Ripper Notes #28 - "The Legend Continues"

[Jenni Shelden]

Tom,

does this mean that you are woking on a book now?

Jennifer

[Tom_Wescott]

Other than doing some research on Dr. Pearson and Edith Claxton, I haven't been doing any substantial research (and I doubt there's an article in either topic.)

Excuses, excuses! I've never done a drop of substantial research in my life and I've hammered out something like 15 essays!

I was thinking of doing something about the "optograms" that Dew describes in his book (which weren't optograms at all, even if he saw something) but no-one but me seems very enthusiastic about the idea.

Are optograms the idea of the last image a person sees being burned into their retina? If so, Rip already put out a long essay on the matter. If not, who cares if anyone else is enthusiastic. Why should anyone be enthusiastic over something they haven't read? If you like the topic go write it!

does this mean that you are woking on a book now?

Yes, I'm writing a book on how to charm women and make them like you. After that I'll be co-authoring Dan Norder's autobiography with Debra Arif.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Jenni Shelden]

Hi Tom,

Well, at the risk of being called out for something I havent done...

I was just ondering since I was expexting part 3 of your article and was assuming you hadnt failed to meet the printing deadline, if you were now worknig no a book. You should take this to mean that IF you were working on a book, id think it a good idea. Why not do a talk at Dan's conference and promote your bookm, im sure dan would pubslih it for you. I understand he is pretty alright at that type of thing (so there you go)

Jenni

ps stop picking on me!!!!

[Tom_Wescott]

Let's keep this thread about the new issue of RN and not my personal endeavors.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Ally]

Well damn…you will never guess what was in the mail box. Photographic proof of the Loch Ness Monster? A detailed map to Hoffa’s grave? Why no! Something much more elusive ….a Ripper Notes publication! So, tearing off the paper yielded immediate disappointment… The book color is sh!t brown. What the..?!! Who made that rancid coloring decision? Ripper Notes are usually jewel toned or stark black and white but surely the need to go through the entire color scheme isn’t a sufficient cause to plop a turd on the bookshelf. Pastel Pink would have been much preferred. Anyhoo, one opens it and finds that the editors have bowed to the inevitability of publishing incompetence and there is no longer a year/four issues subscription available but only a four issue subscription time frame unknown. The editorial makes mention of the delay once again citing “computer problems” and confidently asserts that Ripper Notes is going to have a “great year”. That's refreshing. Wolf (the non-insane one) and Alan (of the sexy Irish shins) are now full-fledged editors. Good. Hopefully the additional staff will make for a more regular output. Fiber One can help there too….(the brown is really getting to me). The editorial also mentions the website for Ripper Notes Extra and states it will be for “Ripper news as it happens as well as book reviews”. Well that’s interesting. Hasn’t that been its stated aim for over a year now? So I for one am extremely puzzled by the table of contents which shows 30+ pages of reviews for long-over conferences and book reviews. Now the 5-months-past Wolver conference is on the bounds of “news” but the Maybrick trial review? Are you kidding me? While I love to read anything the Sharpster writes as I imagine it all being sung in that sexy brogue of his, seriously….the MAYBRICK TRIAL review?! This should have been slapped up on the Ripper Notes extra site ages past and not been used as paper filler. Trees died for this. I applauded the idea of a website for current reviews and news, but if they are going to say that’s what it’s for, then that’s what it ought to be for, and not conveniently overlooked when they need to up the page count.

First article starts the magazine out strong with a refutation of Feigenbaum’s candidacy. Well written, well punctuated and very few clankers on the ear with the possible exception of this sentence which came after a long detailed description of Feig being electrocuted: “he was pronounced well and truly dead”. I think most electrocuted people might take exception to being pronounced well after the fact. But anyhoo. A nice smooth flow, an effortless read.

As almost anyone who knows me or has ever asked me for my opinion on one of their writings can attest, generally I fervently, devoutly and passionately hate first-person narration. Rare is the first person narration that is sufficiently entertaining to capture my interest. This of course refers to fiction. I fervently-passionately-devoutly detest first-person writing in non-fiction as well. Unless it’s an op-ed piece or you are writing a memoir of your life, there is absolutely no need for there ever to be an “I” used in any professional writing. So I am definitely not the person to review the next article “Heartless”, because this article goes one horrific step further and starts the article out not even with first person narration but, god have mercy, second-person narration and reads like a “Choose Your Own Adventure” novel. “You see torches on the wall. You come to a fork in the tunnel, do you go left or do you go right? You go right….oh you’re eaten by a troll.” I hated those things. The article continues on in first-person narration with every jarring “I” taking me further and further out of what might have been an intriguing look at the possibility of Jack copycatting himself or believing his own press. To all people everywhere: Can we just STOP with the “I’s” already?

