Ripperologist 144: June 2015

[AdamNeilWood]

OUT TOMORROW - YOUR FREE RIPPEROLOGIST MAGAZINE!

If you don't already receive a copy, simply send an email to contact@ripperologist.biz to be placed on the mailing list.

Ripperologist 144: June 2015

EDITORIAL: QUACKERY, JACKERY, DOC…
by Gareth Williams

TUMBLETY JAIL BREAK!
by David Barrat

ANDERSON’S FURTIVE MISSION IN NORTH AMERICA
by Mike Hawley

THE PLAYWRIGHT AND THE KILLER
by Philipp Röttgers

FROM THE ARCHIVES:
A NIGHT IN THE VICTIM’S DOSS HOUSE
From The Evening News of 5 and 10 October 1888

FROM THE CASEBOOKS OF A MURDER HOUSE DETECTIVE:
SAVED BY THE UNWRITTEN LAW
and
PATRICK MACKAY, LONDON’S UNKNOWN SERIAL KILLER
by Jan Bondeson

A FATAL AFFINITY
CHAPTER TWO: COFFEE HOUSE BABBLE
Nina and Howard Brown

DEAR RIP: YOUR LETTER AND COMMENTS

OBITUARY: CHRISTOPHER LEE

I BEG TO REPORT: ALL THE NEWS THAT’S FIT TO PRINT

THE GENTLE AUTHOR’S SPITALFIELDS LIFE
VICTORIAN FICTION: IN THE SHADOW OF THE SIERRAS
by Iza Duffus Hardy

REVIEWS Ripped: Mary Jane Kelly and more!

[GUT]

Looking forward to it.

[Amanda]

Dear Adam,

I notice that you have reviewed 'Ripped'.

Any plans to read & review 'Prisoner 4374'?

Amanda

[lynn cates]

thanks

Hello Adam. Thanks.

Hope to receive and read soon.

Cheers.
LC

[PaulB]

Dear Adam,

I notice that you have reviewed 'Ripped'.

Any plans to read & review 'Prisoner 4374'?

Amanda

It's fiction (or faction) and I have therefore asked David Green to take a look at it. If he can, it'll be reviewed in the next Rip. With luck and a fair wind that is.

[Amanda]

It's fiction (or faction) and I have therefore asked David Green to take a look at it. If he can, it'll be reviewed in the next Rip. With luck and a fair wind that is.

I think you'll find that biographies are non-fiction.

Prisoner 4374 is a biography, that just happens to have been written in an autobiographical style.

Amanda

[jmenges]

I think you'll find that biographies are non-fiction.

Prisoner 4374 is a biography, that just happens to have been written in an autobiographical style.

Amanda

The genre is popularly known as fictional autobiography. Which in no way diminishes the scholarship and research involved.

JM

[PaulB]

I think you'll find that biographies are non-fiction.

Prisoner 4374 is a biography, that just happens to have been written in an autobiographical style.

Amanda

Amanda
I don't need you to tell me that biography is non-fiction. I have kicked around publishing long enough to know the difference between fiction and non-fiction and your book is written in the first person and therefore it is not non-fiction.

You claim it is biography written in an autobiographical style, but that autobiographical style is what doesn't make it non-fiction. Right from the start you are putting words into the protagonists mouth, words which he may or may not have spoken and expressing emotions and opinions he may or may not have felt or held. How far you venture into fiction i that respect, if indeed you do it at all is for the reviewer to judge.

The book also lacks all the scholarly bits and bobs that enable others to check your sources and your facts. Had those been included then it would have at least been possible to see that the words you put into Cream's mouth were accurate and reflected the man himself.

Anyway, I was careful to describe your book as 'faction'. The extent to which it is fact is for the reviewer to judge, and whether it is reviewed by myself or David or someone we nominate is my decision as Reviews Editor. If David thinks the book is better suited for inclusion with the fact books then it will be so included.

[Amanda]

Paul,

If a list of bibliography is missing, it's because I didn't use other people's books to get facts. I used the prison file, which I have listed at the beginning of the book.
I apologise for not being as educated a scholar or seasoned a writer as most here on the Casebook Forum, but I don't need a lecture thank you.

I asked a simple question : will my book be reviewed?

Now I'd like to withdraw that & ask you not to review it. I'm happy with 'Prisoner 4374' & all the people who have posted reviews on Amazon are happy with it.

