The Five - Hallie Rubenhold [Review]

I’m quite disappointed I read this book this month, because it means it has been sitting on my bookshelf for months being ignored. 

The Five tells the tales of some of the world’s most famous people, from a perspective that is seldom heard. Polly, Annie, Elizabeth, Catherine, and Mary-Jane were all murdered in 1888, allegedly by the same elusive serial killer, Jack the Ripper. Hallie Rubenhold sets out to tell their stories, where they came from, how they met their demise, and their unique journey in-between. She gives these five victims the airtime that they rarely get and tells their stories that (for the most part) are not in association with their murders or the murderer. 

The writing is very clear and confident, and reads much like fiction rather than non-fiction. I’m sure this is a conscious decision on Rubenhold’s part, but the serious lack of primary source evidence must be jointly responsible for this. The book is split into five parts as expected, with subchapters that feel well organised and well-paced, starting most cases with the parents of the victim and ending abruptly after their deaths.

A secondary objective of the book seems to be to dispel the myth that the victims were all prostitutes, a broad brush that the media had elected to tar the victims with. This book has received some criticism on this point: “does it really matter if the women were prostitutes?”. Yes. Should it matter? Now that is a different question, the answer to which is of course no. Whether the victims were or were not prostitutes has no bearing on how they deserved to have their lives ended, but it is undeniable that this generalised characterisation of the victims at the time is part of the reason why some people subconsciously disregarded their personal history as not important. In this respect, then, Rubenhold is right to correct those misconceptions. 

Whether the term “prostitute” should be a pejorative is a worthy conversation, but Rubenhold has concluded it is one for another day. I think her raising of this point throughout is more a commentary on the characterisation and treatment of (and general attitude towards) women and the working classes in Britain in the 19th century.

Look, I can’t know for sure what aspects of the book are factually sound, what elements are assumptions based on scraps on relevant information, and what is just speculation to fill the gaps. If I had the energy and motivation to fact check the entire book, I would’ve just written it myself. Hallie Rubenhold is an accredited historian, and I trust the research that has gone into this book from a brief assessment of the bibliography. I don’t mind that there is conjecture, that it may be full of assumptions. the purpose of the book is to shed some light on the victims of these crimes where nobody else does. The alternative would be to continue to ignore these women, which would also attract complaints. 

I guess this book in turn does a decent job of dispelling some of the myths surrounding the victims, it does a better job at giving airtime to their stories and is probably best as an illustration of the lives of the working classes in Britain in the 19th century.