Assessment?

So, looking back, how do you think we did on the day?

I think a definite positive for the presentation was that it was ungimmicky in that the slides were minimal (and few), with no text - just images - allowing us to demonstrate the ability to actually 'present' our ideas rather than shuffling around nervously and referring to bits of paper or handily placed prompts or notes. Because of this, I think the major strength of the presentation was that we both just stood up and talked about what we were trying to get across - we both sounded confident and I think we engaged well with the (admittedly limited) audience. William's question was answered promptly and without hesitation (even though I'm not sure it was the answer he was expecting or whether it was answered in the way he would have liked).

On the minus side, I think perhaps we (as we do tend to do) lost a little fluidity once we started talking. We both knew what we wanted to say and why, but once the words started flowing, we followed a kind of stream-of-consciousness that may have come across as going off-point slightly, so a tip for next time might be to tighten the reins a bit in order to make the most of the points we really want to make.

The Final Countdown...

So, today's the day! I think it's shaping up quite well ... the final run-through should give us an idea of where the strengths/weaknesses in the presentation lie with time to add tweaks where necessary.

On the whole, I feel that the social comment aspect of the presentation will be the thing that defines it...with us both being predominantly history students I think it's unavoidable really!

However, the Jack The Ripper as a metaphor for/indicator of the way in which modern society can exercise moral distance from unspeakable acts or behaviour screams out from the page to me and I personally don't think it's possible to comment on the case - whether it's the mythology of it or the reality of it - without making mention of that point. I just hope that concentrating on the social implications of the case will be a strong enough topic for the bigger picture of the presentation. I know we're pretty sure that we've covered the right ground, I just hope the audience sees it that way too!

Hypocrisy

This is the thing that it keeps coming back to, for me - the whole moral hypocrisy of the Victorian era (more than any other, to my mind) - is the thing that not only fuelled the fascination with Jack the Ripper at the time, but also the hangover from it is one of the things that makes us generally intrigued with the wrongdoings of others today. By this I don't just mean serial killers or dodgy drunken celebs, but just the general judgemental attitudes towards pretty much everything. It's the media in particular that latched onto this and has continued to manipulate and influence moral opinion ever since - without Jack the Ripper, metaphorically speaking, we wouldn't have The Sun, The Star, the Daily Mail, Big Brother, I'm A Celebrity and possibly even Playboy or Penthouse!! Doesn't it smack of more than just a coincidence that the rise in literacy levels of the lower classes came at the same time as an increase in sensationalist journalism? Don't you think there is a parallel in the way the murders and their stark warnings were published and the way in which, for example, chavs are demonised in the press these days?

Anyhoo

it's about time we made a start on this! If we're decided on Ripperology, which angle do you think we should go at it from?

Just typing 'Jack The Ripper' into any search engine brings up pages and pages of stuff - sifting out the good from the awful would be a bit like the old needle/haystack scenario I think. I might look into the whole concept of Ripperology and see if I can nail down when it sprang up as a 'bona fide' 'ology' to study and see where that leads me ... what do you think?

So...

Where do we start, Sam?