|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Stephen P. Ryder
Board Administrator
Username: Admin
Post Number: 3044
Registered: 10-1997
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 13, 2004 - 2:04 pm: |       |
Ok, there's no question that Cornwell's Portrait of a Killer is never going to win the "Best Ripper Book" award from anyone who knows anything about the case... but my question is this: Is it any worse than the average Ripper book?
I say this because honestly, as someone who has read just about every non-fiction Ripper work ever published, I'm not sure that it is. The "average" suspect-based Ripper non-fiction is loaded with factual errors and wild speculation based on scanty or non-existent evidence. That's just par for the course. We've come to expect that sort of "cowboy reasoning" from the garden-variety Ripper book.
Truth be told, Portrait was well-written (apart from Cornwell's tendency to jump sans transition between completely unrelated topics). There were factual errors, but really only a few... assuming we overlook what are better classified as 'errors' of interpretation. She did her homework, and perhaps most importantly she brought a level of forensic science to the study.
My point is, why is the Ripper community so harsh on Cornwell? In relation to other authors of suspect-based Ripper books, I don't think hers is any worse than 20-30 other books I can mention off the top of my head. Few, if any, of those authors have received the level of criticism that Cornwell has. Why is that?
Is it Ms. Cornwell's high-profile? Her fame? Her financial success? Is it her character (self-assured, abrasive, sometimes smug) that turned people off?
Or is there a level of misogyny involved here (perhaps even homophobia)? Its interesting to me that the two Ripper theories of recent times that have received the most vicious criticism were both introduced by women - Shirley Harrison for the Diary, and Patricia Cornwell for letter-writing Sickert (as opposed to the Sickert of Overton-Fuller fame, which received very little notice by comparison). The number of non-fiction female authors in this study can probably be counted on one hand, and yet two of them have been the target of enormous wrath by Ripperologists as a whole.
What it comes down to is this - Do we resent Cornwell's theory, or do we resent Cornwell?
If the same book had been written by an amateur, male author, unknown to all of us - would we still have raised such a fuss?
Stephen P. Ryder, Editor
Casebook: Jack the Ripper |
Michael Raney
Inspector
Username: Mikey559
Post Number: 274
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 13, 2004 - 2:17 pm: | |
Stephen,
Whether the Author was male or female makes no difference. I was excited to read the book, not because I accepted her suspect or theory, but because I really enjoy her fictional works. What I found was a lot of incoherent rambling. Is her book better or worse than any other suspect based non-fiction Ripper work? Debatable. I think there are some far better done books. There are also a lot worse. I agree, she did do a lot of research (whether I agree with her conclusions or not) and she did bring forensic experts into the case, which was new and exciting. I just don't think that she put it together well.
Come on everybody, jump in with an opinion comparing it to other non-fiction Ripper books.
Mikey |
Ally
Inspector
Username: Ally
Post Number: 500
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 13, 2004 - 2:27 pm: | |
God help the world when stream of consciousness in a non-fiction book and total lack of transition is considered "well-written".
Christ, what would qualify as badly written? Being able to put together a grammatically correct sentence does not a well-written book make.
And yes, the reason is Cornwell's fame. When you have the means to reach the audience that she has and convince thousands of gullible dips, the reactionary response will be just as great.
 |
Chris Michetti
Detective Sergeant
Username: Pl4tinum
Post Number: 115
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 13, 2004 - 2:58 pm: | |
Well, I've only read one other non-fiction JTR book and that's Sugden's book. So, I find this book to be pure crap. But that's a biased opinion since I haven't read jack squat yet.
Chris 
|
Stephen P. Ryder
Board Administrator
Username: Admin
Post Number: 3045
Registered: 10-1997
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 13, 2004 - 3:06 pm: | |
Maybe its just because I've had to read so many truly horrible Ripper books that I tend to be a bit more lenient on authors like Cornwell... I suppose if you've only ever read Sugden or one of the more respected titles, then yes, the book would appear to be an absolute trainwreck in comparison. 
Stephen P. Ryder, Editor
Casebook: Jack the Ripper |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1508
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 13, 2004 - 3:12 pm: | |
Stephen,
I must say I don't agree with you one bit.
Sure, there are a vast number of Ripper books on the market that are questionable, especially those that goes "suspect-hunting".
