever tells the best story, gets the top prize. Everyone with half an ounce of intelligence knows that most authors make up stuff as they go along, anyway. Thank goodness, I'm not an author, or I'd be a big fat liar.

[HelenaWojtczak]

Thankyou for the expose on Thurgood's work.
How many ordinary readers are going to know this?

Thank you Jon. Most readers, I imagine, will believe what is written in a book, especially one that claims to go beyond myth.

When I look back over all the true crime or biographical books I've read in my life, half of me feels angry that I (might have) wasted time and money reading made up nonsense and the other half feels ashamed at my naivety in not realising that many authors make things up pretty routinely.

Why can't these people just write what is there and refrain from adding 'sweeteners' to spice it up!!

I wish I knew. I have emailed Peter Thurgood twice asking him why he did, and he declines to reply. I also emailed Debra Gosling last month asking why her published version of Chapman's arrest differs so wildly from the sworn testimony of the officer who arrested him and she told me to get lost.

Looking closely at Thurgood, why say that the Radin child got iller under Chapman's care when Radin said he got better? What agenda is Thurgood trying to promote? It does not contribute to his being Jack the Ripper, and there is no need to try to prove he was a poisoner, as he was hanged for that already. I can't even see that it makes the story any more "exciting". Thurgood has left himself wide open to being caught out, seeing as Radin's testimony can be read on the oldbaileyonline site!

No, I don't find it acceptable. Some might think there is no harm done seeing as how he was a poisoner anyway, but that is not the point.

Yes in that case no harm done other than labelling Chapman someone who would physically harm a child when there is no evidence that he ever did.

However, when the subject is JtR or any other unsolved crime: readers will ponder the evidence presented in a book, using it to weigh up in their own minds whether it is evidence of the suspect's candidature. So in a way it's rather cruel of these fabricating authors to waste our time and brain power in this way. They are leading us up the garden path.

Perfect example: many authors state that Chapman "attacked his wife with a knife", or attempted to stab her, or "tried to behead her". This fact has been cited as evidence time and again on these boards by those who promote him as the Ripper. They know it's true because they read it in not just one book but maybe ten books, five magazine articles and seven websites. Seeing the same story from so many sources embeds its veracity in our minds. The only problem is, it isn't true. Abberline said it first, because he misread something, and his hallowed words have been taken as gospel and his mistaken belief retold time and again by author after author... I wonder how many notches Chapman's candidacy will drop once those who favour him find out it's not true?

BTW, in Lord Carson's biography the author (Marjoribanks) casually stated, pretty much as a throwaway line, that Chapman had "beheaded his wife". No citation, no evidence, no details, just that!

Thank you Jon for your kind words. I'm not claiming my book will be perfect by any means but I can guarantee that I will do my very best and I promise not invent anything. As far as the section on his JtR candidacy goes, I will present, sift and weigh up the evidence and then leave it to readers to make up their minds. The important thing, to me, is that I strip away the myths so that readers can base their support of Chapman as JtR on factual evidence, not myth.

It's currently 121,000 words and 250 pages (size 156 x 234) not including illustrations, which will add another ten pages (at least).

Helena

[HelenaWojtczak]

Whoever tells the best story, gets the top prize.

RM Gordon told the best story, but nobody on here seems to rate him at all. They ignore him.

[Roy Corduroy]

Here is a terrible typo

In Spanish - 'Cause it's a mink coat, yes'

No, that's too bad because I like Richard Jones. Things happen in the shuffle between writer, publisher and printer.

Roy

[HelenaWojtczak]

This is why I self-publish. I'd hate my name to be misspelt in such huge black letters!

WOJTCZKA

Oh horror!

Actually, the printers, like the Juwes, are "the men who are not to blame" because nowadays they insist on books being sent to them as PDF files, so they no longer typset.

[Scott Nelson]

Well, I did recommend shortening it to Wojo. That's catchy.

[Cogidubnus]

Not quite off-topic yet....

I can't speak as an author, but as a publisher of bus timetables, I do know a good printer could, Until the mid 90s at least, make you or break you...

All the best

Dave