Ripperologist 125: April 2012

[lynn cates]

clarifying

Hello Tom. Sorry. Should have been more clear. Not ripper related--just stuff in my field.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

philosophy

Hello Maria. Yes it was. And since adjuncts are NOT expected to publish . . .

Cheers.
LC

[mariab]

Lynn, I think adjuncts should do whatever the hell they wanna do. :-)
I'll read it real soon, just gotta take care of some things first. (A little bit stressful, but unavoidable.)

[mariab]

Sam Flynn writes the editorial, where he tells us we're too hard on flighty Ripper fiction, then goes on to describe Ripper non-fiction as "premature ejaculation". So apparently we're not too hard on non-fiction.

Myself I see Ripper non-fiction as postpartum depression – cuz most of the sources are gone. Lol.
Weird editorial. Sounds like something out of Playboy.

[Tom_Wescott]

Yes, I would much rather see Sam Flynn (aka Gareth) writing thought-provoking, well-researched pieces like he did back in the day instead of rushed editorials that denigrate the life-blood of Ripperology itself, which in turn necessitates journals such as the one he's writing editorials for. You know who wrote great editorials? Christopher Michael Digrazia, aka CMD.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Jonathan H]

To Tom

I highly recommend Simon's article, which is well-written and well-argued.

At last somebody else tries to nut out why the Mac memoirs are so different from the Report(s)? He also agrees with me that the 'Aberconway' version is probably written second and much later. Simon is also trying to see the Ripper case in its political context of the early 1890's., and that Mac is being deceitful -- but then mothballed the official version of his Report.

However, without spoilers, I do not agree with his conclusions.

[ChrisGeorge]

Yes, I would much rather see Sam Flynn (aka Gareth) writing thought-provoking, well-researched pieces like he did back in the day instead of rushed editorials that denigrate the life-blood of Ripperology itself, which in turn necessitates journals such as the one he's writing editorials for. You know who wrote great editorials? Christopher Michael Digrazia, aka CMD.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Hi Tom

Frankly I don't find Gareth's editorial to be lacking. In fact, it does what a good editorial should do, notes what is happening out there in the world in regard to the Ripper field or a new development that is worth discussing. In the case of his editorial in Ripperologist 125, Gareth notes that a new ballet, Sweet Violets, is being presented this month at the Royal Opera House, Covent Garden, London, that references our favorite case, and he then goes on to talk about various fictional and non-fictional treatments of the case.

Tom, you, as with many in the field, may only care for Ripper research rather than artistic presentations on the Ripper case. Fair enough but the plain truth is that most members of the public are probably first exposed to the case through such presentations, on film, if not on the stage, or in novels or graphic novels. A lot of people learn their history that way and get their first introduction to a field in that manner. In fact, I have a love of Russian history and literature, but my first major exposure to Russian culture and history was watching David Lean's 1965 film Dr. Zhivago!

At Ripperologist, we have always striven to cover all manifestations of the Ripper phenomenon and to document the effects of the case on society which is extraordinary beyond the murders themselves, and can be seen in other crimes, large and small, in art and literature, down through the decades. So while the editorials we publish in Ripperologist might vary in topic, we always try to make them relevant, entertaining and informative. I truly believe that's what Gareth's editorial in the latest Rip does.

Best regards

Chris

[mariab]

In the case of his editorial in Ripperologist 125, Gareth notes that a new ballet, Sweet Violets, is being presented this month at the Royal Opera House, Covent Garden, London, that references our favorite case

(Having not yet managed to read the editorial in question – apologies, extremely busy this week), I now understand Roy Cordyroy's joke/reference contained in his erased post. :-)

A lot of people learn their history that way and get their first introduction to a field in that manner. In fact, I have a love of Russian history and literature, but my first major exposure to Russian culture and history was watching David Lean's 1965 film Dr. Zhivago!

I'm embarrassed to disclose that (despite being a specialist in French history for over a decade now and very familiar with Russian culture and lit over the years), my first exposure to the social issues in Victorian Whitechapel occurred when viewing From Hell (the Hollywood movie, not the graphic novel)!!

