He has a very personable way of writing that may turn some readers off, but I largely enjoyed it. My problems with the book were that it's too long and that he blows through so many cases that it's hard to keep up. At the end of the book he'll reference a story from 300 pages earlier; despite having gotten through the book quickly, I can't remember the details. He also sometimes assumes a level of familiarity with some of the larger cases (Sacco and Vanzetti, I'm looking at you) that the reader may not have.
James has a tendency to state things as facts that aren't, and he never fails to let his opinion be known. But his writing is good enough and he generally provides the backup that I don't really mind. His thoughts on the Kennedy assassination (one of the very few discussions of a political crime he gets into) were particularly interesting, as well as his theories on the social cycles of the country in the last 100 years or so.
And if you're interested in reading more about many of the crimes he discusses, James lists the books written particularly about that crime and gives his thoughts on them. And he doesn't hold back. For example, "Fatal Vision was a very successful book that a lot of people like, but the problem with it is that you could edit out 75% of the book without losing a single fact or insight" (p. 305).
I also can't help but be bemused by his rating system of crimes--categorizing it, then numbering its fame. The baseball stat geek crept through a bit.
So if you're interested in true crime, I definitely recommend picking this book up and giving it a go...but be prepared to skim through some bits.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment