|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 **
Mammoth Book of Jack the Ripper, The (Jakubowski/Braund)
Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Media: Specific Titles:
Non-Fiction:
Mammoth Book of Jack the Ripper, The (Jakubowski/Braund)
Author: Holger Haase
Saturday, 07 August 1999 - 11:58 pm |        | Books in the "Mammoth Book of..." series have so far always been very good value for money and encompass diverse subjects such as "The Mammoth Book of New Sherlock Holmes Adventures", "... Pulp Fiction", ".... True Crime", "... Ancient Wisdom", "... Erotica" and many, many more. Now a new book has come out dedicated to Jack the Ripper:
The Mammoth Book of Jack the Ripper. Edited by Maxim Jakubowski & Nathan Brand. Robinson: London 1999. 499 pages. £ 7.99.
The editors start it off with the "Undisputed Facts" of the case, a chronology and short summary of the murders before publishing the "Key Texts": several witness and autopsy reports, the "Ripper letters" and police views including the Macnaghthen Memoranda.
Following this essential collection of documents the publishers give a wide variety of Ripper experts their say.
William Beadle believes "The Real Jack the Ripper" was William Henry Bury, convicted to hang for the killing of his wife.
Mark Daniel does not mention a suspect of his choice. Instead he reveals "How Jack the Ripper saved the Whitechapel Murderer". He warns that researchers need to concentrate more on the facts and get away from the myths surrounding the killings.
Melvin Fairclough's "In Quest of Jack the Ripper" is a curious mixture combining elements of the case against James Maybrick with the humbug about the Sickert connection. It does, however, raise several questions opponents of the alleged Ripper diary have yet failed to answer.
Martin Fido again goes through "David Cohen and the Polish Jew Theory". He adds little new to his previous book on the subject.
Paul Harrison summarises his belief that Joseph Barnett was Jack the Ripper in "Catch Me When You Can".
And yet another essay on the diary: Shirley Harrison: "The Diary of Jack the Ripper".
Bruce Paley believes that "The Facts Speak for Themselves" when he also points the fingers at Joseph Barnett.
Sue and Andy Parlour think that "The Jack the Ripper Whitechapel Murders" were committed by James Kenneth Stephen with the help of Montague John Druitt.
Gary Rowlands suspects Thomas Barnardo, otherwise known as the founder of Barnardo's Homes, shelter for destitute boys, but dubbed "The Mad Doctor" by Rowlands. Yea, right... For my opinion on this kind of research, please read straight on.
M.J. Trow's "The Way to Hell" is a delight to read and a highlight of the book. He convincingly draws up a new theory: Jack the Ripper was Frederick Nicholas Charrington, founder of one of the largest temperance organisations of the time. But is he really....? After setting up a case against this gentleman, M.J. Trow admits in his last paragraph that it was all just made up. He wanted to show how "frighteningly easy" it is to "take the random jottings of a life - any life; it might be yours or mine - and build them into a sinister framework of guilt and complicity? That, in essence, is what we've done for a hundred years in the case of the Whitechapel murderer."
Great article. Ripperology needs more of that down-to-earth approach. Yet, I'm convinced that in the next few years someone will be inspired by the article and create "insurmountable proof" that Charrington really was the killer. Is anyone willing to accept a bet on that?
James Tully asks, "Was James Kelly "Jack the Ripper"?" He sure thinks so.
At dinner table conversations and pub talks I always like to quote Peter Turnbull's theory that Jack the Ripper never existed, that different people in copycat fashion committed the murders. It sure draws the attention of the listeners and gives me a chance to ponder a bit more about my favourite historical subject. Apart from serving as a starting point for conversations with non-Ripperologists, his book "The Killer Who Never Was" serves no purpose and is badly researched. Turnbull's articles "Jack the Ripper: Man or Myth" in the Mammoth collection is a short summary of the original book. He didn't convince me first time round. He sure doesn't convince me now. Read it and weep.
Ripperana's own Nick Warren wrote "The Great Conspiracy", an essay on various conspiracy theories connected with the murders. Very well researched!!!
The worst piece of gibberish I read about Jack the Ripper in a long, long time is Simon Whitechapel's (nice name, eh?) "Guts'n'Roses: The Coming Apocalypse of the Ripper Millennium". Call it what you like, astrology, hermetism, occultism, whatever... It's a pain to read and hard to take seriously. Keep watching the sky, lads.
A.P. Wolf, "Jack the Myth", knows who the real Jack the Ripper was. He just won't tell us. Quite ingenious, really.
The final proper essay in the collection, Colin Wilson's "A Lifetime in Ripperology", is again an absolute gem. It does what it says on the cover and leads the reader through six decades or so of Wilson's interest in the Ripper crimes. It finishes off with an evaluation of the alleged Ripper Diary and Paul Feldman's "Jack the Ripper: The Final Chapter". He is intrigued "how forcefully concisely Paul has presented his case" and gives details about his meetings with Albert Johnson & Co leading him to question his previous doubts about the diary. Highly recommended reading.
The editors then throw in a short summary of "Other Suspects" not covered by this book for good measure as well as a "Weather Report" and the mention of possible "Other Victims". They round up this remarkable collection with an impressive bibliography and a very disappointing filmography that ends with 1989's "Edge of Sanity".
Although "The Mammoth Book of Jack the Ripper" doesn't present anything revolutionary new on the subject of the murders - a good number of the essays are nothing more than summaries of the different author's previous books - it is a wonderful mixture of the good, the bad and the ugly. It is a good overview over some of the current theories on the market. Some articles are worthy of repeated reading. Others are complete tosh. But with a price like this, the collection is not only affordable, but excellent value for money.
Go and buy it! |
Author: Scriblerius
Sunday, 08 August 1999 - 01:58 am | | | It is certainly predictable that Colin Wilson would write about the Diary and this alone should be enough to sink it. From Uri Geller to alien abductions there is no idiocy that he has not embraced. Which is a shame because he writes very well. The first half of his essay is indeed very good. |
Author: Jane T
Wednesday, 11 August 1999 - 06:19 pm | | | Just finished reading it. I agree absolutely with Holger, M.J. Trow's piece was excellent. Likewise Simon Whitechapel's numerological esoteric rubbish irritated me. I suggest he puts his number obsession to better use - on the Lottery perhaps. After moaning all day about the chapter I went shopping for groceries and the bill came to £6.66! Sorry Simon! |
Author: TS Simmons
Tuesday, 19 February 2002 - 11:14 pm | | | An interesting, entertaining collection for new students of the case, and those interested in an overview of the major suspects. |
Author: david rhea
Wednesday, 20 February 2002 - 06:17 pm | | | I bought this book and enjoyed it even though I thought Maybrick received more emphasis than the others.Compared with Camille Wolf's book which is the better.I have toyed with the urge to buy hers, but it is too expensive for such few pages.The critic on the Casebook thinks hers is superior what say you?Is it worth the money for more than a collector's item. |
Author: Jack Traisson
Thursday, 21 February 2002 - 01:04 am | | Hi David,
In no other JtR book will you find the opinions of over 50 well-known enthusiasts. On this point alone it is worth getting Camille Wolff's 'Who Was Jack The Ripper' compilation. Yes, each essay is about 600-700 words, but it is quality that counts. It is aimed at the collector and serious student rather than the casual observer.
The scarce collector's item was the limited edition book of 100 numbered copies, signed by almost all of the contributers.
There are really only about half-a-dozen essential Ripper books. After that, it is a question of what you can afford plus what you want to buy.
Cheers,
John |
|
|
|
|
