(a.k.a. RipperLady Does Cornwell, Part 3)
from RipperLady
Hi everybody. Well, today we're going to get a little closer to why Cornwell insists that Whistler's marriage drove her Ripper candidate over the edge. Next time, we'll actually get there!
But hey, let's look at something else first. If you came across the following description in a book or an article, what do you think you'd conclude about the person it described?
He had "blue eyes that were as inscrutable and penetrating as his secret thoughts and piercing mind. One might almost have called him pretty, except for his mouth, which could narrow into a hard, cruel line."
Inscrutable, penetrating, secret, piercing, (almost) pretty, hard, cruel. These are the adjectives you have to work with... and this is how Cornwell describes Sickert's facial features in her opening chapter. Think she might be loading the dice a little bit?
Hey, I'm not trying to "read into" Cornwell's text or "read between the lines." But Cornwell is a novelist. As a novelist, she controls, through her words, much of the imagery that the reader will "see" while reading the description. And the imagery she uses here is actually rather "stock" imagery for describing the villain in a novel. Sickert's eyes penetrate, his mind pierces (and what do knives do?). His eyes are inscrutable, his mind secretive... hmmm, so, he cannot be "read." To look at him, you would never know what he was thinking. And then, there's his mouth, hard and cruel. Not much interpretation needed there! She's instructing you on what to think.
Through the descriptive power of language, Cornwell plants an image in the reader's mind of a hard and cruel man... piercing, penetrating, and utterly secretive.
Another way of putting it is that Cornwell is using her descriptive powers in place of argument. She's trying to sway the reader on a somewhat subliminal level. And yes, using adjectives suggestive of cruelty and the type of secrecy necessary to be the Ripper is an effective rhetorical strategy. But in an argument--which relies upon facts, and putting facts together through a logical process--it's cheating. Sickert's facial features are irrelevant to the question of whether or not he is Jack the Ripper (unless, of course, they match a well-known description of one of the men seen with one of the victims on the night she was murdered... which, so far as I know, they don't). But with just the right wording, his features can be made to suggest that he is the Ripper.
.jpg?t=20120209092158)
Article comments
1 - jackie Hazan
I have read the Patricia Cornwell's book on Jack the ripper. I was very much intrigued by Sicket's sketch of "He killed his Father in a fight". If you look at the left arm of the dead father you can just make out the word Jack, look at the K. If you look very closely at the left top arm of the killer you will see the unmistakeable R. look at the top of where the knife is being held by the killer. There are two heads there which resemble very closely punch and judy. Look at the spiky hair of the killer's head. Sicket liked his hair spiky. look at the wooden knob of the bed, you can make out a sketch of a face rather like a puppet's face. Have a look at the dead Father's shoe. At first glance it reminded me of a woman's shoe with a heel. If anybody sees anything else of interest please let me know.
2 - Yo
I have just read Patricia Cornwell's book and unfortunately felt theories were based on supposition and speculation. Although the profile of the Ripper from facts known would appear to be that of an educated and clever person I am surprised to find Sicket living a full life without never revealing in a conversation or moment of weakness something about the terrible deads he did - or is that typical of a psychopath bahaviour of which I do not have an understanding. I am also not sure why fingerprints from Sicket cannot be found somewhere from the many papers, paintings, personal effects he left which could be compared to the fingerprint found on one of the ripper letters. The white overalls donated to some museum - do they not reveal a fibre/hair from Sicket which could also give a DNA picture?
3 - Mal.k.
Well, I am not completely finished with the book as of yet. But I have always been terribly intrested in Jack the Ripper and who he may be...I recently viewed (On the net) Some of his art...And after reading some of Cornwell's book, I don't see the paintings "morbid" Or that they hint that Sickert might have been the Ripper. Although her she does have a very good theory...Maybe I am just not lokking at the right ones. But I precieved that all of his paintings would be vicious and morbid, like she desribes... I haven't seen the painting "he killed his father in a fight" and I would so very much like to see it. If someone would tell me where I could look to view it, I would be extremely grateful.
4 - Mick James
I think you've pretty much nailed Cornwell's modus operandi here--it's like the old Marx brothers skit: "The stolen money must be in the house next door..." "But there is no house next door" "So what, we'll build one!".
What I can't work out is why Cornwell so desperately needs Sickery to have been the Ripper. I mean, why should she care?
5 - Mick James
I think you've pretty much nailed Cornwell's modus operandi here--it's like the old Marx brothers skit: "The stolen money must be in the house next door..." "But there is no house next door" "So what, we'll build one!".
What I can't work out is why Cornwell so desperately needs Sickert to have been the Ripper. I mean, why should she care?