Talk:From Hell

Untitled

This article is implying that the research for the comic/movie was done to solve the crime rather then to entertain. That cannot be the case. If the Queen, the freemasons, the ranking officers of the london metropolitan police and a whole gaggle of surgeons wanted to quietly get rid of five prostitutes Im sure they could come up with a quieter plan. Even I know that. I doubt the real identity of the murderer is of much interest to the author. That should be reflected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.241.173 (talk) 23:42, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

On a small point - the legitimacy of the child. who are aware of the illegitimate child and its royal connections - Surely the whole problem was that the child was legitimate as the parents were married, although children of the marriage would not have been in line to the throne as the marriage had not been approved according to the Royal Marriages Act 1772. The Prince was born in 1864 and thus was only 24 at the most during 1888, the time of the Ripper murders. Reynardo 17:53, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

On the subject of gnosticism - Moore's gnosticism is mentioned, and then there's a comparison to The DaVinci Code. The article on DaVinci Code already notes that it too was influenced by gnosticism. Is the refererence to Code therefore redundant? --L. 02:35, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I wish I thought to ask Eddie about Murder by Decree. - Sparky

Me too, for clearly 90% of the Masonic mystery is pilfered from that film!

Thefool 20:02, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

While listening to the commentary on the DVD, they seem to indicate that the movie was intended to be more about sexual hypocracy than it was about Jack the Ripper.

^ If that is the case, then it wouldn't differ very much from the graphic novel thematical. Whether it did or not is up for opinion, but you get what I mean.

On the extras it mentions who JTR probably was- a man who collected entrails in jars and moved quietly to America. Does anyone know his name?

That would be a reference to Francis Tumblety... he didn't really collect uteruses in jars, that story was told by a known con artist so he could sell a story implicting his enemy as Jack the Ripper to a newspaper. For any number of other reasons it's extremely unlikely Tumblety was the killer. DreamGuy 01:36, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Dramatis personæ?

Wouldn't it be really useful to have a Dramatis personæ section? There are many characters and it gets very confusing. I often use wikipedia entries to sort out who is who in a piece of fiction. I haven't finished reading FROM HELL and I can't figure out who some of the characters are so I can't do the Dramatis personæ myself. I could start it but I fear everyone might think it is a bad idea. Whats do people think? It is, after all, quite common on wikis about fiction.

Stephen Knight

This is not the entry on Knight. It is the entry on From Hell. As such, it would be inappropriate and POV to take every available opportunity to criticise Knight and his theories, especially using words such as "nonsensical". The entry should give brief background on JTR:TFS to explain why Alan Moore based From Hell on it.

The salient points here are: (1) Knight's theories may not have much basis in fact, but they are nonetheless (2) compelling and entertaining reading. That is in line with Moore's comment in the From Hell appendix that "indeed there are grounds for supposing that much of [Knight's book] may have been intended as an ingenious hoax."Patabongo 02:01, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

OK, first up, i's clear you don't understand NPOV in the slightest. NPOV is a GOOD thing, it's what we are SUPPOSED to have, and here you are talking about it as if it were something we shouldn't have. Secondly, by mentioning that this theory wsa written about in a book, it would be highly biased and misleading to just leave at that and let people assume that the book is accepted as a reliable reference in the field. A quick mention (certainly not "every available opportunity" because there are lots more opportunities that aren;t taken) that it is considered to be wholly unreliable is not only a good idea but downright necessary for NPOV purposes. You also claim Knight's theory is "compelling" -- that's YOUR opinion, it's not the opinion of pretty much any historians or experts in the field. Putting that in the article would be using Wikipedia as your soapbox instead of neutrally reporting what the people in the field itself says. Yes, the standard belief is that Knight was hoaxing people, but not in any "ingenious" fashion and certainly not in some cutesy practical joke sort of way... his next book outright accusing Freemasons of being involved in all sorts of scandals. I suppose that was supposed to be some good natured hoax as well?

Please go read the WP:NPOV entry, and then also WP:NOR and WP:NOT while you are at it. DreamGuy 03:10, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

As I think is perfectly obvious, I mistyped in that paragraph. I've corrected the mistake.

The comment about JTR:TFS being "compelling" -- I'm not representing my own opinion, I'm explaining why Alan Moore based From Hell on JTR:TFS despite its dubious relationship with the facts. Here are his own words: "I decided to take as a starting point the story by Stephen Knight... I believe the book was an ingenious hoax, based very solidly on fragments of fact or rumor or guesswork. I think that Knight was basically having some fun in coming up with a fictional solution to a real crime. Of all the Ripper stories, it was the best story..." A paragraph which represents that viewpoint would be relevant to the entry; a blanket attack on Knight would not.

