Well, I've finally finished Cornwell's monstrosity, so I thought rather than keep it in generalities, I'd try to give an overview of the book and pick at a few of the most egregious errors in structure.
Portrait Of A Killer: Jack The Ripper Case Closed by Patricia Cornwell Several years ago I saw a national news segment on this book, and I said that I would read it sooner or later because, well, the Ripper is an interesting phenomenon and I appreciate the idea of approaching it forensically -- DNA testing, handwriting comparison, et cetera. The news segment seemed to make a pretty convincing case, but then it was a very general report.
Let me say this right now: This is a terrible book. Not only does it accuse a man who has no way of fighting back, it degrades his achievements as an artist and it presents a highly skewed and manipulative view of his life and personality. I could care less about Walter Sickert or Patricia Cornwell, and I've never encountered either one of them artistically before this book -- I didn't know Sickert even existed, and while I'd heard of Cornwell I'd never read any of her books. I thought she was a forensic pathologist (she's not). But even I can see that Cornwell is skewing facts, and I find it rather offensive to my intelligence, because she doesn't even do it subtly.
( Cornwell's assertion is that Walter Sickert was Jack the Ripper... )Final Verdict: This could have been a good book -- could even have convinced me -- if it had been written coherently. Don't bother reading it. Certainly don't spend money on it. All that this book has given me, aside from the above-mentioned trivia, is an interest in Walter Sickert's art.
Up next: The Lovejoy Mysteries! Or, why a scruffy antiques lover gets all the girls.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
