Since I can't tell which of you wrote the review, I'll just say "Hey,for the first two thirds or more, I wondered why you even bothered to talk about the Cape Cod case. The tone certainly didn't encourage me to see the piece. Then I caught up with your suggestions for how the story could be expanded, how context could be added to make it a more singular event. That turned out to be the saving of your and my time and attention, if only as a suggestion of what not to do in recreating a "true crime" case.
I wrestle with the same kinds of issues in "Going To See The Elephant," the new title for what was once "Everybody Lies." (That old title merely states the obvious and, in retrospect, turns potential followers off. ) Some cases stand out on their own bizarre nature. Others have to be made to say something about the time they occupied in the past or in the "annals of crime." Mere recitation of "and then, and then" becomes tedious. But there is a special element in most crimes that makes the recreation process very difficult. Everybody does lie. The crooks lie for obvious reasons. The cops to smooth over rough spots in investigative process, particularly in big cases where the pressure is on to solve them. Victims lie for other, usually personal, reasons like tax evasion, infidelity, or to claim extra restitution. Even reporters and content creators lie. They need to create bridges to tie specific facts into a meaningful narrative.
So the process of committing, solving, and then writing about crime is ripe with opportunity to bamboozle us readers and viewers. Nailing down individual facts is only part of the job of understanding crime, criminals, investigators and the interested audience. The rest does involve creating a context that provides insight into the human psyche, wihch is after all what we are all trying to do.
Crime is always going to be a difficult subject. Because of the lies and half-truths inevitably involved, crimes become ambiguous canvases on which we all can project our particular viewpoints. I am an old-timer, (81) so I am attracted to older cases. If enough time passes, the lies become a little easier to discern and to correct. The reality becomes a little less searing for perpetrators, for aggressive, outside the box cops, and even for victims. That's why I keep plugging away now at the 53-year-old case. Real crime is ultimately more satisfying than what often passes as "true crime" in this over-populated environment. So I found your comments about the surrounding context of a crime turned what seemed like a ho-hum and unnecessary review into a thought-provoking piece. Thanks.
Since I can't tell which of you wrote the review, I'll just say "Hey,for the first two thirds or more, I wondered why you even bothered to talk about the Cape Cod case. The tone certainly didn't encourage me to see the piece. Then I caught up with your suggestions for how the story could be expanded, how context could be added to make it a more singular event. That turned out to be the saving of your and my time and attention, if only as a suggestion of what not to do in recreating a "true crime" case.
I wrestle with the same kinds of issues in "Going To See The Elephant," the new title for what was once "Everybody Lies." (That old title merely states the obvious and, in retrospect, turns potential followers off. ) Some cases stand out on their own bizarre nature. Others have to be made to say something about the time they occupied in the past or in the "annals of crime." Mere recitation of "and then, and then" becomes tedious. But there is a special element in most crimes that makes the recreation process very difficult. Everybody does lie. The crooks lie for obvious reasons. The cops to smooth over rough spots in investigative process, particularly in big cases where the pressure is on to solve them. Victims lie for other, usually personal, reasons like tax evasion, infidelity, or to claim extra restitution. Even reporters and content creators lie. They need to create bridges to tie specific facts into a meaningful narrative.
So the process of committing, solving, and then writing about crime is ripe with opportunity to bamboozle us readers and viewers. Nailing down individual facts is only part of the job of understanding crime, criminals, investigators and the interested audience. The rest does involve creating a context that provides insight into the human psyche, wihch is after all what we are all trying to do.
Crime is always going to be a difficult subject. Because of the lies and half-truths inevitably involved, crimes become ambiguous canvases on which we all can project our particular viewpoints. I am an old-timer, (81) so I am attracted to older cases. If enough time passes, the lies become a little easier to discern and to correct. The reality becomes a little less searing for perpetrators, for aggressive, outside the box cops, and even for victims. That's why I keep plugging away now at the 53-year-old case. Real crime is ultimately more satisfying than what often passes as "true crime" in this over-populated environment. So I found your comments about the surrounding context of a crime turned what seemed like a ho-hum and unnecessary review into a thought-provoking piece. Thanks.