(For example, it's clearly impossible for JTR:TFS to be the best Ripper story, and also be "nonsensical", as the entry currently contends. Describing it as "compelling" would, however, be entirely appropriate.)

Lastly, of course I'm not getting involved in discussing The Brotherhood with you. I'm not that interested in Knight's work. You, however, clearly have some sort of axe to grind here, to the detriment of the entry. Patabongo 10:14, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry but you don't understand the WP:NPOV policy in the slightest. You claim "nonsensical" is clearly NPOV and has no place in this article. -- at least this time you later change it to say POV -- but the point is, the article is ACCURATELY stating that THE VAST MAJORITY of OUTSIDE EXPERTS consider the book to be nonsensical, which is true, and frankly an understatement. That is not using the article to advance an opinion, it is objectively reporting fact. Now if the article said that the book was poopycock instead of pointing out that the experts believed so, then you'd have a point.

You also claim "it's clearly impossible for JTR:TFS to be the best Ripper story, and also be "nonsensical" ... that's so incredibly not "clearly impossible" that it's not funny, and in fact it doesn't even make sense as an argument. If someone tried to tell you that Alice in Wonderland was a true story, that is clearly nonsensical, and it certainly can be a great story.

It sounds to me that your goal here is to distort accuracy: to purposefully make the book sound respected when it is not. THAT is a major violation of the NPOV rules. DreamGuy 23:51, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Listen to yourself, man. Everyone who praises Knight is promoting his theory? No, not at all. This is an encyclopedia, and should report both positive and negative responses to his work. Negative: his conclusions are probably false. Positive: they are entertaining and make a good springboard for a 500-page graphic novel. As I keep saying, this is the entry on From Hell, and Knight is only important inasmuch as he relates to the topic at hand.

You continually make statements to the effect that "THE VAST MAJORITY of OUTSIDE EXPERTS consider the book to be nonsensical" -- all I'm saying is, prove it. Never mind "vast majority", you haven't yet cited one source which supports the word "nonsensical". And if you managed to cite a source backing up your wording, we would still have to mention positive responses to Knights work, since wikipedia is an unbiased and NPOV (typed it correctly this time!) source of information. Patabongo 11:54, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

It's already proven in the appropriate articles with more detail on the topics, if you'd look, but for a fuller list of experts, plesae see a list on the leading authors and scholarly journals in the field who all point out Knight's hoaxes, distortions, and mistakes. Unfortunately though you still don;t understand how WP:NPOV works. We do not have to give "equal time" to those who mention a positive response to Knight's work, especially when that gives undue weight to a minority view. The policy clearly says that we mention sources in proportion to how widespread and authoritative they are to show a balanced view and not just say something in favor of a tiny minority side just to try to balance the two sides equally. The sides are not equal, There are about 200 or more experts calling Knight's work extremely flawed to maybe 5 minor authors (and I'm including Alan Moore here already) in the field who support some or all of what he said, though of course these 5 have the same or more errors in their books. It is BECAUSE Wikipedia is unbiased and NPOV that it CAN'T give the impression that Knight's work is accepted by scholars or historically accurate. DreamGuy 15:27, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I really am having to repeat myself now, but again:

This is not the entry on Knight. It is the entry on From Hell. We must describe how Knight's work relates to From Hell. Criticism of Knight belongs in his own entry, or in an entry on JTR:TFS if you should choose to create one. Mentioning a book's existence does not confer respectability upon it. "Most books are bad. Nearly all textbooks are bad." [1] Users are aware of this. If you must comment on his reliability, cite a specific source, do not appeal to "vast majorities" or "experts" or "respectable scholars". Let people make up their own mind. THAT is neutral point of view.

Note that in the previous paragraph, when I made an assertion about textbooks, I cleanly cited a source. I did not say "noted scholar Paul Graham says that" or "reputable expert Paul Graham says that" or "the vast majority of Paul Grahams say that" or anything else. Now, when you assert that people who agree with you are "proven experts in the field" and those who disagree are "minor authors", your methodology is special pleading writ large. Outside of the natural sciences, there are no such things as "proven experts". What controlled experiment could one do to prove such a claim?

