Jack the Ripper is...

[biggytitbo]

It's very hard to take this seriously in comic sans.

Does he provide evidence that shows it was Gull? No, because it wasn't.
Does he provide evidence Netley (a real person) was involved in anyway? No, becuase there isn't any.
Does he provide evidence that here was any masonic element to the killings at all? In the motive, the state of the bodies, the Goulston graffiti etc. No, because there is no such evidence.
Does he provide evidence it had anything to do with any member of the Royal Family in anyway? No, because there isn't any.
Does he provide any evidence that any of the victims knew each other? No because there isn't any.
Does he provide any evidence that there was a coach, or that the killer wore a top hat and carried a gladstone bag? No because there isnt any.

This list could go on for a few dozen pages. Moore might have done a good job in getting the mise en scene right but all the important parts of his story are nonsense and very silly nonsense at that.

[Cerys]

No, he doesn't provide evidence for the Gull theory, outside of what is suggested by Stephen Knight.  Moore first cites Jack the Ripper: The Final Solution as his inspiration for From Hell in the first paragraph of Appendix I,.  He mentions on the same page that 'there are grounds for supposing that much of Final Solution may have been intended as an ingenious hoax'.

Look back at all your arguments, biggy.  They're all based on the premise that Stephen Knight's Gull theory is bunkum.  I don't believe anyone here has disagreed with you about that.  I know I haven't.

[biggytitbo]

Yes and I did say I appreciate that it's acknowledged as at least partially fictional. Problem is if you base your story on The Knight theory then what follows has to be a string of nonsense. You have to drag in the masons and the royal family and perpetuate all sorts of myths about the protagonists, how the bodies were found, the realtionships between the characters etc.

[Cerys]

Seriously, biggy.  Just read the damn book.  All of it.

[rudi]

Seriously, biggy.  Just read the damn book.  All of it.

[biggytitbo]

Seriously, biggy.  Just read the damn book.  All of it.

I have read the book Cerys.

I'm saying the story told in the book is nonsense.

We all appear to agree on that, so lets leave it at that.

[Cerys]

No.  The theory on which the story is based may be bollocks.  That doesn't make the book flawed.  And by your own admission you haven't read it all.  Your dismissal of Alan Moore as a crap researcher who uses other people's work to 'embellish' his own writing is laughably ironic at best and insulting as hell at worst.  Your own failure to grasp simple concepts and ironies within this very thread alone suggests that you are unsuited to accuse someone else of poor research.

[biggytitbo]

No.  The theory on which the story is based may be bollocks.  That doesn't make the book flawed.  And by your own admission you haven't read it all.  Your dismissal of Alan Moore as a crap researcher who uses other people's work to 'embellish' his own writing is laughably ironic at best and insulting as hell at worst.  Your own failure to grasp simple concepts and ironies within this very thread alone suggests that you are unsuited to accuse someone else of poor research.

I have not dismissed Alan Moore in that way, From Hell has many good qualities. I have dismissed the description of the book as the ultimate book on the subject incorporating every fact there is or whatever the exact wording was. It is not those things. It's a book predominately based on one of the silliest and most a-historical theories ever invented about the subject, the story it tells is nonsense and it perpetuates many key myths about the case that still contaminate the study of it to this day, eg the killer having medical knowledge which is not true. Moore acknowledges that he mixes fact and fiction and has notes at the back which explain that. Excellent, we all appear to agree so can we stop having this argument as its really boring.

Also I'm not arguing that there can't be fictional versions of the story, I have and enjoy many, The Christopher Plummer film, the 1973 Barlow and Watt series and the Caine film are all great. But unfortunately there is no doubt that these fictions, including From hell, have had the effect of pretty much permanently contaiminating fact and fiction on the case to the extent that 90% of what most people know about the subject is myth.

[rudi]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQsRClW77_4

[Cerys]

I have not dismissed Alan Moore in that way,

Oh dear, biggy.  Here comes that quote again:

Its a work of fiction that incorporates no known facts about the case ... apart from the names of some of the protagonists and victims there is not a single fact in From Hell that bears any resemblance to what actually happened.

