A figure of gothic melodrama
Deborah Orr did a nicely blistering piece about the Women-Murderer “museum” in August.
Mark the Ripp-Off, otherwise known as Mark Palmer-Edgecumbe, is the man behind a new museum in Cable Street in the East End of London. Except he isn’t. He’s behind a lurid new tourist attraction in Cable Street in the East End of London, which is dedicated to exploiting an already much-cultivated fascination with the unknown killer of five women between 1888 and 1891.
I hadn’t properly taken in the extent and grotesquery of the fascination until this “museum” came along. What is this sick shit? There’s nothing cool or nostalgic or fun about the serial murders of desperately poor prostitutes in late 19th century London. We don’t consider Willy Pickton cool or dapper or interesting, so why is there this idea that the X who killed those women in Whitechapel was? Is it just because it was late-Victorian London so we think “oh hey, Sherlock Holmes and fog and hansoms, must be cool”?
This joint is called the Jack the Ripper Museum, from which one can deduce that it exists to commemorate a crude and ugly piece of invented nomenclature that surely has already proved itself to be quite enduring enough, thank you very much. Certainly, someone killed five women, with extreme savagery. But that person was not Jack the Ripper. Jack the Ripper is an invented villain, a figure of gothic melodrama who serves the purpose of making five murdered women also seem like inventions, mere accessories after the fiction.
Like something out of a movie – Norman Bates or Hannibal Lecter.
Mark the Ripp-Off says otherwise. He seems to be suggesting that that the name of the “museum” is a clever ploy, aimed at reeling in customers. They will turn up expecting gory details about a misogynistic serial eviscerator, only to discover – delightedly, I’m sure – that the “museum” instead offers a meditation on the condition of women in the East End of London during the Victorian era, using the situation of the women who were slaughtered as a “starting point”. They’ll all be stampeding past the promised crime-scene tableau to get to that stuff, I’m sure.
Well now that the “museum” is open and Fern Riddell has reviewed it, we know there is no “that stuff” to get to.
Does this guy think it’s funny to say that he’s going to open a museum celebrating women’s history, then actually open one celebrating a notorious killer of women? Does he think it’s funny that people are up in arms against his new project, having believed that something more serious and useful was going to be sited in the area instead? Somehow, either of these is not as bad as imagining that he really believes that his exploitation of the murder of women isn’t part of the problem, but instead is part of the solution.
How can anyone think that the way to understand the social existence of women is by speculating about why some unknown killer annihilated them, or detailing how their situations made them vulnerable to him?
Oh, he doesn’t think that. He just pretends to, for the look of the thing.
This museum is certainly in awful taste, though I can’t say I’m shocked. Torture museums have been common in European cities for a long time, and they’re usually marketed in a campy, tongue-in-cheek way too. I can only guess people think, “well, it happened long before our time, so who cares anymore?”
I think it was neither humor nor misunderstanding– I think it was outright fraud, a way to get zoning permits, maybe even a grant or two, by lying about his intent.
I can’t get worked up about this. Is Deborah Orr really discovering for the first time that the public have a lurid fascination with murder? That shows quite heroic powers of inattention. She will explode with indignation when she discovers that the London Dungeon has been going for decades and Madame Tussaud’s even longer! I hope noone tells her.
London Dungeon even has a Jack the Ripper exhibit. Prepare to clutch those pearls!
So, did London Dungeon also falsely claim in the planning process that it would “recognise and celebrate the women of the East End”, like the “museum” in question did, before celebrating and merchandising the killing of women? Objecting to such dishonest behaviour has nothing to do with pearls, or clutching.
Or is your point – “plenty of people like to celebrate murders, therefore it’s OK”?
I don’t know. If anyone misled the planning committe, I agree they did somethiong wrong and that should be addressed through the usual channels. But you will have a job persuading me that all the outrage has sprung from a deep rooted commitment to the protocols of London local government process.
Does the folklorisation of Jack the Ripper’ celebrate and merchandise the killing of women’? Don’t. Be. Silly.
No, you don’t know, I agree.
No claim from me yet about where “outrage has sprung from”, or even claiming it’s “outrage”.
And yes, celebrating and merchandising – to the point where the owners felt the need to lie about what they were doing. Claiming to be doing something people think is useful and helpful while you’re doing something crappy is shitty behaviour – objecting to that isn’t “silly”, or “pearl-clutching”, or whatever diminishing turn of phrase you’ll lob in next.