So after thinking about this for a bit, here's what I liked and didn't like in this one. Overall it was ok, just not quite what I was expecting.

Pros:
-Jack's chapters were the most interesting, especially the times he's close to being caught
-The setting and atmosphere in here are how I would picture 19th century England.
Cons:
-Dual narrative: the story goes back and forth from Jack's diary entries to Jeb, a reporter following the case of Jack the Ripper.
-We also get a third perspective thrown in every now and then from a woman writing to her mother. Honestly, I don't think this third perspective did anything to add to the story and could have easily been cut out.
-Jeb's chapters just weren't interesting to me. I might have enjoyed it more if he was a detective working the case, rather than just a reporter, but I really had no interest in his character.
-For a short book, there seemed to be a lot of places that felt long, dragged out, and just boring (again these were mostly Jeb's chapters).
-The reveal at the end wasn't much of a surprise (I guess it was him long before the end). ( )

Author Stephen Hunter has taken an interesting tack in his historical novel about Jack the Ripper, the notorious (and still unknown) killer who stalked the Whitechapel District of London in 1888. Like others who have tackled the tale, Hunter has his own theories and plays them out in a compelling piece of fiction that falters in only a couple of places.

Hunter revisits one theory about letters sent to the police during the time period, ostensibly from the killer – that at least one of them was a fabrication coming from an untrammeled press trying to capture London’s imagination and thereby sell more papers. The character involved in this particular hoax splits narration of the novel with diaries written by Jack himself, and the technique allows Hunter to take on two distinct voices as the action moves to its climax.

The identity of the journalist is marginally possible, though unlikely; if there ever were diaries, they have never come to light; and the fate of Jack – probably the weakest part of the tale -- pretty well wanders off into convenient thriller-resolution territory, though it does make an interesting suggestion about the genesis of a popular British play.

Overall, it’s an interesting read, though the “diary” entries are not for the squeamish. ( )

This is my first ever reading of a work from Stephen Hunter, but after the brilliance displayed in this novel I'm pretty sure I'm going to look into reading more of his works.

It's an infamous tale that many of us know. In a small and desolate district of London called Whitechapel, in the August of 1888...a devil walks the cobble stone streets. In this beautiful piece of historical fiction meets thriller we are privy a kind of cat and mouse game between the ever elusive and ever unidentified Jack the Ripper and a writer for the Star who uses the pen name Jeb. Much of this novel is comprised from a highly interesting back and forth from a diary kept by Jack and a memoir written by Jeb with a few dashes of some letters written by one of the victims sprinkled in. At some point the literary Jeb decides that more must be done and with the aid of an intelligent professor, they decide to try identifying and pursuing Jack themselves. Jeb having apparently read and loved Sherlock Holmes (I love all the parts of 1800's fanboyism splashed in this book, I can greatly relate to the fanboy nerd vibe) feels a similarity between the fictional dynamic duo (of that time period, pump the breaks my fellow Batman fanboys ha ha) and his newfound kinship with the professor. They give chase and subsequently kill the man their investigating has led them to believe is Jack the Ripper. But as they say, the truth will out, and that is not how the story ends.

For the true (historical fiction wise) ending of this tale and as an added bonus, selection of another piece from Stephen Hunter titled The Third Bullet, I would greatly recommend this book to anyone with a taste for a good, dripping story ha ha. ( )

Okay so I'm all pumped up, I'm ready to read this book, I've got my popcorn and I'm ready to dive in! I got about halfway through this book and it just falls flat on its face. I'm serious folks. I am a huge fan of the times and of Jack the Ripper stories. This one just didn't do it for me.
The book was extremely gory which was a pleasant surprise for me but I felt like the author tried to make up for the flat parts by being overly detailed in the gore.
The characters were, dare I say, drab to say the least. Even Jack the Ripper wasn't very interesting in this book and that is sad ☹️
This book may be for some people but it definitely is not for me. ( )

I, Ripper was great fun to read. Hunter does a masterly job of alternating the narrator's story with that of Jack's diary, bringing you inside the heads of the serial killer and the man determined to catch him. Although Jack was known for gruesome murders, Hunter doesn't subject the reader to gratuitous gore and violence. It was entertaining, fast-paced, and steeped in Dickens' London. Jack's identity is revealed at the end and, although it was initially surprising, Hunter tied up the loose threads very nicely. But we know that Jack was never found, so the ending wasn't as satisfying as one would expect. No fault of Hunter's for trying, though. ( )