Amanda

[PaulB]

Paul,

If a list of bibliography is missing, it's because I didn't use other people's books to get facts. I used the prison file, which I have listed at the beginning of the book.
I apologise for not being as educated a scholar or seasoned a writer as most here on the Casebook Forum, but I don't need a lecture thank you.

I asked a simple question : will my book be reviewed?

Now I'd like to withdraw that & ask you not to review it. I'm happy with 'Prisoner 4374' & all the people who have posted reviews on Amazon are happy with it.

Amanda

"I asked a simple question : will my book be reviewed?"

And I answered that question.

You then went on to rather rudely inform me that biography is non-fiction. I explained why I did not consider your book to be a non-fiction biography.

Others have agreed with that judgement.

Okay, you used the prison file. That doesn't alter my point that when faced with a first person narrative things like footnotes and a bibliography indicate that the book isn't a novel but is itended to be something else.

No lecture, Amanda. Just an explanation. But if you can't accept it, that's up to you.

But I don't think it's up to you to tell me what Ripperologist can and can't review.

[Amanda]

"I asked a simple question : will my book be reviewed?"

And I answered that question.

You then went on to rather rudely inform me that biography is non-fiction. I explained why I did not consider your book to be a non-fiction biography.

Others have agreed with that judgement.

Okay, you used the prison file. That doesn't alter my point that when faced with a first person narrative things like footnotes and a bibliography indicate that the book isn't a novel but is itended to be something else.

No lecture, Amanda. Just an explanation. But if you can't accept it, that's up to you.

But I don't think it's up to you to tell me what Ripperologist can and can't review.

Paul,
I sincerely apologise if you thought my remarks rude.

I merely meant to defend my work, a natural reaction. There are certainly people who agree with you, and there are people who might not have any intention of reading my book before trying to criticise it. However, many respect me enough to question my work in a much more polite manner.

I have read all of your work, did not like or agree with all that you wrote but still respect you as a writer. There is certainly no bad feeling on my part.
Amanda

[PaulB]

Paul,
I sincerely apologise if you thought my remarks rude.

I merely meant to defend my work, a natural reaction. There are certainly people who agree with you, and there are people who might not have any intention of reading my book before trying to criticise it. However, many respect me enough to question my work in a much more polite manner.

I have read all of your work, did not like or agree with all that you wrote but still respect you as a writer. There is certainly no bad feeling on my part.
Amanda

Amanda
I haven't questioned your work. Not at all. I have simply explained why I do not consider a first person narrative to be non-fiction and that I had asked David Green to review it. I do not claim that my reasons are correct, but I am Reviews Editor of Ripperologist, which I take unbelievably seriously, and the decision is mine. However, that decision is no reflection on the quality or accuracy of your book, and I did say that if David thought your book should come under non-fiction I would abide by that. I could not have been fairer than that. So, I have not questioned your work, in an impolite manner or otherwise.

I understand that you would want to defend your work, but in this case I'm not sure what you were defending it against.

There is no bad feeling on my part either.

[mklhawley]

Subsequent research has all-but absolved Tumblety of the Ripper crimes, in the process rehabilitating him as a mere purveyor of dodgy cures, whose sexual proclivities seem almost innocuous to modern eyes. - Gareth Williams editorial.

As a person who has been involved in the "Subsequent research" of Francis Tumblety, I would like to ask you, Gareth, list the research that has "all-but absolved Tumblety of the Ripper crimes. Your ignorance screams as you wrote, "sexual proclivities", which clearly demonstrates your cherry picking skills at reading the "subsequent research".


So Gareth, please list the subsequent research that has all but absolved Tumblety.

And while you're at it, Gareth, please list all of the research you've done on Francis Tumblety to suggest that you should consider yourself expert enough to even write an editorial on Tumblety.

Sincerely,

Mike

[mklhawley]

Oh Gareth ! I'm still waiting for you to show me how the subsequent research has all but absolved Tumblety. This very issue has my ninth research article, Joe Chetcuti has more than I, there's Roger Palmer's... I see over twenty subsequent articles conflicting with your statement. Who cares if you agree or disagree (clearly you didn't read them), I'm challenging your statement that all subsequent research has all but absolved Tumblety, especially when your premise is about why Scotland Yard even suspected him is wrong.

Waiting...

[GUT]

Just read David's article on FT must say, I was impressed [seems the sort of legal researcher I'd like to have on my staff] and now am pulling some old statutes.