Ripperologist 108

[Ripperologist magazine]

Dear Chris, Tom and all,

Glad to see that our review, along with other content, has generated discussion.

As subscribers, you'll aware that we'd prefer to have specific questions on our content directed to the magazine, where we will respond accordingly.

If you're happy with my extracting your post as a letter to the magazine, Chris, we'll gladly publish it in the imminent December issue.

On another note, it's incorrect to assume that Paul Begg reviews every book featured in Ripperologist.

Best wishes
Adam Wood
Executive Editor,
Ripperologist

contact@ripperologist.biz

[Ally]

It may be incorrect to assume Paul Begg writes every review for Ripperologist, but he did in fact write this one, the one under discussion, didn't he?

[Stewart P Evans]

Hatcheted

Dear Chris, Tom and all,
Glad to see that our review, along with other content, has generated discussion.
As subscribers, you'll aware that we'd prefer to have specific questions on our content directed to the magazine, where we will respond accordingly.
If you're happy with my extracting your post as a letter to the magazine, Chris, we'll gladly publish it in the imminent December issue.
On another note, it's incorrect to assume that Paul Begg reviews every book featured in Ripperologist.
Best wishes
Adam Wood
Executive Editor,
Ripperologist
contact@ripperologist.biz

Interesting to see that the subject of 'anonymous' book reviewing has cropped up again. It was recently discussed in relation to the appalling Ripperologist review of the revised and updated publication of The Man Who Hunted Jack the Ripper by Nick Connell and myself. Does the above comment 'our review' indicate that the review is the joint work of several editors of Ripperologist - or just one person?

Now although I might be regarded as somewhat biased in respect of the latter book, I still regard the review published in Ripperologist as being so 'off the mark' that it was apparent that the reviewer had not even read the book. Indeed, one of the co-editors of the said organ (Ripperologist) even stated that Nick and I had been 'hatcheted' in the review. Also everyone who has read this book has been complimentary about it and none has been able to understand the bad review in Ripperologist. It may be recalled that the new edition of our book contained some extra 12,000 plus words and much new information. The excuse of the reviewer was that the publisher's advertising had not stated that there was any new information and revision and that the book was not a biography at all, as claimed in the advertising. Surely there's a give-away in the title that the book has a strong Ripper 'slant' and was never intended to be a pure biography.

That said, I feel that a few points emerge from the reviews that are published in Ripperologist. Reviews, by their mere nature, are seldom totally objective and must reflect the personal opinion of the reviewer. Therefore no reviews of this nature should be anonymous and the reviewer should be man enough to append his name to his words. The review should also contain all important and relevant information about the book being reviewed - in our case the huge expansion of the book and an idea of the new material contained therein - none of which received so much as even a passing mention in the Ripperologist review.

There is also, I feel, an argument for recognised Ripper authors not reviewing the work of 'rival' authors in the field, especially when the reviewer has his own very fixed ideas on the case. There are now enough very informed students of the case, who are not authors, to review new Ripper books. I have always refused to write published reviews for Ripper books, thus avoiding the pitfalls that are inherent in writing such reviews. Of course, that does not mean that authors should not make critical comment on other Ripper works, but at least it is then done under their own name and with the caveat that it is personal opinion.

[Chris]

As subscribers, you'll aware that we'd prefer to have specific questions on our content directed to the magazine, where we will respond accordingly.

If you're happy with my extracting your post as a letter to the magazine, Chris, we'll gladly publish it in the imminent December issue.

No, I'd rather you didn't do that. But as you're aware of the question, perhaps you could just publish a corrected version of the text that got garbled, to clarify things.

I agree with Stewart's point about anonymous reviews, by the way. Is there any reason why the reviews have to be anonymous? (Oh, sorry, that's a specific question about the content of Ripperologist, so I suppose it can't be answered here!)

[Jonathan H]

I would just like to say, as a reader, that I adored 'The Man Who Hunted Jack the Ripper', 2009 edition by Evans and Connell, because it is such a good yarn.

I would recommend it to anybody -- whether they had an interest in the Ripper mystery or not -- as a beautiful piece of judiciously researched yet page-turning history.

It's like carrying around an exquisitely made, shiny, Victorian snuff box in your breast pocket.

In my opinion, it totally transcends its narrow sub-genre, and is a fascinating and important study of a Victorian detective who tackled many interesting cases, and through whom a fascinating bygone world is recaptured for us in elegant and vivid prose.

Next year I will be using choice excerpts from it for my high school students.

It also makes for a nifty sequel to the Evans and Rumbelow masterwork, 'Scotland Yard Investigates', as that was a panoramic view of the police investigation [1888 to 1891] whereas this is the same story but from a singular view-point -- which gives it a delicious Dashielle Hammett in Foggy London feel, and thus a welcome historical corrective to the fantasy detective fiction of Conan Doyle, et al.

