|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** This is an archived, static copy of the Casebook messages boards dating from 1998 to 2003. These threads cannot be replied to here. If you want to participate in our current forums please go to https://forum.casebook.org **
Archive through February 7, 1999
Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Media: General Discussion:
New Books:
Archive through February 7, 1999
Author: Paul Begg
Friday, 01 January 1999 - 09:54 am |        | Does anybody have address details for the following advertised by Amazon?
The Bell Tower : Jack the Ripper in San Francisco
by Robert Graysmith. Hardcover - 300 pages (February 1999) Regnery Pub; ISBN: 0895263246
Synopsis
London, 1896: The Jack the Ripper murders have stopped as mysteriously as they started.
Five years later, in San Francisco, brutally murdered bodies begin to appear. In a gripping
tale based on historical fact, the author who solved the Zodiac murders reveals the true
identity of Jack the Ripper. National TV tour.
The Ripper murders stopped in 1896? Doesn't sound too promising a start for a book based on historical fact, but I'd like to get a copy... |
Author: Yazoo
Friday, 01 January 1999 - 11:03 am | | Hey, Paul,
And he "solved" the Zodiac murders? And here I thought he only wrote a well-received book about Zodiac. An amazing career move, solving those murders...no wonder he's after the Ripper.
Regnery Publishing also seems to be the publisher of the M. J. Trow "Lestrade" books, if that helps any. You can maybe find the congolmerate that owns the imprint. I don't own any of the books or I'd provide more info.
Yaz |
Author: Christopher-Michael
Friday, 01 January 1999 - 07:39 pm | | Paul -
Regnery Publishing's address is:
1 Massachusetts Avenue NW
Sixth Floor
Washington DC 20001
Telephone: 202.216.0600
Fax: 202.216.0612
Their books are also, I believe, distributed by National Book Network; I don't have their address, but any halfway competent clerk at a WH Smith's should be able to get it for you. . .
Christopher-Michael |
Author: Paul Begg
Friday, 05 February 1999 - 06:28 am | | The Last Victim: The extraordinary life of Florence Maybrick, the wife of Jack the Ripper by Anne E. Graham and Carol Emmas. Foreword by Keith Skinner. Published by Headline, London, 1999. ISBN 0 7472 2335 1
In his foreword Keith gives a brief account of how the "Diary" controversy fuelled Anne's interest in Florence Maybrick. Pretty much the same story, with some valuable personal commentary, is told by Anne in her introduction. This, apart from one chapter detailing the Ripper crimes, is all there is in this book about the contentious "Diary". No doubt this will come as a huge disappointment to those who awaited the publication of this book in the mistaken belief that it would be yet another re-working of the "Diary" story.
So, this is a mercifully "Diary"-free account of the Maybrick case and IMHO The Final Victim is a highly readable account of this cause celebre and raises some very interesting arguments about the complicity of other family members in the death of James Maybrick.
On the "Diary" front, I don't know what if any implications are to be found in Anne claiming in print that the "Diary" was a family heirloom. Or, indeed, in a book having (presumably) been sold to a publisher and by the publisher to the public on the basis of that claim. |
Author: Christopher T. George
Friday, 05 February 1999 - 09:20 am | | Hi, Paul:
You stated:
"On the 'Diary' front, I don't know what if any implications are to be found in Anne claiming in print that the 'Diary' was a family heirloom. Or, indeed, in a book having (presumably) been sold to a publisher and by the publisher to the public on the basis of that claim."
This is not exactly so, is it? Wasn't the Diary sold to the publisher and by the publisher to the public on the basis of the claim that the Diary was given to Anne Graham's former husband Mike Barrett by his mate Tony Devereaux in a Liverpool pub? The present claim by Anne Graham that the "Diary" had been in her family for decades and that she gave it to Devereaux to give to Barrett is a relatively new claim that she espoused subsequent to the 1993 publication of Shirley Harrison's "The Diary of Jack the Ripper" by British publisher Smith Gryphon Ltd.
Chris George |
Author: Veritas
Friday, 05 February 1999 - 01:20 pm | | Is there anything at all new in this book on the Maybrick case? It has been so well covered in previous popular books that I am sure nothing new of any relevance will emerge.
Also, this book is being marketed on the false assertion that Florence Maybrick was the 'wife of Jack the Ripper,' merely as a sales ploy? Or are there other implications? That having been said, whatever relevance is there in going over the story of the Ripper murders for the umpteenth time? So although Mr Begg may label it "Diary" free, by implication it is very much diary related. For if Ms Graham is to be believed, not only does she provide provenance for the hoax diary, she is also allegedly related to Florence Maybrick!