[biggytitbo]

Oh dear, biggy.  Here comes that quote again:

Fair enough that was an exaggeration.  But even you admitted he's perpetuating myths. The fact remains that the vast majority of that book follows the Gull theory and that theory is totally untrue.  Not just untrue but dependent on a vast string of extremely silly myths and untruths, all of which are trotted out by Moore.  It's not the 'ultimate book' on the subject in that case. You make the perfectly good point that Moore is a novelist and he does acknowledge he's mixing fact and fiction. That's fine. Fact and fiction that have unfortunately become permanently intertwined in most peoples understanding of the case, so much so that the myths Moore perpetuates in fiction in From Hell are now thought to be historical facts by most people. 

An interesting analogy would be Oliver Stones JFK. Its a meticulously researched film, every frame of which has an amazing amount of historically accurate detail. The companion book of the film goes through virtually every line in the script and footnotes it with references and facts. He also goes through all the other vast array of theories people have come up with over the years. Some would still argue he got all the important bits wrong. Although I agree with his overall conclusion, even I admit he perpetuates myths that have now permanently become enshrined, because of his immense skill as a director, into facts in many peoples minds. Even though Stone has openly admitted he was creating a 'counter-myth'.

[Cerys]

Fair enough that was an exaggeration.  But even you admitted he's perpetuating myths. The fact remains that the vast majority of that book follows the Gull theory and that theory is totally untrue.  Not just untrue but dependent on a vast string of extremely silly myths and untruths, all of which are trotted out by Moore.

Read the book.  Seriously, biggy, read it.  Don't carry on digging yourself deeper into the trench that you started scraping the minute you admitted to not having read it completely.  If you'd bothered to read it properly then you'd know why your dismissal of Moore's use of 'silly myths' in this argument is ridiculous.

Read.  The.  Book.

[biggytitbo]

Jesus! I. Have. Read. The. Book.

What on earth are you arguing about? You're saying the William Gull story Moore tells in From Hell is fictional. Agree. I'm saying the story about William Gull Moore tells in From Hell is historically inaccurate and perpetuates myths.

You appear to be holding two opposing viewpoints at the same time.

[Cerys]

What I'm saying is that if you had read the book, you'd know that part of it shows Moore's exploration of how the conflicting theories continue to perpetuate a number of Ripper myths.  He uses the Gull theory not only because it makes for good fiction, but also because it's a theory that he himself believes may well be a hoax.  And if you'd read the book from cover to cover you'd know that.

[gigolo aunts aren't gentlemen]

I think Biggy makes a perfectly valid point - not everyone who reads the book is going to read the appendices - I don't know anyone who bothered to, so a large proportion of his readership could assume that Gull is one of the most likely suspects. Whatever Moore's intentions, which were undoubtedly noble and cool, he has perpetuated myths.

It is ridiculous that the argument has carried on this far, and I don't really think it's Biggy's fault at all. Why does Jack the Ripper make everyone like this?

[Mr_Simnock]

Quote from Cerys

Why can't you come to the conclusion I have Biggy?

[nb]sorry[/nb]

[Ignatius_S]

I think Biggy makes a perfectly valid point - not everyone who reads the book is going to read the appendices - I don't know anyone who bothered to, so a large proportion of his readership could assume that Gull is one of the most likely suspects. Whatever Moore's intentions, which were undoubtedly noble and cool, he has perpetuated myths....

Not even The Dance of the Gull Catchers? That has pictures and everything. In that section, it's quite clear where Moore is coming from and, if I remember correctly, it mentions that Knight's theory is questionable (to put it politely). In that section, Moore talks about how 'Ripperology' has become an industry and the reality is we will never know who was responsible for the deaths. I also seem to remember that Campbell's afterward expresses a belief that Gull wasn't the killer.