But yes, I do feel that Patsy Cornwell's book really stands out, and I'll tell you why. I am yet no expert on the Ripper, but apart from the late Stephen Knight's book, I hardly think it's possible to find a Ripper book that is based on such sloppy research and manipulated, twisted facts. I have to date read nine books on the subject, and although most of them commit intellectual suicide towards the last chapters by stressing the new extraordinary "final" suspect, they nevertheless have their advantages and are sometimes a very good and entertaining read, even if you don't agree with them. Very few of them includes such crude attempts of discolouring the facts and the evidence in such a dishonest way, as we can see in Portrait of A Killer.
Actually Cornwell's book is not even well written! Some parts shines through, like when she's discussing the social conditions and the police corps, and maybe even more when she is describing the lives of the female victims. And I have no objections to her forensic medical discussion. But it ends there.
The "detective" and investigation parts, and the main parts about Sickert -- parts I thought would be the book's greatest assett, considering her usual occupation as a fiction writer -- was so amateurish and poorly written, that I've seen better story-telling and better language in high school essays. No, the book is not well written -- actually is one of the worst in the field I have ever read. It has nothing to do with grammar -- it is all about rytm and flow in the story-telling. It felt like a child of twelve had written some of the sentences.
Of course one have greater expectations on a well-known author, but I would have reacted even if an amateur had written the same text.
Let me turn it around and put it like this: if she wasn't a house-hold name, the book would never had found a publisher in the first place!
I do not only resent Cornwell's handling of the facts, I also resent her writing (at least as far as that book is concerned). Her fame is of no interest to me in valuing her book, since she is fairly new to me as an author (she is not that big in Sweden anyway) and I haven't read her Scarpetta books. Possibly they are better pieces of work than Portrait of A Killer -- I certainly hope so.
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 1032
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 13, 2004 - 5:05 pm: | |
Well, Stephen has a valid point.
If you want real bad then go to ‘Murder and Madness: The Secret Life of Jack the Ripper’, London 1992 by Abrahamsen.
This volume could have been written by a less than agile gibbon.
I suppose it is a very personal thing in the end.
I mean, I believe anything written by Colin Wilson to be far, far worse than Cornball’s vain attempt to get into bed with the profilers and forensic scientists, and he has had his co-authors - no names mentioned - who have been quite happy to climb into bed with him to get into print.
But I guess some people might feel the same way about the stuff I write, especially that man in the potting shed with the Burberry deer stalker on his head… and his co-authors.
Stephen might be right about the sexist thing, we might not realise we are doing it, but we are doing it.
I suppose in the final analysis it is the title of the book that itches the scratch… and the snobbery of course.
She is a snob, right?
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1510
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 13, 2004 - 5:23 pm: | |
I must admit I haven't heard of that title by Abrahamsen, AP. And since I haven't read it I can't comment on it, but maybe one should check it out, if not only for a good laugh...
I can agree on that Colin Wilson is... well, how shall I put it... an eccentric. But at least he is a good story-teller. Cornwell is not.
Oh no, please don't give me that sexist rubbish. Who bloody cares if the author is a man or woman? It is the content and the product that is of value, nothing else -- at least as far as I am concerned.
No, it's not just the snobbery and the cocky title -- she is certainly not alone in that regards among the writers.
It is just simply bad detection work and bad writing -- plain and simple, no more no less.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on April 13, 2004)
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Natalie Severn
Chief Inspector
Username: Severn
Post Number: 657
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 13, 2004 - 5:40 pm: | |
Yes,she is a snob AP and her snobbery comes out strongly in slips of remarks about the victims.I especially remember her making some vile comment about Catherine Eddowes and thinking how contemptuous and uncharitable a comment it was.
The other matter I took issue with though I agree mostly with Glenn"s remarks here is that she had no compunction about saying Sickert WAS the ripper which was an affront somehow and unlike others who say they think it likely or that their suspect was "probably" etc.Here we have someone making things up as she goes along about Sickert
and then without reference to trial/jury /fair play or any other reasonable qualification announces Sickert as Jack the Ripper.
On the basis of his paintings this is complete and utter rubbish.
On the basis put forth in Stephen Knight"s book
I think there may be some kind of link to a cover up but not of JtR"s murders rather of voyeristic [possibly of Prince Albert]interest that created concerns at a high level and maybe Sickert who seems to have had links with the Royal Family
helped cover up some of the antics.Also I do think he was fascinated by it all---anyone familiar with that?