Mr Begg's close alliance to anything diary is again noted. It will be remembered he sprang into print on publication of the new edition of Shirley Harrison's diary book. |
Author: Paul Begg
Friday, 05 February 1999 - 02:33 pm | | Chris, all I was saying is that although Anne told the heirloom story to Paul Feldman she, if lying, only lied to him. Here, though, if she is lying, she has (presumably) sold a book to Headline on the basis of that lie and Headline, in accepting that lie, are using the lie to sell the book to the public. In other words, this book is a further extension of Anne Graham's lie; an extension of the web of deceit she is weaving. To make the point even more plain, hitherto she has apparently lied (if, indeed, she has lied) to protect her father and help Mike or to stop Feldy from upsetting her family and friends. A laudible motive perhaps. But here she has not deceived anyone for any noble purpose. She has lied so that her book would find a publisher. The implications of this lie are...?
And do you have a point, Veritas, beyond re-stating what I already said? I said that with the exception of Keith Skinner's foreword, Anne Graham's introduction, and one chapter about the Ripper crimes, the book was a largely a straightforward account of the Maybrick case which raised some interesting questons about the involvement of other family members in James Maybrick's death. I think it was thus very clearly stated that the book was "Diary" free (in simple terms, it did not tell the story of the Maybrick case through the supposed eyes of or otherwise with reference to the "Diary") and that its raison detre (or the reasons which distinguished it from the books which have preceded it) were the questions it raised about the involvement of other family members in James's death.That there is a "Diary" link was stated in what I said and the point I made was precisely the one you repeat, namely that the book is marketed on the basis of the claim that James Maybrick was the Ripper, and I express personal uncertainty of the implications of this.
As for springing into print, I reveived a review copy of Shirley's new edition and a review copy of Anne's book. I thought others might like to know that the books are available. In future I won't bother. You can find out about the new books and tell them. |
Author: Christopher T. George
Friday, 05 February 1999 - 02:43 pm | | Hi, Paul:
Thanks for your clarification, which I appreciate. In your original post, it appeared that in talking about a book being presented to a publisher you were talking about Shirley Harrison's diary book, since you had just mentioned the "Diary." Now I see that you actually meant the book by Anne Graham, which I agree wholeheartedly was possibly presented to the publisher under false pretenses if it turns out that the story Anne is telling that the diary had been in her family for decades is not true, and that instead the diary is, as many of us believe, of recent manufacture.
Chris George |
Author: Christopher T. George
Friday, 05 February 1999 - 02:55 pm | | Paul:
In regard to your query about "The Bell Tower: Jack the Ripper in San Francisco" by Robert Graysmith, and your skepticism about a book that says the Ripper series of murders ended in San Francisco in 1896, my understanding is that this is a work of fiction that mixes historical fact in the format of a novel. In other words, we are talking of a novel along the lines of Caleb Carr's "The Alienist" (Random House, 1994) which also mixed fact (e.g., Theodore Roosevelt as Commissioner of Police in New York City), an alienist à la Forbes Winslow, and a Ripper-like series of crimes. It is also akin to Truman Capote's "In Cold Blood" which has recently come under fire for not exactly being the true crime account that Capote originally claimed but a "novelization" of the Cutter murders that occurred in the midwest United States in the 1950s. One wonders then what if anything Graysmith's work will contribute to the already glut of works on the Ripper and whether it will offer any enlightenment on the baffling series of crimes that occurred in the Autumn of Terror.
Chris George |
Author: Paul Begg
Friday, 05 February 1999 - 03:06 pm | | | Thanks Chris. I realised the book was a fiction, but it is said to be based on fact and I tongue in cheek suggested that the murders stopping in 1896 didn't promise a lot for the rest of the factual content. Is Bill Bryson a writer well known in the States? He once did a tour and stopped at the town where the In Cold Blood murders took place. Hardly anyone there knew about them. "The kids here don't read anyore", said a teacher! Anyway, Bryson writes great books. |
Author: Christopher T. George
Friday, 05 February 1999 - 03:31 pm | | Hi, Paul:
To answer your question about Bill Bryson, he is indeed well regarded as a writer in the United States. He has just published a well-reviewed book titled "A Walk in the Woods: Rediscovering America on the Appalachian Trail." The reaction he got from locals in regard to knowledge of the Cutter murders described in Capote's "In Cold Blood" does not surprise me in the least. Not to wander to far afield on this, as you may know, I am also a writer on the War of 1812, and several years ago I was standing by a monument on the North Point battlefield outside of Baltimore and asked a couple of kids what they knew about the battle, and of course they said, "What battle???" I suspect this is also the case in the East End of London, reflective in your recent comment of resistance to the naming of the pub "The Jack the Ripper"--people either do not know or do not care. It is we writers and afficianados of the Ripper who would like to see the genre expand and flourish and see sites and relics preserved, but lamentably that is hardly the trend at large among the general public.