If I have to declare my 'bias' then I guess my focus is on a different policeman, [who is arguably barely a policeman at all compared to Reid] Sir Melville Macnaghten. In fact, Stewart Evans and I respectfully -- and very amicably -- disagree about what can be read FROM Macnaghten's various Ripper prognostications, as opposed to what can be read INTO them by staring a might too long at that 'Tycoon Supercops' Cheshire Cat grin.

Frankly, I'm very happy and relieved that for the first time, that I know of, the MP Farquharson fragment [identified by the tireless Andy Spalleck] and the extraordinary Tumblety interview [discovered by the brilliant R J Palmer] has now been published in an important work. These updates also make this account a milestone in this field, even if I come to quite different conclusions to these authors about the post-1891 mystery-inside-the-mystery of Jack the Ripper -- for what that's worth?

Look to be frank, an awful lot of Ripper books are trash of the first order, or the hacks have just not done their homework. That mega-selling over-reach by Patricia Cornwall defaming Walter Sickert [mind you, he'd have been thrilled with such notoriety] being one of the worst. Incredibly, her expensive research is so stunted by her DNA delusions that she completely misses that Abberline thought the Fiend was Chapman?!

Whereas 'The Man Who Hunted Jack the Ripper' is one of the works in this field which I predict will stand the test of time -- as no doubt will the Ripper mystery itself.

[Ally]

Hiya Stewart,

That is the problem with anonymity; it often gives license to do the dirty deeds you wouldn't want attached to your own name.

Regarding your book review, I frankly was more surprised that the magazine allowed Paul to review your book. The well-known animus between you two should have made him the last choice and they have half a dozen other editors! Why in the world would they have chosen him to do it knowing there was no hope of an unbiased review?

Now, having not read your book yet, I am not in a position to say whether the review was in fact inaccurate, but from what those who have read the book have told me, they also agree it was not a fair and balanced review....but regardless, I agree, names should either be attached to reviews or Ripperologist needs to do a better job of selecting who does what reviews.

Not to mention a better job of using the spell checker. Most of them now tell you where the periods and commas should go. Invaluable tool. Invaluable.

[Radical Joe]

Deleted.

[Ally]

They've printed a correction:

Ripperologist is pleased to correct errors which might have crept into an article, news story of review. If you spot something published in error, please let us know.

Happy to. For starters how about that "of" instead of "or". Seriously guys, when you are printing a retraction for bad writing, really I mean....six editors! SIX!

They crept in huh? Those sneaky little buggers.

Review of M J Trow's Quest for a Killer
It was pointed out in a Casebook discussion that our review of Mei Trow's book in Rip 108 carried a confusing descriptive passage. What appeared in the final issue was a corrupt version of what was written by our reviewer.

A corrupt version, eh? What, you all took it out to the pub and got it drunk and sent the passage on a spree of debauchery? A corrupt version?

The relevant passage posed as a question, and not as a statement of fact, was whether Robert Mann’s long-time duties as mortuary keeper would have given him greater freedom of movement than other inmates.

Six editors people! SIX!

The relevant passage should have read...:
‘Although a pauper inmate of the workhouse, it would appear that Mann was employed by the workhouse as mortuary keeper, a function he had performed for some years. It is to be assumed that he received bed, food and possibly even a small renumeration in return. If that was the case then presumably he would have enjoyed greater liberty than the otherwise largely transient population of such places.’

I am not even going to bother pointing out that they probably meant remuneration.


In any case, thanks for correcting the errors that crept in. Might I suggest putting a bell on them next time?

[auspirograph]

D'Onston?

An anonymous reviewer, writing about M. J. Trow's recent book, says that there has been some "overblown argument on internet sites" about whether Mann would have been free to leave the workhouse, and then makes the following comment:
"Although a pauper inmate of the workhouse, it would appear that Mann was employee, the workhouse as mortuary keeper, a function he had performed for some years. It is to be assumed that he received bed If that was the case then presumably he would have enjoyed greater liberty than the otherwise largely transient population of such places."

Apart from the fact that the writer seems to be unaware that it was laid down by statute that paupers were not allowed to go out of the workhouse without the permission of the master, I find it very difficult to work out what those two (or is it three?) sentences are meant to convey. Can anyone help?

This is like the debate on Roslyn D'Onston and his ability or otherwise to leave the London Hospital.

The more the anon editor of the Rip and Trow assume Mann could have left to commit the murders, the more they place D'Onston back in the frame.

Under those conditions, if Mann could, so could D'Onston. Perhaps they were in tandum.

Though Colin has a few good points and the cover is attractive, at least Ripperologist has outlived Ripper Notes. Sad really.

Speaking of reviews, the Rip's treatment of the excellent and definative, Evans & Rumbelow's Jack the Ripper: Scotland Yard Investigates also smacks of sour grapes.