Similarly, when you dismiss an author's "extremely poor conclusions and lack of scholarship" you may be right. But the reader is unable to decide until you make your case. Back up your claims. Cite your sources. Show a little respect for other people's intelligence. Patabongo 16:11, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Outside view

Is it not possible to accomodate both opinions, as the policy on POV dictates us to do? Since Moore acknowledges the lack of veracity in Knight's work, can we not phrase the passage something like:

Moore based From Hell loosely on Stephen Knight's theory — which, although widely criticised as inaccurate and nonsensical, Moore saw as being, "...of all the Ripper stories, ... the best story..." — that the murders were part of a conspiracy to conceal the birth of an illegitimate royal baby fathered by Prince Albert Victor, Duke of Clarence. See the article on Jack the Ripper royal conspiracy theories.

Thoughts? Hiding talk 00:18, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

He can quote Alan Moore saying anything he wants to about the book, as long as 1) It still has the vital important objective fact that the book is considered to be nonsense by the vast majority of experts, 2) Alan Moore is not described in such a way to imply that he was an expert. This dispute has solely about him trying to hide an extremely important piece of information. Anyone coming here reading that the story was based upon a real incident and a book purporting to be nonfiction about it needs to know that it's not considered an accurate historical record by anyone who has looked into it. This place is an encyclopedia, and so primarily needs to get information across. Anyone going to the article who could read it and think that some royal physician really did go around murdering prostitutes as part of some Masonic plot would be a massive failure of the whole point in trying to present information to the public. DreamGuy 00:29, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

To my mind, the article as it stands now would not give anyone that impression. It already declares From Hell itself as fiction, and notes Knight's work as a theory, as criticised for accuracy and as a good fictional read. I can't quite see how anyone reading it could walk away with the idea that some royal physician really did go around murdering prostitutes. I think the article contextualises Knight's work well as both a source and an inaccurate text on the Ripper case. Hiding talk 00:40, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I think the other part of the problem with the original wording, putting aside concerns over use of the word "nonsensical", is the use of the term "experts" as kind of a weasel word. I mean, if Alan Moore isn't an expert on the topic of the Ripper, after spending 10 years writing a 500-page book on the case including both a scholarly and contextual appendix, then what are our criteria for declaring someone an expert? Patabongo 12:02, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

This is silly... Alan Moore is clearly not an expert on the Ripper. He's a fiction author of a fictional comic book series, and one whose opinions in the appendix to his series shows extremely poor conclusions and lack of scholarship. Experts would be the currently accepted leaders in the field, frequent authors on the topic, with modern non-fiction releases. If you'd read books by Phillip Sugden, Stewart Evans, Paul Begg, Don Rumbelow, Keith Skinner, Martin Fido, Melvin Harris, etc. etc. etc. or read reviews and articles on Casebook: Jack the Ripper and in the magazines Ripper Notes, Ripperologist, The Whitechapel Society 1888 Journal or Ripperana, they ALL point out numerous errors in Stephen Knight's work. It's not "weasel words" at all to note that experts declare Knight's conclusions to be totally without merit, as there are TONS of sources, just a tiny fraction of which are already in this article, or in the Stephen Knight article, or the Jack the Ripper royal conspiracy theories article... and we could have a list that's atleast 50 times as long, if we really wanted to. It's not at all "weasel words" when it's supported as clearly and overwhelming as this.

It's rather disturbing to see that you consistently try to make these sources sound like they praise Stephen Knight when they don't and misapply Wikipedia policies that clearly do not fit. Furthermore, trying to promote a comic book author who was admittedly writing fiction as an "expert on the topic of the author" is just bizarre. I mean, really, do you that argument would fly on ANY topic in this encyclopedia? "Well, I know all the experts say evolution is real, but Jack Chick wrote this cute little comic book saying it was bogus, so it must be..."

This is an encyclopedia, and the proven experts in the field are the ones we need to quote whenever our articles discuss anything historical, scientific, etc. That's a founding principle of WP:NPOV policy. DreamGuy 15:18, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

First of all, "TONS of sources"? Let's add together the total citations on both the Stephen Knight and Jack the Ripper royal conspiracy theories articles. Total: three webpages on a single website, one of which is already linked to from the From Hell article.