Natalie |
Jeffrey Bloomfied
Inspector
Username: Mayerling
Post Number: 334
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 13, 2004 - 9:39 pm: | |
I hate to be a party-pooper on this thread, but it occurs to me that even a weak book (say Cornwall's, or Donald McCormick's or Michael Harrison's) has occasional value in opening up areas of inquiry even if they are not fully acceptable. If anything positive came from Patricia Cornwall, it was a reawakened interest in the work and life of Walter Sickert. If anything positive came out of Harrison's attempt to deflect attention from the Royal Family or Dr. Gull, it was to remind us of the brief literary career of James Kenneth Stephen. If the Diary did anything positive, it was to reawaken inquiries into the Maybrick Tragedy of 1889. All these weak (or so-called weak) books are capable of reawakening our curiousity. It may not fine the Whitechapel Killer, but it does lead to more scholarship into late Victorian and Edwardian England.
Jeff |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1514
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 14, 2004 - 1:28 am: | |
That is indeed a good point, Jeffrey.
The problem is that those books also destroys and poisons the Jack the Ripper case with false an incorrect information -- as well as fantastic theories and whims -- but I see your point, and I can certainly agree on it. That is of course a side of things that can't be over-looked.
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Caroline Anne Morris
Chief Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 982
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 14, 2004 - 9:19 am: | |
Hi All,
Cornwell seems to have poked her nose in where it was not wanted. She has certainly managed to generate a huge amount of resentment among ripper 'enthusiasts', for want of a better term.
For a few strange people, this resentment may have something to do with her gender, but to give everyone here the benefit of the doubt, I don't see this as an issue. I see it more as a territorial thing. This author committed the crime of assuming she could do a better and faster job than anyone else already in the field, while remaining aloof from that field herself, and criticising the inmates for their own lack of success in getting on the right track and finding Jack.
No wonder this bred deep and lasting resentment. No one likes their own ideas, opinions or beliefs criticised or challenged, especially by some upstart who thinks she knows the lot.
But I would like to know a couple of things.
Had Cornwell presented her case properly, using solid evidence backed up only where absolutely necessary with good objective argument, would the resentment against her be less and, if so, how much less?
And what if she had found something in the evidence that the majority of ripper enthusiasts had to admit was as near to proof as damn it, that she was on the right track and she had indeed found Jack at last?
Would the initial resentment fade and turn to more positive emotions (that's what we are talking about here isn't it? Emotions) like acceptance and respect?
Or would final proof breed the mother of all resentment?
In other words, how would we view, and treat, the person who finally showed us the house that Jack built?
Would we be man enough - or woman enough - to a man, or to a woman, to say well done, good job, the ladies can now rest in peace?
Just wondering who would think it was worth giving it their best shot, if they realised they would only be shot down in flames for rocking the status quo if they got it right.
The person who does it would have to be very strong, very determined, unafraid of being different from the majority, but above all, I believe they would only deserve to succeed if they were truly doing it from good intentions, and not because they sought glory. They would never, IMHO, find themselves covered in glory anyway - not in this life, and certainly not by those who would so deeply resent being proven wrong.
Love,
Caz
X
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1517
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 14, 2004 - 10:54 am: | |
Caz,
Yes, I believe there is a territorial thing going on in Ripperology as well as in other fields, especially the academic ones.
"Resentment" is a strong word in this context -- for me this have no real emotional issue, I am just kinky about factual supports in a theory; this I have bread during the years in university.) Anyhow, if territorial marks were enough to explain the "resentment" against her findings, we should see the same reaction at every occasion a book is published on the subject. Which is not the case. So the territorial thing isn't a valid enough explanation.
Cornwell gets the same treatment as everybody else, as far as I am concerned, based on how they treat the facts and delivers their arguments. Cornwell didn't do a great job and she is met with reactions appropriate to the cockiness in her tone while she at the same time fails to convince. Any author who tries to manipulate the facts in a calculating way gets battered for sticking their neck out -- as they should be. Just look at Stephen Knight, for God's sake.
And I am not prepared to make excuses for her, regardless of feministic issues or the territorial grounds of Ripperology. As I said earlier, the fact that she is famous and a well-known writer blows up the demands and the expectations, but everyone gets what they deserve -- cobble stones or roses -- depending of the nature of their arguments and their results.
The person who sets out to point the finger at Jack's house, saying "this is where he lived" will probably be put on a stake as well, if he or she can't verify his or hers findings with convincing reasoning or material.