Next up is an article discussing the Myths of Jack the Ripper. It starts out with first-person narration. Sigh. After the personal account, one we are all familiar with—the reactions of people when you tell them you are interested in the Ripper case—it goes on to describe the common perception of Jack the Ripper as a legendary top-hatted fog-swirly figure. There’s nothing really at all wrong with this article, it’s just that the ground here is already so well-trod, including the personal account that one doesn’t even really need to read it. You already know it. But it’s well written, and you could photocopy it and hand it out to Ripper neophytes if not for the fact that Dan would come after you with a forty pound hammer screaming about copyright violation.


And that is all for now. I will be back with my much-lauded opinings when I get round to it.

[aspallek]

Fairly grumpy this morning? (Just kidding....)

“he was pronounced well and truly dead”. I think most electrocuted people might take exception to being pronounced well after the fact. But anyhoo.

Sort of reminds me of the coroner's solo in the Wizard of Oz:

As Coroner , I thoroughly examined her
And she's not only merely dead
She's really most sincerely dead

Sorry.

[Ally]

With irritating refrains from representatives of the lollipop guild running through my head, I rush off to review and retaliate against Spallek for enforced musical inanity, but first there's an article about Romanticizing Mary Kelly. As I am reading it, a nagging thought keeps popping into my head; the fact that I’ve read this before. Exactly and in its entirety…what? Craig you dirty plagiarizer!... Er nope…a search shows that it was published months ago on the web and been soundly discussed on the boards following that posting. Once again…trees died for this.

Ah here we go. Andy continues his oh-so-cute-but-oh-so-misguided efforts to make Druitt seem plausible. Ands begins his campaign with this clunker of logic: Druitt while riding the train to London MIGHT have passed through Cannon Street station. Cannon Street Station is close to Whitechapel. Therefore Druitt was clearly familiar with the Whitechapel area. Yes... Because passing through a place on a train or even making a connection in a train station automatically provides one with intimate and detailed knowledge of city areas that are a 15 minute walk away from the train station. Not even your overwhelming cuteness can save that one Andy. Tskers. At least it was nicely punctuated.

A short article about the Thompson street murder is followed by an article on the recent DNA evidence “exonerating” Crippen. Both are solid, brief pieces. The Crippen piece was especially enjoyable because it did question the so-called exoneration by pointing out that there is a doubt whether the family that was tested was the correct lineage. Interesting reads both.

Then comes the woefully past their prime reviews of conferences and plays goneby, the magazine ends with book reviews and so forth.

The End.

[aspallek]

Ah here we go. Andy continues his oh-so-cute-but-oh-so-misguided efforts to make Druitt seem plausible. Ands begins his campaign with this clunker of logic: Druitt while riding the train to London MIGHT have passed through Cannon Street station. Cannon Street Station is close to Whitechapel. Therefore Druitt was clearly familiar with the Whitechapel area. Yes... Because passing through a place on a train or even making a connection in a train station automatically provides one with intimate and detailed knowledge of city areas that are a 15 minute walk away from the train station. Not even your overwhelming cuteness can save that one Andy. Tskers. At least it was nicely punctuated.

OK, Your Highness, I suppose the day wouldn't be complete without a response from His Cuteness!

Ally, I suggest you might want to re-read my article because you have seriously misrepresented its conclusions here. It seems that many anti-Druittists have restored to this.

The evidence I present reasonably points to more than that Druitt "MIGHT" have passed through Cannon Street in his commuting to London. As presented in my article, it is a "likelihood" -- not a "certainty" by any means but more than a mere possibility. Of course, the reader can disagree with this conclusion (i.e., that Druitt probably passed through Cannon Street) but do not imply that I extrapolate from a mere "possibility" in my reasoning when I have at least presented my evidence that it is a "likelihood." If you disagree with the evidence I present and believe that it does not show such a "likelihood," then how about explaining why you disagree instead of misrepresenting the logical flow of my article?

Where did you read in my article that placing Druitt at Cannon Street "clearly" familiarizes him with the East End? My actual claim is that placing him at Cannon Street, and repeatedly so, increases the possibility that he visited the East End as it would remove the objection that Druitt cannot be placed anywhere near the East End. Where in my article did you read a claim that passing through a station "automatically" familiarizes one with distances 15 minutes' walk away? It is presented as a possibility, suggested by the likelihood that Druitt repeatedly passed through Cannon Street, not as something that is "clearly" so or "automatically" so.

The logic of the article, to those who are capable of logical thinking, does not run as you presented it above. The logic runs this way:

1. Druitt certainly commuted from Blackheath to London repeatedly.

2. The most likely station at which Druitt would have alighted en route to his chambers is Cannon Street (sound reasoning presented in the article: long delays between Cannon Street and Charing Cross and Charing Cross puts him no closer to his chambers therefore he has no known logical reason to stay on the train beyond Cannon Street). If you disagree with that then how about stating why you disagree?