Chris George |
Author: Christopher-Michael
Friday, 05 February 1999 - 08:11 pm | | Chris -
To the best of my knowledge (and please correct me if I am wrong, Paul), the renaming of the "Jack the Ripper" back to the original "Ten Bells" was, rather than the outcome of ignorance or lassitude, the result of feminist outcry; the same, I believe, as prevented a Whitechapel theatre group from staging performances of the Pember/DeMarne musical "Jack the Ripper" in 1988.
In order that I not be misunderstood, perhaps I should say that I am using the word "feminist" in a catchall sense. Many people were involved, but the enterprise was very woman-oriented. It was felt that the brutal murders of five helpless women should not be trivialised by tawdry exploitation and commerce, and I can only agree with such a sentiment. I am actually in favour of the TB remaining so, as that was its original name and more in line with a Ripper atmosphere.
It's a two-edged sword, really. The serious student of the case would like to see the sites marked or recognised in a restrained sort of way, but people don't want others trampling through their neighbourhoods, especially in remembrance of events that, depending upon one's perspective, are a fascinating mystery, gruesome preoccupation or patriarchal gynocide. What will be left of it all in 2088 - and will anyone care?
Christopher-Michael |
Author: Anonymous
Saturday, 06 February 1999 - 08:41 am | | | Well. it looks like Anne Barrett has finally released her book. It's now only a matter of time before we get the typically vitriolic response(s) from Melvin Harris, ripper content or not. |
Author: Anonymous
Saturday, 06 February 1999 - 09:14 am | | | Obviously the truth does not concern YOU. |
Author: Caroline
Saturday, 06 February 1999 - 12:49 pm | | Oh no, our attempts at a clean-up of the boards may be falling on deaf ears again everyone. It is so easy to type these short sharp bits of ill-thought-out criticism. Unfortunately, the previous poster gives no clues as to whether he/she would recognise the truth if it bit him/her, so we can at least ignore the content on that basis.
Caroline |
Author: Anonymous
Saturday, 06 February 1999 - 01:02 pm | | | Bit like you??? |
Author: Yazoo
Saturday, 06 February 1999 - 07:43 pm | | Hey, Caroline!
Kind of like the movie, Beetlejuice. Say "Anonymous" three times and prestodigitation, there they are!!! I bet if you say Beetlejuice three times, the Anony-mouses will suddenly disappear!
Try it.
Yaz |
Author: Jon Smyth
Saturday, 06 February 1999 - 10:51 pm | | Caroline, your suggestion has not fallen on deaf ears.
To All:
We are to encourage everyone to join in a civil exchange of opinions & ideas, and please try to refrain from making personal comments towards others who write on this board.
This is a public forum viewed by people of all ages (incl. children) and therefore courtesy is a priority, Thankyou. |
Author: Christopher T. George
Sunday, 07 February 1999 - 07:42 am | | Jon:
I second your comment. Net courtesy should be the keyword. While Anne Graham's contention that the Maybrick diary is an old artifact may be as bogus as the diary itself, I am still curious to read her book, although I presume (as does Anonymous) that it will not add much to our knowledge of the Maybrick Case. I anticipate receiving a copy shortly and will be reviewing it for "Ripper Notes," the new quarterly newsletter of Casebook Productions, Inc., about which there will shortly be news here on the Casebook.
Chris George |
Author: Caroline
Sunday, 07 February 1999 - 08:40 am | | Hey Mr Anonymous,
Not like me in the least actually, because I have not said anything about 'knowing' the truth. As you already know all the answers, I do find it a tad unfair of you never to share any more of your God-given information with us poor imperfect mortals. Please tell us poor fools exactly where we are going wrong, or I may be forced to use my trusty curmudgeon, named Yaz, to knock you senseless!
Lots of sympathy,
Caroline |
|
|
|
|
