About book The Mammoth Book Of Jack The Ripper (1999)
This book is somewhat hard to rate, as I think overall it achieved what it's supposed to do (i.e. give you an overview some of the theories on Jack the Ripper) but it could have done it a lot better.The book is divided into three parts. The first gives you just the cold facts based on the police-records, eye-whitness accounts etc. and this is just written horribly. Main clause after main clause. It reads like it was written by a fourth-grader...however I do get used to bad writing rather quickly (is that a good or a bad thing?) and it is not too long anyway.In that first part you also get a selection of the eywhitness-reports which seems rather random (I think for each canonical victim there is one whitness-statement) and the coroner-reports on the victims. The largest part is the second, a collection of various essays on the identity of the Ripper and before I read this I had no idea how special Ripperologists were. It's a bit like reality shows where the contestants call each other stupid just that they call each other's theories stupid. A lot of essays don't start with the authors own theorie but by pointing out how wrong the others are. Sometimes just a general 'oh these conspiracy-theories are so stupid' and sometimes they pick on two or three authors and explain why their theories just have to be wrong.If you ignore all that you are left with some theories that are on the spectrum somewhere between 'Yeah, these are good points' and 'What exactly is this doing in a non-fiction book?'. I kind of want to do an in-depth rant about at least half of the theories but I give you an abridged version:One - at least aptly called 'A novelists speculation' - doesn't even get the basic facts right: not all Ripper-victims had fingers or an ear missing.One guy seems far too busy pointing out how awesome he is, how many tv-appearances he made and how much the others suck so that there's not much space to flesh out his theory.Another rightly points out that it's hard to find information about possible suspects that were 'everyday people' because there aren't many records about them. He then goes on to give a fascinating - totally fictional - account about his suspects mental state, how desperate he was, how madly in love, only very little of it is verified by outside-sources. This is especially stupid as there is another essay, suggesting the same suspect (Mary Kelly's boyfriend) which gives more facts and actually managed to convince me that he might be one of the likelier candidates.I could go on and on about this. From all the essays there's only a small number that managed to convince me that this theorie might be worth looking at more cloesely. But after all, that's the point of a collection of essays. It's just that I'm now wondering if all Ripperologists are that mad and self-centered or if that was a bad selection.The last part throws some more semi-facts at us. It contains one chapter about possible other victims and one chapter is called 'Other suspects?' which is a strange title as most of those have already been mentioned in the main-part, some in passing, some with whole essays dedicated to them.Finaly we get a rather extensive Bibliography and Filmography of works dealing with Jack the Ripper.Overall a good starting-point if you're interested in the Ripper but I had expected more.
Recently watched Murder by Decree and From Hell (almost the exact same movie, except one has Sherlock Holmes) and read Anno Dracula, in which Saucy Jack figures prominently (albeit as vampire killer), and I wanted to read some of the history. This book certainly delivers, with lots of witness statements and such at the beginning and then a raft of essays positing a raft of suspects. A lot of these are interesting from the point of view of persuasive writing. I really might use some excerpts with my students because some of these are great examples of how to sound authoritative even if you don't have authoritative facts behind you. So why only 3 stars? Well, let's just say that devoting your life to studying grisly killings from another era does not necessarily make you a good writer. Many of these essays are poorly written to the point of being distracting. And by the time we got to the second round of essays for some of the suspects, I started feeling like this book was in fact a little too mammoth for its own good. Still, a great intro to the facts of the case.
Do You like book The Mammoth Book Of Jack The Ripper (1999)?
Mielenkiintoinen ja kattava tietokirja Viiltäjä-Jackista. Kirjan alussa esitellyt faktat tukevat loistavasti tutkijoiden kirjoittamia omia näkemyksiään murhista ja niiden tekijästä. Viiltäjä-Jackin mysteeri tuskin koskaan tulee selviämään ellei tulevaisuudessa keksitä aikakonetta, mutta tapaus on edelleen yksi historian mielenkiintoisempia. Oliko murhien takana yksi sarjamurhaaja vai joukko copycat-tappajia? Oliko syyllinen häiriintynyt taidemaalari, parturi, lääkäri, teurastaja vai jopa kuninkaallinen?Olen lukenut kirjan nyt kahdesti ja edelleen väittelen itseni kanssa siitä, kenen teoriaan uskon eniten.
—Kaisa
I find the subject matter and the constant debate about who Jack the Ripper was, fascinating and therefore try and read whatever comes up about the subject. However, this is such a dull read I can't be bothered to continue. It's not even got to the stage where various authors discuss their theories of who is the most likely suspect, it's a constant rehashing of the murders/autopsies and evidence, which is rehashed several times - so much so, I feel as though I know each individual death by heart.The initial section is the work of the editors yet I don't see any evidence of editing. I can only imagine the rest of the book is extremely unedited and boring so off I go to find a Ripper book actually worthy of my time. This isn't it!
—Yas