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Dan Norder
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 14, 2004 - 1:23 am: | |
I think the big difference here, Stephen, is that you have read all the books that most of the rest of us here skip. Whenever titles are talked about people seem to own or recommend the works that are based largely on the history and known facts, and then, after that, some of the less whacky suspect-oriented books. Cornwell's is the only off the deep end Ripper title I have, because I could pick it up in a used bookstore for a buck because it was mass marketed and enough people wanted to get rid it of after reading it that it's cheap. If for some crazy reason I wanted some of the other more dubious titles, I'd have to pay somewhat substantial bucks -- not huge, but not insignificant. The question then becomes why would I want to bother...
I certainly am pretty vocal whenever I think anyone is jumping to unsupported conclusions, regardless of whether it is Cornwell or not. Gender, orientation, or whatever else (like nationality, as Conrwell sometimes uses as an excuse why she thinks Ripperologists don't like her) has nothing to do with it.
Most of all, I think it's the in-your-face quotient. Publicity and noise level have a big effect. The author pushing for the Ripper as rogue secret agent ninja who supposedly carved ancient Mesopotamian glyphs into Eddowes' face (has that even been released yet? see, I don't know, not in my face) doesn't show up on TV and doesn't have a bunch of supporters wandering by these boards to call us all stupid. I don't feel the need to go an a rant about the Lewis Carroll anagram guy because there's no noise in favor of it and the only media mention I saw it get treated it as an odd curiosity and not something to be taken too seriously. |
johnnyred777
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 14, 2004 - 5:41 am: | |
Iam just making my way through PC's book at the moment....
As with most books there are some good things and some bad things ..
I think Cornwell sums it up at the beginning when she says to her agent that she is in trouble with this book...
It is poorly written and more importantly EDITED.
Jumps from place to place with some reason at times and at others for no apparent reason at all.
There has been some attempt to present it chronologically but it looks and reads as though it has simply been dictated.
The book has an undercurrency of male hate (whatever the word is..) and seems to base much of argument on outdated Freudian penis envy...
The Major criticism I have of Cornwell's book though is it is largely based on "opinion" which is very subjective at best...she extrapolates parts of "evidence""people's words and letters" to strengthen her own argument withoout referencing to any documentary evidence, including Sickert's paintings. No way to check, which usually appears in even the worse Ripper books.
The Major compliment I can give Cornwell is that at times she can present a scene like no other. There are many gems within the pages of this book If Cornwell had stuck to the tried and true formula of a non fiction book that is set out in clearly defined structure then it may have been very widely accepted.
Having said all this Cornwells' book deserves a place in the body of Ripperology literature and some of its contents need to be examined very carefully...Sickert would appear to be up to some sort of mischevious behaviour at the best and could be the Ripper at worst.
|
maria giordano
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 13, 2004 - 4:28 pm: | |
I read the first 3 or 4 Scarpetta books but then they became increasingly redundant and boring.
Cornwell is a waaay out there,raging,whacko feminist. I heard her say that she got interested in JTR because of the way he abused women.She draws damn little distinction between a sexual predator and the average guy sitting in a house somewhere who is in her world view,after all,a potential sexual predator.
I saw her on TV lecturing about the case not too long after the book was published.She was frantically telling the audience that they HAD to believe her--that she HAD found the killer.
Part of her hysteria must have been because she had spent all that money and was now stuck with those ugly old paintings and here the Ripperologists wouldn't just shut up and sit down but kept questioning HER solution--how dare they. Didn't they know who she was??
I got the strong feeling that she was so angry at Jack, so infuriated by the crimes that once she set her mind on a suspect (or should I say "victim"?) she had to tear him to shreds in front of the whole world to avenge all womankind for everything every man ever did to us.Thanks, Patsy, but I'm perfectly capable of my own avenging.
So yes, it might be her celebrity and ability to use it that irks so many of us. And her arrogance about having solved the case- she is a mystery writer after all! But to me it's this desperate need to punish that puts me off. |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1519
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 14, 2004 - 11:24 am: | |
I agree, Maria.
I noticed that throughout the book as well.
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Sarah Long
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 1007
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 14, 2004 - 11:31 am: | |
There's only one thing that gets to me about this book and that is the arrogant title. If anyone at all had written a book claiming that they had completely solved the case then I think they would also get a case of the sharp tongue from real experts.
In fact that's another thing that irritates me. She wasn't/isn't even an expert in Jack the Ripper and yet she still arrogantly claims to have solved what other real experts can't.
