Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

"Skewering The Ripperologists" Bad Women Podcast- Hallie Rubenhold

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts


  • Originally posted by Gary Barnett
    Ah, yes. She may have done. Personally, I’d want want to see the original, just to make sure there wasn’t a transcription error or omission. In fairness to HR, she probably had so much to research that taking CB stuff at face value was probably the only practical option. She made a similar mistake with the Cowdry household.
    She should have employed that tactic with the Mrs Buki research, that way she'd have got a bit closer to the truth.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Debra Arif View Post

      She should have employed that tactic with the Mrs Buki research, that way she'd have got a bit closer to the truth.
      I’m secretly glad she didn’t pick up on the Breezer’s Hill mob. :-)

      The MJK section of The Five was the most disappointing for me.

      Comment


      • Will Gore in The Spectator recommends Hallie Rubenhold's book in an article entitled "The best crime novels to buy for Christmas":
        A weighty non-fiction book is a go-to present for many last minute Christmas shoppers, and The Five by Hallie Rubenhold would be an excellent choice for lovers of true crime and social history alike. With reams already written about Jack the Ripper, Rubenhold focuses instead on his victims, who are ‘the five’ of the title: Mary Ann Nichols, Annie Chapman, Elizabeth Stride, Catherine Eddowes and Mary Jane Kelly. What results is a fascinating book that tells their stories with compassion and precision, while also bringing Victorian London vividly to life. The book was recently awarded the Baillie Gifford Prize for non-fiction, and, as the judges’ said upon announcing it as the winner, 'It is a book we would all give to a friend for Christmas, knowing that they will have finished it with pleasure by New Year's Day.'
        https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/...-for-christmas [registration required]

        Comment


        • I wonder if Will Gore knows anything about the subject? It's the same with the Baillie Gifford judges; it kind of makes a mockery of the prize if the judges weren't in a position to properly assess the book.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Paul View Post
            I wonder if Will Gore knows anything about the subject? It's the same with the Baillie Gifford judges; it kind of makes a mockery of the prize if the judges weren't in a position to properly assess the book.
            I was curious about the same question myself. The list of judges can be found on Wikipedia:
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bailli...rd_Prize#2010s

            Media types seem to predominate. Some had academic positions, but as far as I could see their subjects were English Literature and Social Sciences. No academic historians. Admittedly the prize is for non-fiction in general rather than specifically history, but nevertheless it seems a bit strange.

            Comment


            • You only have to look on Amazon and see the reviews for the Stephen Knight book. Universally positive. What constitutes a valid reviewer? I’d say someone with knowledge of the subject at hand or at least someone who is willing to take an objective look at what others have written on the subject for comparison and context. Rubenhold’s pre-publication publicity agenda was believed uncritically then her book and her research has been believed and reviewed uncritically. People are attracted to the idea of someone treating the victims as human beings after years of neglect by an army of ‘misogynistic’ ripperologists. A David against a Goliath. So they choose a ‘side.’ Wrongly of course. If I see a book on the Tudor’s whose review do I go with? David Starkey or Eamonn Holmes? Likewise a book on the Ripper. Paul Begg or Keith Lemon?

              Lemon of course.
              Regards

              Michael🔎


              " When you eliminate the impossible whatever remains no matter how improbable......is probably a little bit boring "

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Michael Banks View Post
                You only have to look on Amazon and see the reviews for the Stephen Knight book. Universally positive. What constitutes a valid reviewer? I’d say someone with knowledge of the subject at hand or at least someone who is willing to take an objective look at what others have written on the subject for comparison and context. Rubenhold’s pre-publication publicity agenda was believed uncritically then her book and her research has been believed and reviewed uncritically. People are attracted to the idea of someone treating the victims as human beings after years of neglect by an army of ‘misogynistic’ ripperologists. A David against a Goliath. So they choose a ‘side.’ Wrongly of course. If I see a book on the Tudor’s whose review do I go with? David Starkey or Eamonn Holmes? Likewise a book on the Ripper. Paul Begg or Keith Lemon?

                Lemon of course.
                Lemon? An unimaginative if wise choice. If I knew who Keith Lemon was, I might even be more fervent in my agreement.

