This Looks Promising

[Gary Barnett]

I think a paper on the development of the ‘ballad myth’ might be very interesting. But that would probably be too controversial. Or something else emanating from here which demonstrates we are not as we have been characterised.

A list of significant recent research topics perhaps, to demonstrate what really goes on on the Forums.

[Paul]

Perhaps Rubenhold should be approached. I know 99.9% on here are probably blocked from contacting her. But if this conference is serious then perhaps extend her an olive branch.

I imagine she'd hit people with it.

[Paul]

I think a paper on the development of the ‘ballad myth’ might be very interesting. But that would probably be too controversial. Or something else emanating from here which demonstrates we are not as we have been characterised.

A list of significant recent research topics perhaps, to demonstrate what really goes on on the Forums.

Yes, but that was blown out of the water with ease. She criticised Dr Mickey Mayhew and the Chair of the Crime WritersAssociation, who both wrote 15 years ago, and who speak for themselves (as we all do) and not for Ripperology.

[Gary Barnett]

Yes, but that was blown out of the water with ease. She criticised Dr Mickey Mayhew and the Chair of the Crime WritersAssociation, who both wrote 15 years ago, and who speak for themselves (as we all do) and not for Ripperology.

You’ve lost me Paul, what did they write 15 years ago?

[Gary Barnett]

This looks like it’s about us:

some voices, irrespective of their expertise on the subject matter, have been omitted.

[Paul]

Hi Paul, personally, I am not commenting on the validity or usefulness of a conference like this, I hope it will be successful and achieve its aims. I was commenting that the language of the invitation and 'call for papers' does not seem to include a request for submissions from a specific group that I would necessarily identify with. In turn that suggested to me that it was a move away from being involved with 'Ripperology' and not including it.

It was written by Drew, so I suppose he just followed the style he's used to writing or seeing, and maybe he was more concerned to attract academics that Ripperologists, maybe figuring that Adam and Neil would attract us all along, but that academics might be put off if it sounded like an "amateur" do. It's not an easy conference to arrange, I think, both sides being potentially riddled with prejudices.

[Paul]

You’ve lost me Paul, what did they write 15 years ago?

The two authors cited by Rubenhold in the last chapter of The Five as examples of Ripperology listing the victims by attractiveness were Maxim Jakubowsky in his edited The Mammoth Book of Jack the Ripper and Mickey Mayhew in an article in the Whitechapel Journal, both published roughly 15-years ago. Both used language that could have been better chosen, but neither actually listed the victims by attractiveness, a claim which appears to be Rubenhold's personal slant on what was written.

[Rob Clack]

I imagine she'd hit people with it.

Probably would but get her in a room full of people who can debate with her in person and not over social media (if you are lucky enough not to be blocked). A publicised event. Moderated fairly would address a lot of the harm that has been done over the past 3 or 4 years.

[Rob Clack]

How can we? Her book is seriously flawed and she and her minions are still rubbishing us. The latest I heard is that Ripperologists rate the victims by their physical attractiveness.

I tried to add your comment in my post to Paul but I don't think you can do multi quotes on the site now.

[Paul]

Probably would but get her in a room full of people who can debate with her in person and not over social media (if you are lucky enough not to be blocked). A publicised event. Moderated fairly would address a lot of the harm that has been done over the past 3 or 4 years.

I very much doubt that she'd come anywhere near Ripperologists. As I have said before, it's shocking that any serious and self-respecting historian would overturn 130-years of accepted history and then avoid answering the concerns and criticisms of well-informed people. The only explanation I can think of for Rubenhold to be doing that is that she knows those people are right, and so she avoids them and does everything she possibly can to denigrate them. If that's correct, I can see no conceivable reason why she'd come within a million miles of Ripperologists.

[Adam Wood]

I very much doubt that she'd come anywhere near Ripperologists. As I have said before, it's shocking that any serious and self-respecting historian would overturn 130-years of accepted history and then avoid answering the concerns and criticisms of well-informed people. The only explanation I can think of for Rubenhold to be doing that is that she knows those people are right, and so she avoids them and does everything she possibly can to denigrate them. If that's correct, I can see no conceivable reason why she'd come within a million miles of Ripperologists.

You're probably right, but if you don't ask...

[Gary Barnett]

You're probably right, but if you don't ask...

Are you intending to…?

[Adam Wood]

Are you intending to…?

What makes you think we haven’t already, Gary?

Should we be checking in here before we send out the call for papers far and wide?

[Gary Barnett]

What makes you think we haven’t already, Gary?

Should we be checking in here before we send out the call for papers far and wide?

Is that the implication you took from my innocent question?

[Chris Phillips]

What makes you think we haven’t already, Gary?

Should we be checking in here before we send out the call for papers far and wide?

Probably that was meant to be a rhetorical question. But honestly, if the intention is to attract non-academics (including independent Ripper researchers), I really think a more down-to-earth and less jargony tone in the written material would have been helpful. And the omission of that implication that "revision" is what it's about. So I don't think it would have been a bad idea to ask a few more people's opinions before sending things out.