3. Since Druitt likely passed through Cannon Street repeatedly, the objection that Druitt cannot be placed anywhere near the East End can at least be seriously challenged and Druitt may have taken the opportunity (that he clearly would have had) to visit the East End.

Disagree with me if you like about what my article does conclude. But Ally, you are setting up "straw men" to disagree with.

I purposely titled my article as a question. I presented the findings of my research. Let the reader decide. Has anyone else even bothered to research the rail service between Blackheath and London in 1888? Doesn't it seem as if this should have been done long ago? My self-appointed task is not to prove that Druitt was Jack the Ripper. My self-appointed task is to find out everything I possibly can relating to Druitt's life and in particular his last few months. In fact, what would delight me the most would be to uncover solid evidence that exonerates him and clears his name one and for all. But until then, every clue must be sifted.

[John Bennett]

Next up is an article discussing the Myths of Jack the Ripper. It starts out with first-person narration. Sigh. After the personal account, one we are all familiar with—the reactions of people when you tell them you are interested in the Ripper case—it goes on to describe the common perception of Jack the Ripper as a legendary top-hatted fog-swirly figure. There’s nothing really at all wrong with this article, it’s just that the ground here is already so well-trod, including the personal account that one doesn’t even really need to read it. You already know it. But it’s well written, and you could photocopy it and hand it out to Ripper neophytes if not for the fact that Dan would come after you with a forty pound hammer screaming about copyright violation.


Ally,

I think I must be a sound practitioner of in-the-middly-state-the-bleeding-obvious-but not-completely-shite article writing.

As I've never passed myself off as a ginormous Ripper expert, I'm quite happy with that!

John x

PS Sorry about the first person stuff, but sometimes one can't help oneself.

[Tom_Wescott]

So, Dan Norder is insane, Andy Spallek is misguided, and everyone but Jennifer Pegg (oh no, can't criticize her!) who writes in the first-person is a hack. Perhaps you're accurate on all counts, Ally, but at least those people are producing and contributing. You should try it sometimes. Who knows, you might even establish a modicum of credibility.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Ally]

Yawn Tommy. Gee that's such a sound argument. If you don't write for a magazine, you can't possibly criticize the crap that gets put in it. Oh gee...such a cutting insight! Such a keen and unique observation. You should write an article about it and have it published...it's just that relevant and accurate. Hell I'll go ahead and write a book and join you and the rest of the team who think that by virtue of the fact you published some badly written piece of crap that you stand as giants. I'll even start kissing everyone's ass so that they won't review my opus negatively. I mean, you kiss everyone's ass and they'll kiss yours right? That's how it works in Ripperology after all.


Crap is crap. It's irrelevant who's publishing it or who's writing it. And yes. First person narration is generally the worst choice for anyone writing a supposedly non-fiction article. Unless you are dealing with a personal account that has relevancy (and no one writing about an event that took place a hundred years ago has any first person relevancy to share), it's amateurish and shouldn't be used.

[Tom_Wescott]

I mean, you kiss everyone's ass and they'll kiss yours right?

Yep, that's my secret for success. Just ask around about all the ass kissing I do. All kidding aside, I do agree with you that Ripperology today is mostly about ass kissing and backstabbing. In fact I joke that the difference between Jack the Ripper and his 'fans' is that Jack never stabbed his victims in the back.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

P.S. I think the cover looks pretty cool.

[aspallek]

Hi Ally,

While I generally write in the third person, sometimes breaking into the first person plural (e.g., "we find that...") and avoid the narrative style when relating research, writing in the first person is becoming more and more acceptable except in the most formal settings or in purely "newsy" settings such as a newspaper article. It should not be regarded as improper or amateurish just because you don't like it or because our English teachers way back in the "dark ages" taught us not to do it.

[Ally]

Andy,

I'll continue on the appropriate thread if necessary, but basically your article amounts to nothing more than the same type of speculation that others engage in. There is absolutely nothing to put Druitt at any station other than Blackheath and certainly not Cannon. You say "If it can be shown that MJD travelled through Cannon Street Station on his frequent trips to London then this objection to his candidacy disappears and Druitt can indeed be placed near the East End at the time of the murders" We already know Druitt was "near the East End"' by virtue of the fact that London is "near the East End". This does absolutely nothing to prove he was ever IN the East End. You claim it would have made no sense for him to go to charing cross, but there's that pesky ticket that he purchased to there. Why? If obviously he was used to going to Cannon Street, oh well that particular day, he decided the hassle was worth it, unlike every other day when it wasn't. People obviously DID ride the train through to Charring Cross. Saying that Druitt wouldn't have done that isn't a logical argument, when it is clear that it did occur, and he bought a ticket to there.

[Ally]

Andy,

Pple R now saying thiz iz common 4 an English papr 2. What is b-cuming common iz not necessarily what is acceptable in professional research. Of course if you want to just go ahead and accept that Ripperology has nothing to do with professional research, I'll grant you that.