                Comment


                • Leigh Francis - Wikipedia

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Paul View Post

                    Lemon? An unimaginative if wise choice. If I knew who Keith Lemon was, I might even be more fervent in my agreement.
                    If I see him reviewing books in Ripperologist then I’m taking up knitting.
                    Regards

                    Michael🔎


                    " When you eliminate the impossible whatever remains no matter how improbable......is probably a little bit boring "

                    Comment


                    • The Juice is the show that will not be blamed …

                      Comment


                      • you lot talking of reviews/reviewers and not remembering me makes me feel sad...
                        (i haven't read/don't own the five!)

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Lemonjelly View Post
                          you lot talking of reviews/reviewers and not remembering me makes me feel sad...
                          (i haven't read/don't own the five!)
                          You should read it. You'll already know all about the victims because much of the research was on here or Casebook or in Ripperologist, but the opening and concluding arguments are likely to be repeated in one form or another by the underinformed for years to come.

                          Comment


                          • A review of just the bibliography would be interesting. As I’ve said before, it’s a Who’s Who? of Ripperology.

                            For instance it lists Tom Wescott’s excellent ‘Exonerating Michael Kidney …’ article, which can be found on Casebook.

                            https://www.casebook.org/dissertatio...ng-kidney.html

                            Here’s an extract from it


                            The Daily News reporter was interviewing a woman at a mission house where Stride was known, and was told the following:
                            ‘The woman who looks after these mission rooms, “continued the speaker, “was another of the same class, and who used to be an associate of the poor creature murdered in Berner-street. She saw her only last Thursday, and she - that is, the murdered woman - said then that she felt all was coming to some bad end.”
                            The missionary made mention of another associate of the Berner-street victim. She also was believed to be trying to regain respectability, and it seemed worth while to go down into the depths of the neighbourhood that was formerly known as Tiger Bay to hear what this woman had to say about her former companion. She was found in a small back room at the inner end of a dark court not far from the scene of the murder, and proved to be a vivacious widow with three children, and one eye to look after them with. She first knew the dead woman three years ago, she said, and she was then certainly very pretty, always had a nice clean apron, and was always smart and tidy. She took up with a labourer, said the woman, and “lived indoors with him,” but he beat her and so ill-used her that she was forced to turn out in the streets. She took to drink, and seemed to grow reckless and desperate. For two years she never saw anything of her, but recently the deceased called on her old acquaintance, who had got her own room and a few scraps of furniture about her. The desolate woman congratulated her old acquaintance on having a comfortable home (!) invited her to come and drink with her, and, this being refused, she took out twopence-all she had in the world-and insisted on sharing it for old acquaintance sake. “Oh dear, oh dear!” ejaculated the woman, “ain’t it awful though!” “No doubt all these poor creatures are dreading to go into the streets,” it was observed. “I should just think they was,” was the reply. “Why, they’re a’most afraid to sit indoors. I gets my living among ‘em,” continued the woman with frank communicativeness-“not them as lives at the lodging-houses like her,” she explained; “there ain’t much to be got out o’ them, but the regular respectable ones. I does charing for ‘em, and lor’ bless you they just are scared. ‘I shall turn it up,’ they says. But then, as I says, what have they got to turn to?”


                            Two women who knew Stride at the time of her death implying she was a prostitute. I know HR doesn’t deny Stride had been a prostitute, but why leave this information out?

                            Interestingly, she describes the activity in Berner Street around the time of the murder and describe’s Stride’s injuries. I thought that kind of thing was ‘exploitative’.


                            Comment


                            • Don't forget that most damningly (in my opinion) Rubenhold also wrote about Nichols' fellow lodgers at 18 Thrawl Street of whom it was reported, "It was gathered that the deceased had led the life of an "unfortunate" while lodging in the house, which was only for about three weeks past. Nothing more was known of her by them..." (Pall Mall Gazette, 1 September 1888), which she edited so that it appeared to support her claim that it was the journalist who said this. Rubenhold can hardly dismiss the reliability of this newspaper report when she felt it was reliable enough to support her story.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Paul View Post
                                Don't forget that most damningly (in my opinion) Rubenhold also wrote about Nichols' fellow lodgers at 18 Thrawl Street of whom it was reported, "It was gathered that the deceased had led the life of an "unfortunate" while lodging in the house, which was only for about three weeks past. Nothing more was known of her by them..." (Pall Mall Gazette, 1 September 1888), which she edited so that it appeared to support her claim that it was the journalist who said this. Rubenhold can hardly dismiss the reliability of this newspaper report when she felt it was reliable enough to support her story.
                                I haven’t forgotten that, Paul.



                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X