Negative Positive
Title: Poorly reasoned, poorly written
Review: Cornwell's attempt to prove painter Walter Sickert was Jack the Ripper left me not only unconvinced, but confused. Her book is full of irrelevant digressions and unfounded assumptions. A good editor should have helped Cornwell better focus her ideas. (Perhaps an editor tried, and Cornwell's baffling book is the result.)Cornwll flits from one subject to another every few pages, rarely stating a hypothesis, offering supporting evidence and reaching a conclusion. She offers far too many "could haves" and ignores or dismisses any evidence that doesn't support her ideas.Writers far better than I (Stephen P. Ryder or Wolf Vanderlinden) have articulated the many problems with Cornwell's hypothesis. Find their articles online and read their analyses.
Is the review positive or negative? 