This Looks Promising
Collapse
X
-
-
Yes, that word ‘revisions’ stuck in my craw somewhat. Perhaps, though, it’s the academics whose methods need revising. Judging by The 5 and The Thames Torso Murders they need some advice on how to handle source material.
As for where we fit in among the target audiences, I think we might just squeeze into the ‘local history groups’ category, and, if it wasn’t for me bad back, I’d give the ‘sex workers’ category a go.
👍 2Comment
-
Yes, that word ‘revisions’ stuck in my craw somewhat. Perhaps, though, it’s the academics whose methods need revising. Judging by The 5 and The Thames Torso Murders they need some advice on how to handle source material.
As for where we fit in among the target audiences, I think we might just squeeze into the ‘local history groups’ category, and, if it wasn’t for me bad back, I’d give the ‘sex workers’ category a go.
And Ripper researchers are neither local historians nor a group. Perhaps we're meant to be included in "social, cultural and crime historians, criminologists and other academics". But as the wording stands, obviously we aren't.Comment
-
Well, Hallie Rubenhold is not an academic, and despite the impression given on her website she does not have a doctorate. So the academic world can at least be absolved of responsibility for her doings.
And Ripper researchers are neither local historians nor a group. Perhaps we're meant to be included in "social, cultural and crime historians, criminologists and other academics". But as the wording stands, obviously we aren't.Comment
-
I think Ripper researchers have legs in all kinds of places, but I don't think "local history groups" would be an accurate overall description (and I don't think it was meant to refer to us).Comment
-
No, I’m sure it wasn’t meant to include ‘us’. But what are we?
When HR and her acolytes started their campaign of hate against ‘Ripperologists’ I had a bit of an ‘I’m Spartacus’ moment, but am I really a Ripperologist? I’d struggle to name the favoured suspect of most of those I’ve got to know on here. Does Debs have a preferred suspect? Does Rob Clack? Did Robert? I couldn’t tell you.Comment
-
Interesting that the Gentle Author (who writes the Spitalfields Life blog) is making a big fuss over the ripper tours at the moment (all ripper tour operators and not just one). So I will be surprised if his input is not asked for.Comment
-
No, I’m sure it wasn’t meant to include ‘us’. But what are we?
When HR and her acolytes started their campaign of hate against ‘Ripperologists’ I had a bit of an ‘I’m Spartacus’ moment, but am I really a Ripperologist? I’d struggle to name the favoured suspect of most of those I’ve got to know on here. Does Debs have a preferred suspect? Does Rob Clack? Did Robert? I couldn’t tell you.
I was trying to avoid using "Ripperologist" (though I haven't entirely succeeded), because that term has a lot of baggage. But I think whatever one calls it, Ripper-related research doesn't have to be suspect-oriented. Not that there's necessarily anything wrong with being suspect-oriented.Comment
-
Are 'we' even referred to? It reads to me as if they want to move away from people like us and aim for a different group of people, academics and historians. And how are these people being approached? I have only seen mention of this conference in Ripperology circles.
Interesting that the Gentle Author (who writes the Spitalfields Life blog) is making a big fuss over the ripper tours at the moment (all ripper tour operators and not just one). So I will be surprised if his input is not asked for.👍 1Comment
-
The language of woke academia was used as that is the done thing for the audience and participants they clearly want to attract.
The victims of tour guides, sex workers (or should that be rough sleepers wrongly accused by the patriarchy of being sex workers), users of local libraries (guilty).Comment
-
Yes, Ripperologists and academic historians have different interests, but that doesn't mean those interests can't be shared and be of interest to both, and it doesn't mean that the interest in the lives and actions of the people involved can't be expanded into what was going on in the much wider world. The Whitechapel Murders are history and they have their own history from 1888 right up to right now, on this very page, where we are perhaps showing what Ripperology is and our attitudes to it.
Ripper studies is a cosy, tightly self-contained world, where we moan among ourselves and celebrate our successes or have a good old moan among ourselves. Nobody hears us. If Hallie Rubenhold has shown us that our voice doesn't shout loudly enough to get heard. Many people clearly think we're misogynistic, cellar-dwelling fantasists drooling over thoughts of prostitutes and blood and photos of dead women, pointlessly arguing over whether Jack the Ripper was Lewis Carroll or the Duke of Clarence, and going on for years about Lechmere and the Maybrick 'diary'.
I see the conference as an opportunity for Ripper researchers to take their interest into the wider world, to show such academics as might attend that we're not all about and to see how their interests can extend ours. As I see it, 'Jack the Ripper' is history. It slots into the bigger picture of what was going on in 1888 and is part of it. Our interests are as much a part of that history as those of the academic are. I'm interested in what we are interested in, but I'm also interested in what the academics are interested in. But the thing is, nobody has to attend the conference or submit an idea for a paper. If it's not our cup of tea, we don't have to attend.Comment
-
I think the normal term for people without an academic affiliation would be "independent researchers".
I was trying to avoid using "Ripperologist" (though I haven't entirely succeeded), because that term has a lot of baggage. But I think whatever one calls it, Ripper-related research doesn't have to be suspect-oriented. Not that there's necessarily anything wrong with being suspect-oriented.Comment
-
Yes, Ripperologists and academic historians have different interests, but that doesn't mean those interests can't be shared and be of interest to both, and it doesn't mean that the interest in the lives and actions of the people involved can't be expanded into what was going on in the much wider world. The Whitechapel Murders are history and they have their own history from 1888 right up to right now, on this very page, where we are perhaps showing what Ripperology is and our attitudes to it.
Ripper studies is a cosy, tightly self-contained world, where we moan among ourselves and celebrate our successes or have a good old moan among ourselves. Nobody hears us. If Hallie Rubenhold has shown us that our voice doesn't shout loudly enough to get heard. Many people clearly think we're misogynistic, cellar-dwelling fantasists drooling over thoughts of prostitutes and blood and photos of dead women, pointlessly arguing over whether Jack the Ripper was Lewis Carroll or the Duke of Clarence, and going on for years about Lechmere and the Maybrick 'diary'.
I see the conference as an opportunity for Ripper researchers to take their interest into the wider world, to show such academics as might attend that we're not all about and to see how their interests can extend ours. As I see it, 'Jack the Ripper' is history. It slots into the bigger picture of what was going on in 1888 and is part of it. Our interests are as much a part of that history as those of the academic are. I'm interested in what we are interested in, but I'm also interested in what the academics are interested in. But the thing is, nobody has to attend the conference or submit an idea for a paper. If it's not our cup of tea, we don't have to attend.Comment
-
Comment
Comment