The point of avoiding weasel words is to stop users cloaking their own opinions in special pleading and an appeal to authority. Instead of saying X is an expert, and therefore his/her opinion is valid, the entry should state that X holds opinion Y and let the reader make up his/her own mind on the validity of the opinion and the source. Can we at least agree on that? Patabongo 15:30, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Splitting the Article

Someone split the film content out into a separate article, then someone else reverted it. Before we get into a rv war here, let's discuss it. Should the articles be split? Lord Bodak 14:37, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd be interested in hearing the argument for why it shouldn't. It was already arranged in such a way as to make a split easy, and they're different enough topics to have separate articles. It's also a courtesy to Alan Moore, who hates seeing his fiction confused with films created outside of his control. Sarge Baldy 15:50, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

"A courtesy to Alan Moore"?? You've got to be kidding me, what a totally screwed up rationale. That's clear bias there, so based upon that alone you clearly cannot split the article. The argument against splitting is exactly as put in the edit comments: splitting the article into two creates an unnecessary WP:FORK file where information is duplicated and the two hings discussing the same basic background split off and get competing (and eventually contradictory) information. DreamGuy 22:14, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

What information is "duplicated"? At present the article is a clean split. The graphic novel and film are two separate pieces of work. Why keep them in a single article? Your claim about my (open) "bias" is irrelevant, because splitting articles about books and films is standard practice on Wikipedia. This article at present is deviant. Sarge Baldy 22:35, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

DreamGuy, first off, your edit summary says 'rv splitting of the movie into separate article' which does not explain your rationale at all. Second, WP:FORK is an article about sites mirroring Wikipedia. Considering the movie alters significant details of the story, and even the creators comment on how disconnected they are, I see no logic in keeping the two in one article. As Sarge Baldy says above, splitting articles about books and films is SOP here. Why should this be different? Lord Bodak 02:45, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone else have an opinion on the matter, or should I just go ahead and split it again? Sarge Baldy 22:15, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I posted a question over at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (films) to see if there is a guideline on this issue. Assuming no clear dissent there, I would say go ahead and split it. This is the only book I've seen where the film isn't in its own article. Lord Bodak 03:21, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

It should be split. Cvene64 03:40, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Done, again. Sarge Baldy 04:10, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

redirect

Shouldn't 'From Hell' redirect to Jack's letter, since even this 'from hell' is based on that one? If not, shouldn't it at least have a 'For the letter from Jack,the ripper, see ___' in the begining? 201.31.229.110 17:11, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I've added a link to the letter from the start of the page. Alternatively this could be made into a disambig page, with its current contents being moved to From Hell (graphic novel). However, that sort of change would need to be discussed here first. Owen 03:36, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Spoiler in plot

The plot should be written so that there is no spoiler about who was Gull's final victim. Moore didn't make it plain so that the reader would have to work at it. I believe the fact that the movie made it plain was the worst part of it from Moore's viewpoint. A similar point is that for those who have not heard of the story beforehand, it is not obvious for the first hundred or two pages that the story is about Jack the Ripper. --Leocomix 17:53, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Comics Project Improvement Drive

This article is the current focus of the Comics Project Improvement Drive. The aim is to focus the eyes of the project here and help bring the article up in quality.

The first step is to run through the article and throw and see if there are any minor fixes that can be done and then throw in thoughts on areas to address. There is also a sub-section below for people to add useful resources that can be added to the article to help flesh out the real world aspects. (Emperor 23:14, 17 October 2007 (UTC))

Resources

If you know of any useful articles, interviews, studies, etc. then add then in here and we can work on integrating them into this entry. NB if they aren't easily accessible then drop in a note if you have it and a precis of the important and relevant bits would be a great help. It'd also be best if the references are templated before being put in the article. (Emperor 23:14, 17 October 2007 (UTC))

WikiProject Comics B-Class Assesment required

This article needs the B-Class checklist filled in to remain a B-Class article for the Comics WikiProject. If the checklist is not filled in by 7th August this article will be re-assessed as C-Class. The checklist should be filled out referencing the guidance given at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment/B-Class criteria. For further details please contact the Comics WikiProject. Comics-awb (talk) 16:33, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

C-Class rated for Comics Project

As this B-Class article has yet to receive a review, it has been rated as C-Class. If you disagree and would like to request an assesment, please visit Wikipedia:WikiProject_Comics/Assessment#Requesting_an_assessment and list the article. Hiding T 14:08, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Comic Book, Not "Graphic Novel"

From Hell was published as a comic book; it is not a graphic novel. Alan Moore and others, like Neil Gaiman, are on record as greatly disliking the pretentious use of the term graphic novel to somehow elevate their work above "ordinary" comic books. A graphic novel is a specific type of publication, being a self-contained one-volume sequential art story, unlike a comic book which is a multi-issue continuing story like Detective Comics, The Amazing Spider-Man, or From Hell. Not even trade paperback collections are graphic novels. RyokoMocha FOR I AM NYARLATHOTEP, THE CRAWLING CHAOS 11:18, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

if you have a reliable source that From Hell ought to be called a comic book, please provide it!

I agree with you but I can't find a reliable source for it. 2.30.180.253 (talk) 22:59, 9 January 2024 (UTC)