Such arrogance!!
Sarah
Smile and the world .... will wonder what you've been up to.  |
Chris Michetti
Detective Sergeant
Username: Pl4tinum
Post Number: 118
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 14, 2004 - 11:50 am: | |
She claims that he was the first suspect in the case she was ever told about. Tell me, how many of us, when we first came to the casebook, picked one suspect as our favorite right away? Of course we changed our minds, but she couldn't because she had already spent so much time and money on the book. She probably already knows she was completely wrong. Who knows maybe she's writing another book on another suspect, case closed 2, portrait of another killer.
AP Wolf, I love the comment about the agile gibbon. That made me laugh out loud, thank you.
Caz,
"Had Cornwell presented her case properly, using solid evidence backed up only where absolutely necessary with good objective argument, would the resentment against her be less and, if so, how much less?
If she had done so, she wouldn't have been able to call her book "Case Closed" sooo I think that explains the problem here. She wanted to steal the spotlight from everyone and be the one to solve it. She even writes in the note in the preface "John Grieve of Scotland Yard.. you would have caught him", as if to say that she took his pet suspect and did what he couldn't do, and then rubbed it in his face.
Chris
|
Paul Jackson
Detective Sergeant
Username: Paulj
Post Number: 115
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 14, 2004 - 9:11 pm: | |
I enjoyed the Book....Not saying that I think Sickert is a great suspect, but it was a good read. She does need to learn to spell Tabram correctly.
Paul |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1531
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 14, 2004 - 9:20 pm: | |
Not to mention "Stewart P Evans", whom she called "Steward" [sic!].
Nobody's perfect, but such an error shouldn't really slip through professional proof-reading, if the author herself is careless enough not to bother about such matters.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on April 14, 2004)
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Paul Jackson
Detective Sergeant
Username: Paulj
Post Number: 118
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 14, 2004 - 11:11 pm: | |
And every other line was..................
"there is no evidence to suggest that Sickert did...this, that, or the other...but there is no evidence to suggest that he DIDN'T".
That got on my nerves.
Oh glenn...I just read the infamous Maybrick Diary book. I have to say it was interesting, but my opinion is that its a load of cow dung. A good forgery though with a few things that will make you think, but way way too good to be true. Regards.
Paul |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1533
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 15, 2004 - 2:22 am: | |
I agree, Paul.
At least, the Diary doesen't tell us any startling details about the murders. No dates, no numbers, nothing we don't already know. Besides, there are a few factual errors which doesen't actual add up with the real facts. That's suspicious.
Well anyway, no need to turn this into another of those inflating Diary threads.
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Chris Michetti
Detective Sergeant
Username: Pl4tinum
Post Number: 121
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, April 15, 2004 - 9:50 am: | |
I agree Paul, it's as if Cornwell was writing that in there over and over just to attempt to cover her a$$.
Chris
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Chief Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 990
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 15, 2004 - 10:42 am: | |
Hi All,
Maria, you wrote:
But to me it's this desperate need to punish that puts me off.
I agree. And there's nothing quite like punishing the wrong person for putting me off even more.  If Sickert wasn't the ripper - and I've seen no evidence that he was - he doesn't deserve to be punished as if he was.
Cornwell, on the other hand, should take her own deserved punishment like a woman - with good grace.
Actually, Glenn, the diary tells me something new about the murders at fairly regular intervals.
Did you know, for instance, that Jack liked to treat his victims to a little something from the missus to make them look - how should I say - more deserving of their punishment?
I didn't until recently, and it all fits very nisely with all the evidence too.
Hi Paul,
Just wondering how less good you think a real confession should look, in order to be true.
But please, no responses on this thread. You both brought the diary up this time, not me. So if you'd like to respond, could you put it under Maybrick or send me an email? Much obliged.
Love,
Caz,
X
|
|
Use of these
message boards implies agreement and consent to our Terms of Use.
The views expressed here in no way reflect the views of the owners and
operators of Casebook: Jack the Ripper.
Our old message board content (45,000+ messages) is no longer available online, but a complete archive
is available on the Casebook At Home Edition, for 19.99 (US) plus shipping.
The "At Home" Edition works just like the real web site, but with absolutely no advertisements.
You can browse it anywhere - in the car, on the plane, on your front porch - without ever needing to hook up to
an internet connection. Click here to buy the Casebook At Home Edition.
|
|
|
|
