Lord William Russell, resident in a highly respectable Mayfair street, is found horribly murdered in his bed. His throat has been cut--nearly severing his head from his body. It doesn't take long for the suspicion of the police to rest on Russel's valet--despite the fact that the man seems wholly respectable and a calm and obedient servant. Evidence of theft is soon found and speculation is aroused that his master had caught him in the act. But the gentry are extremely unnerved by this crime--fearing that the true motive behind the murder is an unrest among the servant class; an unrest that has been growing.

But after the trial is over and Francois Benjamin Courvoisier has been found guilty, he begins writing a series of confessions--each one supposedly, finally the truth. In one of these many confessions, he puts the blame for his actions upon a popular sensation novel, Jack Sheppard. This novel has celebrated the life of an unrepentant thief who escapes justice again and again and whose story includes a dreadful murder not too unlike that of Lord Russell.

Before the gruesome murder which riveted the attention of all of London--from Queen Victoria herself to the lowliest street urchins, the novel and the many pirated theater productions which sprung up in its wake had been vilified by the press as having encouraged young people to take up thieving as a way of life. The public is even more horrified to think that a novel could incite a man to murder.

Harman has exhaustively researched her subject, that much is apparent. She gives us great detail on the time period and the literary background leading up to the "Newgate novels" as those stories which featured the criminal class in a more pleasing light were called. She also provides all of the material she could uncover relating to the murder of Lord Russell, the subsequent investigation, and trial of Courvoisier. What the book fails to do is make any substantial connection between the novel Jack Sheppard and Courvoisier's crime or between Dickens & Thackeray and the crime. Dickens and Thackeray seem to have been brought into the narrative to bulk up the literary tone, but they certainly don't have much relevance to the contention that there is a connection between this type of novel and crimes committed.

To be honest, it appears that there is much more evidence that seeing the plays had more influence on young people than the book ever did. Petty thieves who were caught would cite having gone to see a production of Jack Sheppard and while Courvoisier did mention the book, he placed more emphasis on the production he had seen as an influence. In all fairness to William Harrison Ainsworth, author of Jack Sheppard who was shamed in the newspapers for having written such a novel, most of the productions bore scant resemblance to his work and made Jack into an even bigger hero than he had intended. It seems to me that the fingers in the 1840s should have been pointing at those who were packing them in at the theaters.

Overall, an interesting look at true crime in the early Victorian period made slightly more interesting by the literary connection, though I would say that the reality of the book does not quite live up expectation of a large literary influence upon crime. It would have been more impactful if Courvoisier had claimed from the beginning that Jack Sheppard made him go on his murderous rampage. But when he produces several confessions and only brings in Jack Sheppard in the last one--and gives the book a weak reference at that--it doesn't give great credence to the thesis that such novels had any effect on morals.

First posted on my blog My Reader's Block. Please request permission before reposting portions of review. Thanks.

This book was well-written but it didn't feel like there was that much story here.

This book was muddled and dragged on so much, I could barely decipher that this wouldn't be a "real" murder mystery until halfway through it. Kind of a snooze. I guess I just didn't like the book at the center of the story being the Victorian era equivalent of "violent video games promote terrorist attacks."

"The whole of London public, from peers to chimney-sweeps, are interested about a set of ruffians whose occupations are thievery, murder and prostitution." I was enraptured by this book, expertly researched and concisely presented. Less interesting to me was the true crime aspect (the first two chapters) than were the historical information re: Dickens, Thackeray, and other prominent writers. Much is said in the 21st century about the role of violence in entertainment, be it via video games, movies, books, or the like. To think that this same conversation was being had 150 years ago is super intriguing to me, and I enjoyed seeing the arguments and particulars of how that dialogue was unfolding back then. If I could change one thing, it would be that the book would be just a little bit longer. I would've sincerely enjoyed reading the author's thoughts on literature & media and the role we allow it to play in our social consciousness, especially regarding crime & violence.

Victorian True Crime + Reception History of a “Bad Boy” Novel

The plot of W. H. Ainsworth’s “bad boy” Victorian crime novel, Jack Sheppard, becomes key to the events surrounding the murder of an elderly Mayfair Lord by his young Swiss manservant in 1840’s London. Harman’s excellent research and keen ability to bring early Victorian England to life reminds her modern readers of the deep cultural impact a sensational novel can have in the legal system and in the court of public opinion. Harman’s work will fascinate readers with the story of a sordid murder, but book-lovers will relate to the lingering spell a well told tale casts upon the community of readers.

I enjoy historical true crime, but this book was quite disappointing. It doesn't deliver on its title or its book jacket synopsis. The crime happens, the killer is found, there's a flimsy connection to a popular crime book at the time, and Dickens is randomly thrown in for good measure. It's impeccably researched, but the writing is stiff. There's no vivid storytelling or suspense or "who done it." It reads more like a textbook, and I think it could have been much shorter. It would have been better off written as more a suspense tale for a magazine feature or a BBC or NPR radio spot. Also, the most fascinating historical tidbit is told as just an aside three pages from the end: A doctor at the time of the crime in the 1840s wrote a letter to the police explaining that everyone's handprints were unique and that they should compare the bloody handprint found with the suspect's. Fingerprinting had not been discovered yet. His letter was ignored; it seems no one understood the significance. Fifty years later, police looking through the case file discovered the letter and began to explore it. Thus, Scotland Yard thus began to use fingerprinting for the first time! The author notes that if anyone had paid attention to the letter in the 1840s, notorious crimes like Jack the Ripper could have been solved! Wow. Talk about the most fascinating part of the book. But there, now that I've told you, you don't have to read it.