"With some stories, that's just the way it is. If you are going to be a non-fiction writer you must be willing to go where the story leads you, even if it isn't where you want it to be. And, as the occasion demands, you must be willing to publish unpleasant truths—rather than pleasant untruths—about your subject." - Joe McGinniss
I haven't blogged about books in a while.
The latest title I can add to my list of accomplishments is Joe McGinniss' true crime masterpiece, Fatal Vision, and it's resonating with me on multiple levels.
I think when most readers finish it, they're immediately inclined to take a stance and say whether or not they believe MacDonald was guilty. The evidence is stacked against him. And though there are still a few lingering questions, I have to say it definitely appears the jury got it right. I'm just not so sure that McGinniss did.
Of course, it's really easy to criticize. I admire the time and dedication McGinniss committed to completing his research and writing the book, but I'm not so sure I would have presented the final information the way he did.
Like I wrote, it's easy to criticize. I wasn't there. I didn't know MacDonald. I didn't attend the trial. I wasn't brought into the inner sanctum to see things transpire the way he did. But to me, the most interesting information is what McGinniss wrote about after the guilty verdict was rendered. It was the everything he uncovered - and all that he didn't include as he told the story earlier - that was the most illuminating on the character of MacDonald and what led the journalist to form the conclusions he did.
I really admire him for giving his readers everything he'd found and not holding anything back. However, I'm not so sure I would have told my readers what conclusion I reached. I think it may have been more effective for others to postulate a few possibilities for what may have happened in the early hours of Feb. 17, 1970 at that small apartment on Fort Bragg. That way, readers could form their own conclusions based on all the facts presented.
Of course, McGinniss came under fire, endured legal action and wrote two additional afterwards with later editions of the book describing some of the fallout that came later. I wonder if he regrets using the tactics he did. I think he had to write everything from the perspective that he did, describing the controversy that swirled around publication the way he did, because he had to defend what he'd done. He also had to explain himself. But, as a journalist, I wonder what he really thought about it.
I could think of several questions I'd like to ask him over a cup of coffee, picking his brain to find out where he stood on everything later. Unfortunately, I'll never have that chance, so I can only speculate.
Most journalists will never be lucky enough to be invited into another person's life to gather information and explore and write about their perceptions. And even fewer are lucky enough to have a story as interesting as the MacDonald case.
Is it a pipe dream to hope that if the opportunity ever were to present itself to me that I'd be able to write something with content that never could be accused of bias?
Probably not.
My profession is under fire. Maybe more now more than ever before. And a chance like the MacDonald case are few and far between. I'm not sure something like that will come along for a writer and journalist living and working in Yakima.
Not this week, at least.
Still, it's a nice thought. If something like that were to fall into my lap, I'd jump out and grab it in a heartbeat.
Although this wasn't the best true crime story I've ever read (that superlative belongs to Thomas Thompson's Blood and Money) and it wasn't the most disturbing (I don't think anything will ever come close to Helter Skelter), Fatal Vision was brilliant.
It was well researched, well written, interesting and thoroughly engrossing.
The only reason it took me so long to read is that I put it down shortly after beginning it in favor a few other titles that caught my interest.
It's long, but it's well worth the time it takes to read.
Also, I'm encouraging all the other readers I know to pick up a copy. I'm curious to know what conclusions they'll come to.
Did Jeff do it?
If so, why?
And do you think Joe McGinniss broke the agreement he had with MacDonald, or was he well within his rights based on their contract?
I definitely don't think he had any obligation to MacDonald to allow him to read the book first, but it may have been interesting to go to him and say, "Hey Jeff... there's this stuff I found, and I'm wondering what you have to say about it..."
Let the hot (yeah, Jeff was a good looking guy at the time), narcissistic doctor explain the amphetamines and some of the inconsistencies in the stories he told.
It might make for even more interesting reading in an already engrossing book.
Of course, it also would have added a few hundred more pages.
No comments:
Post a Comment