Come on guys, get it together, fairs fair and all that mushy stuff

Best of the holiday season to all!

[Chris]

They've printed a correction:

I find it almost as difficult to make sense of the correction as I did of the garbled version that was published.

First of all, I don't see any question posed, only "it would appear", followed by "it is to be assumed", followed by "if that was the case then presumably".

As for the details of what is being assumed/presumed, certainly he would have received bed and board in return for the work he did - that was the whole point of a workhouse. But as for a workhouse pauper being paid for the work he did, I'd need to see some pretty convincing evidence before I joined the author in making that assumption.

And I don't see how any of those assumptions are in the least relevant to the question of Mann's freedom of movement. Nor is it the case that the workhouse would have had an "otherwise largely transient population". Of course there would have been many long-term inmates of the workhouse, and they were all covered by the same rules.

As I've pointed out, it was laid down by statute that paupers were not allowed to go out of the workhouse without the master's permission. If we're being asked to believe otherwise in Mann's case, some hard evidence needs to be presented.

[Ally]

Hi Chris,

After I quit shaking my head and screaming SIX EDITORS I will come back and explain....

....

...

Okay. I think what the "correction" (oh that's irony) was attempting to get across, was that somehow, in the dead of night while all the editors were fast asleep, a question mark crept into the original, and posed it (by careful deletion of important clauses and addition of words and removal of commas) as a question. The passage was meant to be a statement and they have now corrected it. Because the original was corrupted by that damn sneaky question mark who then scampered off leaving us frantically searching for its whereabouts.

Questions do tend to corrupt things don't they? It's better to just not ask.


Six Editors!

[Chris]

Okay. I think what the "correction" (oh that's irony) was attempting to get across, was that somehow, in the dead of night while all the editors were fast asleep, a question mark crept into the original, and posed it (by careful deletion of important clauses and addition of words and removal of commas) as a question. The passage was meant to be a statement and they have now corrected it.

I must admit I thought it meant the opposite - that it was supposed to be a question and that the corruption had obscured that. In any case, I can't see a question mark, either in the original or in the correction.

[Ally]

Well that's because you don't have my amazing powers of inference! See, they said the passage was "corrupt" and everyone knows, question marks are crooked! They are the twisted sister of a good old fashioned exclamation mark. You don't expect them to hang around at the scene of a crime, do you

(see the question mark that was supposed to be there has scampered off too....)

[Tom_Wescott]

Jeremy Beadle Award

Hello all,

I'm a bit behind the times because I just received issues 108 and 109 on Friday. I was shocked with the review of Evans/Connell's book, but I see now that's been discussed here. My only complaint is the cover of the new book - I wanted to use that illustration as the cover for mine! But hey, early birds and all that. Anyway, the book is in my top 10 Ripper book list.

It seems there's been little discussion about the CONTENTS of this issue, but I wanted to say how thoroughly impressed I was with the Rose Mylett piece by Debra Arif and Rob Clack. There's very few authors who - when you see their names on a byline - you know you can trust what they put in front of you. These two are on my short list of such authors. The essay is top notch and should be read by everyone with an interest in the murders.

It occurred to me while looking at these issues that the year is over, so soon someone who contributed to Rip in 2009 will win the Jeremy Beadle award, which also comes with some sweet cash. I didn't publish anything in 2009 (which could be argued to be my best contribution to the case!), so I'm free to offer my opinion. I'm not Paul Begg, so I won't be pissing in anyone's Cheerios. Here a few of the pieces I feel should be considered...

Begg/George - The Harry Dam series. I know they're can't qualify cuz they're editors, but props should be given for this great series.

Arif/Clack - A Rose By Any Other Name? Reminded me of Clack's 'Death At A Lodging House' from Ripper Notes years ago, which I thought was fantastic.

Bell/Clack - Their PC series.

Scott Nelson - Det Inspector Sagar and the City of London Police Rain On Bull Inn Yard. Even though the title is as long as the essay itself, Nelson another one of those names I love seeing on a byline. You know it's gonna be good, and it always is.

This is not a complete list, because I don't have the earlier issues of the year in front of me to look at. But I'd be curious to know the thoughts of other readers.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[AdamNeilWood]

Beadle Award

Tom,

Many thanks for your comments on articles submitted during the past 12 months, and suggestions for candidates for the Jeremy Beadle Award of outstanding award for the article published in the Rip's page in that period which most deserves recognition for research and interpretation.

The nominees will be announced very shortly, with the winner revealed in issue 111. In the meantime, we invite readers to submit their own favourites, or for their comments on the free 63-page Christmas issue sent to subscribers on Christmas Eve.

May I take this opportunity to wish everyone a Merry Christmas and very best wishes for the New Year.

Adam Wood
Executive Editor,
Ripperologist magazine