how to trace people
72 Following

Witty Little Knitter

I read fantasy, crime, true crime, lgbt-romance and books written by my favourite comedians. List not necessarily complete.
Sometimes I write for Bibliodaze

Currently reading

Stephen and Matilda
Jim Bradbury
Progress: 52/262 pages
Krieg und Frieden
Michael Grusemann, Leo Tolstoy
Progress: 579/1024 pages
Wer war Jack the Ripper? : Porträt eines Killers - Hainer Kober, Patricia Cornwell Disclaimer: I've only read about half so if you're able to give convincing reasons why my rating is absolutely unjustified and the second half will get so much better I will try to read the second half, too. Until then let my just say:Oh what a pile of pretentious crap.I honestly don't know where to start with my rage because while reading there wasn't a single moment where I didn't feel the need to throw this book against a wall.It's probably best to start with the biggest issue, concerning this is supposed to be non-fiction:Cornwell has no facts.No after reading several essays on the identity of Jack the Ripper I can say that she's the only one...but nobody else tries to hide them as badly as she does:Cornwell thinks that The Ripper didn't only kill the five canonical victims, but several more and that the first one wath Martha Tabram. She even admits that there's no proof that Walter Sickert - her suspect of choice - was in London at the time of the murder, and she hasn't really given any good reason why she thinks Sickert must be the Ripper. So the chapter goes like this:Sickert must be the Ripper.Tabram's last hours were like this.Now let me infodump on the role of women in Victorian society.Don't get me wrong: Reading that will make every woman really glad to live in today's world and it's not a bad think that a Ripper-book gives you some background-information...but that should be e.g. in the Introduction. You don't throw it in somewhere in the hope that your readers are so shocked that they forget that you haven't given them any proof on your theory.Cornwell does this over and over and over and over again. We get a history of Scotland Yard (starting 100 years before the Ripper-murders), an explanation how a crime-investigation is done today in the USA (Believe me: I wish I was joking), whining about how much the crime-investigations in the Ripper-murders sucked (yes, especially in the first murders it was done really sloopy...but she's also whining about the fact that they didn't have the forensic science we have today...WTF?), a description of psychopaths...And all that after a few pages in which she throws random speculation without any proper proof at us. (OK, from what I see, Sickert was very likely a misogynistic jerk...still not all misogynistic jerks are serial-killers). It is so bloody obvious that with all that she wants to distract from the lack of facts it hurts.Apart from that I also feel as if I'm being guilt-tripped into believing her theory. She goes on and on about how the victims were real people - which is great, as I recently did complain about the fact that many Ripperologists seem to forget that - but always with the disclaimer 'And don't they deserve justice? Look at me! If you belive me they will get justice!'Sorry Nobody was ever convicted for the Ripper-crimes and whoever ist was must be dead now, so, no. The victims didn't get justice in the traditional sense...and I honestly doubt that, no matter in what kind of afterlife you chose to believe in, it would make a difference for them if 100 years after the murders somebody has found the actual killer and manages to convince other people of that. So, please don't tell me you're doing that for the certainly didn't buy a two-page advert in a major newspaper, to promote your theory because you felt so sorry for the victims.Similarily Cornwell tries to make us belive that, yeah she did think about the implications of accusing somebody (though long dead and with no blood-relatives) of murder. So we're treated to that gem in which she's discussing her major doubts with her editor:“I am suddenly in a position of judgment,” I told Esther. “It doesn’t matter if he’s dead. Every now and then this small voice asks me, what if you’re wrong? I would never forgive myself for saying such a thing about somebody, and then finding out I’m wrong.”“But you don’t believe you’re wrong. . . .”“No. Because I’m not,” I said.Honestly? You give us a scene straight from a cheesy B-movie and that should make us believe that you actually gave this some thought? How stupid do you think your readers are?Oh...wait...judging by the rest of the book: really stupid