From Hell

OK, so I know we have the Cult of Moore floating around here, and far be it from me to question his greatness, but...

...well...

...in this case, I have to question his editing.

It seems to me that it's a little flabby in places. I find it strange, because usually you can read his stuff and you can't really think where something might have been better left out. (I'm talking specifically about the comics and their structure, not the movie adaptions which NEED to make cuts and pare it down tot he plot bones - and consequently loose a lot of the nuance.)

If you assume my hypothesis for a moment, is it because he's trying to work a plot around real events?

There are also aspects that come off as a little contrived. Same reason?

I know he did a boat-load of research for the project and formed his own theories as to the actual facts of the case (aside from the delusional/mystical elements), but some of it comes off like he just didn't know where to stop... so he didn't.

I'll get my flame-retardant suit out now.

Scarlet... you scare me.

** MAY CONTAIN SPOILERS **

Spoiler thing as a courtesy. I woulda thought if you read beyond the initial post, you've read of seen the movie.

I got the subtext. The whole lower classes trying to make a living and being deemed unworthy, while the more acceptable society are the ones who commit the true crimes in the story. That Gull comes from the lower classes to become as high as he does, only to fall again. Get it all.

I'm thinking that it just could have been done so much tighter. It feels a little self indulgent. And I don't say that as a slam on Moore. I think we ALL do that. But that's why we have Editors. Even if he brought the project to the publisher as is, they still have an editorial panel, surely?

The whole Lees part, came off like a contrivance. It's a convenient plot device.

And Pruitt. He comes off like one of those things that Moore wanted to include and forgot about, then remembered and did, just so he could give the epilog a bit of gravitas.

The internal politics of the police and beyond could have been cut.

Sickert seemed such a pivotal character and then just gets dropped. He knows what's happened, we see he feels guilt/remorse/something, but then he's gone.

And Abberline's connection to Kelly came off as a tease. Oh I know there was an element of happenstance about it, mirrored by the part of who dies. But given Moore obviously works in a fantastic element to the whole thing, making this a piece of fiction, it's just left hanging.

Maybe I was spoiled by his straight fiction. Maybe real life pales in comparison to his plotting. I was just disappointed.

And just to add fuel to the flamethrowers, the art didn't work for me either. I liked the art, I just thought it was wrong for Moore. He usually has character heavy work, and all the ladies-of-the-night looked alike, and the gentlement looked a like, so it made it difficult at times to work out exactly what was going on with who. Now I could see a creative reason to do this, to point out that all invloved were the same, no different, no better, no worse, but ultimately it didn't work for me.

And the real folk cameos came off as lily-gilding. Though I can see why he did this, but on top of everything else, I was less willing to cut him some slack.

If I hadn't read some of his other stuff, and knew what he could do, I wouldn't be inclined to pick up his stuff again, and I'd wonder what all the fuss was about. I think he uses his research and reference material much better in other works I've read.

I just started wading through the appendix section of the collection.

Certainly did his research. But that only seems to prove that he had lots to cram in.

And like Axler says, the plot really isn't anything new (which again, I think I have to admit being a little disappointed with considering the source). And this one lacked Sherlock Holmes using a scarf as a blunt-force-trauma-inducing weapon!

See, Axler and I can agree.

Axler said:

Also...wasn't there a Jack the Ripper TV movie or mini-series a decade or so ago with Michael Caine as Abberline chasing down and nearly executing William Gull?

Click to expand...

And Lewis Collins, pouting in a threatening manner!

But no skull-cracking scarf.

The Babylon 5 episode with JTR was pretty interesting too.

And since we're off on a tangent, isn't there one where JTR steals HG Wells' Time Machine?

Just finished reading Appendix II.

THAT was more like the Moore I know. Even showed glimpses of the old, old, old Moore and his "DR & Quinch" days.

What I did find interesting, and again, this is just what I brought from this part, was that he seems to admit that "ripperology" is like some infectious brain disorder. When you dip in, it starts to consume you in it's own twisted, self-sustaining logic and lies.

The chaos-theory analogy seems very apt. A shape with an infinite bounding edge and a finite area. You can keep going and going and going, and the truth is maybe in there, but you'll never find it.

Maybe the truth is, as he suggests, less important than the mirror it holds up to the person/society looking on. The horrors of the acts reveal the dark-side we would rather ignore in our current world. And maybe that does loose that evil through time.

I'm gonna choose to take the Appendix II as a literary apologia. Yes, I was sucked in for a while, lost in the insanity, but look, I'm all better now. It restores my faith.

A faith which is clearly not as strong as PeeDee's!

scarletpeaches said:

Um, yeah...I was just clarifying for those who might not know the theories on the wording.

Click to expand...

OOOW!

CAT-FIGHT!

meeeeeeeee-OW!

Who says it's quiet and dull in "Comics and Graphic Novels"?