I suppose some will read From Hell and think that Moore is earnestly putting forward the idea that Gull was Jolly Jack and no further reading is required, but that says more about those people, than about Moore perpetuating myths. If some folk looked at the article that Neil Gaiman co-authored and nodded in agreement that it made perfect sense that Sooty, as a 8-inch glove puppet, could have stalked the streets of London without arousing suspicion, was the most likely suspect, it doesn't change the fact that the intention behind the article was to poke fun at the way people come up with sensational solutions to the killings, rather than to provide a satisfactory hypothesis.

[biggytitbo]

I suppose some will read From Hell and think that Moore is earnestly putting forward the idea that Gull was Jolly Jack and no further reading is required, but that says more about those people, than about Moore perpetuating myths.

It's not about reading it and someone thinking 'this is exactly as it happened', its more than in choosing to tell that particular story a whole much of myths have to be wheeled out and reinforced that many people do actually believe - ie the ripper had medical knowledge.

[rudi]

I think Biggy makes a perfectly valid point - not everyone who reads the book is going to read the appendices - I don't know anyone who bothered to,

Really?

I can't imagine reading most of a book.

Colour me bemused...

[Ignatius_S]

It's not about reading it and someone thinking 'this is exactly as it happened', its more than in choosing to tell that particular story a whole much of myths have to be wheeled out and reinforced that many people do actually believe - ie the ripper had medical knowledge.

As a work, From Hell is rather more than just an account of who the Ripper was - you said as much earlier in the thread. Why on Earth should Moore restrict himself to the strict facts? Or because of what some people erroneously believe?

Put it this way, did From Hell suffer as an artistic work by the approach that Moore took?

[Dead kate moss]

The Appendices, which indeed make the book fantastic and much more informative, are not in all editions of the collected From Hell.

[George Oscar Bluth II]

I think it was Biggy. He seems to know an awful lot about it.

[Famous Mortimer]

historically inaccurate and perpetuates myths.

Something you're entirely comfortable with in nearly every other thread of this sort.

[Maybe Im Doing It Wrong]

Bearing in mind the last chapter features Gull's spirit travelling through time to inspire William Blake, Ian Brady, and Peter Sutcliffe, it's kind of obvious From Hell isn't meant to be an accurate and factual analysis.

[biggytitbo]

Bearing in mind the last chapter features Gull's spirit travelling through time to inspire William Blake, Ian Brady, and Peter Sutcliffe, it's kind of obvious From Hell isn't meant to be an accurate and factual analysis.

That's not the point. From Hell contains obviously fantastical elements, but its depiction of the details of the case, details no casual  reader would expect to be fictional, that perpetuate myths.

[Ignatius_S]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-14207581

Basically, an excpetionally lame article to drum up publicity for a show - someone has taken their 'number one' suspect and as there are no photos of him, has produced an e-fit.

[Famous Mortimer]

That's not the point. From Hell contains obviously fantastical elements, but its depiction of the details of the case, details no casual  reader would expect to be fictional, that perpetuate myths.

I think if you're taking your factual analysis from a comic, and you've got all the way to buying it / reading it without knowing anything about the man who wrote it, then your problem may be a little bigger than thinking the wrong person did the murders (hypothetical "you").

[Jemble Fred]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-14207581

Basically, an excpetionally lame article to drum up publicity for a show - someone has taken their 'number one' suspect and as there are no photos of him, has produced an e-fit.

I always knew Timmy Mallett was wacky, but calling your daughter Xanthe is going too far.

[biggytitbo]

I always knew Timmy Mallett was wacky, but calling your daughter Xanthe is going too far.

Some of Marriot's theories are pretty interesting actually, worth read anyway.

[Ignatius_S]

Some of Marriot's theories are pretty interesting actually, worth read anyway.

This one he's been touting for a few years - and this "new e-fit" looks remarkably like an artist's rendition of Feigenbaum that Marriot used in one of his books.

Marriot's theory of Feigenbaum as the Ripper hasn't stood up to scrutiny in the past – and I doubt that's changed.