Still, half jokingly, I insist that "postpartum frustration" is the term that best describes the situation with non-fiction Ripperology rather than PE. "Postpartum" referring, of course, to the original sources. :-)

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Chris,

Sorry, just now seeing your post. . It's okay for someone to comment on an editorial without a response that's as long as the editorial in question. I was just saying that the editorial was a little unsatisfying for a Ripper world too long deprived of Sam Flynn. Is that such a bad thing? However, I don't agree with the notion that Ripper non-fiction is garbage. Isn't that what Sam is editing for Rip?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Tom_Wescott]

Lynn Cates on Jacob Isenschmid

I read Lynn's article the other day and plan to re-read it again, along with a much anticipated first reading of Simon Wood's latest opus, this Sunday while my girlfriend will be out doing whatever it is women do while us guys are at home with our weird hobbies. However, I have a few comments to make.

First, I hope Lynn's work doesn't get lost in the shuffle of Mark Ripper's excellent Ada Wilson piece and Simon's article which, although I can't yet say for myself, I've heard is amazing. Also, I hope Lynn's article isn't cast aside due to his rather unorthodox theory that Nichols and Chapman were the lone victims of Jacob and thus not 'Ripper' victims (or, conversely, that Jacob was the Ripper and the others opportunistic copycats). I think it was a mistake for Lynn to begin his article by stating this conclusion. He should have saved that for the end.

As Lynn can tell you, because we've discussed his theory a bit, I couldn't understand why he focused on Jacob as having killed anybody. I'm sure many others felt the same way. I thought there were better candidates if working from the perspective that Nichols and Chapman were not part of any 'canon'. I thought Jacob as some whimsical side line to the mystery. Even a comic relief, given some of his wife's comments. But after reading Lynn's article, I completely see what he sees. And what Abberline saw at the time. Jacob was a very dangerous man and it's not at all hard to imagine him committing murder. Murder may in fact have been an inevitability with him, if left on the loose.

Lynn's research is excellent, and his article is destined to be the go-to source for Jacob info. While I feel that Lynn succeeded in proving Jacob to have been a dangerous man, and a sensible suspect for Abberline prior to the 'double event', Lynn does not tell us how he became convinced that Jacob had killed Nichols and Chapman. He does not tell us why the argument against Jacob is so compelling that it forces us to conclude that the killer of Stride, Eddowes, and Kelly (or even just Eddowes if you prefer) COULD NOT have been the killer of Nichols and Chapman. I would very much like to know how Lynn went from a compelling idea, expertly researched by himself, there's no doubt, to such a hard and fast conclusion.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Tom_Wescott]

Simon is also trying to see the Ripper case in its political context of the early 1890's., and that Mac is being deceitful

This is an idea I would have scoffed at five years ago. But not now. The evidence is starting to pile up. I can't wait to read it.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[ChrisGeorge]

Hi Chris,

Sorry, just now seeing your post. . It's okay for someone to comment on an editorial without a response that's as long as the editorial in question. I was just saying that the editorial was a little unsatisfying for a Ripper world too long deprived of Sam Flynn. Is that such a bad thing? However, I don't agree with the notion that Ripper non-fiction is garbage. Isn't that what Sam is editing for Rip?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Hi Tom

Yes I understood that you were giving a left-handed accolade to Gareth for his past writing. I did feel you were ungracious toward him for the effort that he put into his editorial in Rip 125, to be frank. But I also recognize that is the Wescott way, to be blunt and barge in like a bull in a china shop. Carry on.

Chris

[lynn cates]

thanks

Hello Tom. Thank you for the kind comments. Much appreciated.

Right now I am working on keeping a promise to Don Souden and writing an essay regarding the differences in Polly and Annie's death on the one hand and Kate's on the other.

Cheers.
LC

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Lynn, that sounds exciting. Can't wait to read it. I very much enjoyed the section of your article where you focused in on the knives.

Hi Chris. Thanks for your understanding. But why isn't Sam/Gareth here on the Casebook to discuss his points of view?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[lynn cates]

thanks

Hello Tom. Thank you very much. Hope it does not disappoint.

Cheers.
LC