Did you spend the weekend contemplating Burke Ramsey's (possible) involvement in the death of Jonbenet? Then tune in here!
Some thoughts....
-You can tell a great deal from a title. Michelle McNamara's beautiful site--"True Crime Diary"--has a modest, thoughtful title. (McNamara wrote one of my all-time favorite books, "I'll Be Gone in the Dark," and I wish someone else would do something similarly great this year.) By contrast, the inconsistent, sloppy site "True Crime Diva" has a title that seems to broadcast the fact of its writer's prickliness. And, indeed, the writer is a diva--and not in a "positive" sense. She proudly announces that she won't correct factual inaccuracies in her own writing. She brazenly speculates without a great deal of evidence. (Her Maura Murray post is one example of real *unearned* confidence.) Worst, True Crime Diva is bizarrely rude and aggressive when people raise questions about her theories. And her response to "Abducted in Plain Sight"--"This isn't tragic, it's just ridiculous"--suggests that there are serious character issues at play here.
-Some people enjoy "My Favorite Murder" *because* of its weird digressions. In a piece ostensibly about Jonbenet, we listen to musings on a shopping mall in L.A., musings on what it is like to have a podcast, musings on what it is like to write for "Elle." Who fucking cares? I'll concede that these speakers are occasionally funny; inventing a strange shadowy government-conspiracy past for John Ramsey is a compelling and amusing decision, and the speakers go about that particular task with gusto. But I'll always prefer the discipline of the "Crime Junkie" ladies. Those two are far less self-indulgent. I am a committed Crime Junkie--and I find myself thinking about the work of the two head Junkies when I ought to be sleeping, or listening to my students.
-Beyond the elegance of Michelle McNamara's writing, there's more to praise about "True Crime Diary." McNamara notices things others fail to notice. For example, writing about the McCanns (the tragedy in Portugal), McNamara observes that the abduction of the little girl happened on Day Six of the vacation. Did other people notice this? McNamara: It's Day Six, and the parents have had the same drinking routine all week. Was a waiter or other staffer observing, making careful conclusions? I'm starting to see when I can abduct the little kid. Had anyone else pointed out the significance of waiting until Day Six?
-Similarly, McNamara on Suzanne Jovin: The murder happened near East Rock, a fairly wealthy section of New Haven. Many Yale professors live here. Was the killer a Yale undergrad and a son of Yale professors? (Because a maybe surprisingly high number of Yale undergrads *are* children of Yale professors?) Again: interesting thinking!
-Writing intelligently about true crime is like a form of literary criticism. You're looking for clues that are not meant to be clues. The location of a murder, the timing of an abduction with regard to the length of an entire vacation: These are things I might not think to dwell on. So I'm inspired by the elegance and shrewdness of McNamara's work. If she were around today, I think, also, McNamara would praise Crime Junkie. The Crime Junkies, with their skepticism, deep thoughtfulness, and graceful storytelling, seem to be heirs to McNamara. There isn't really a better thing to be.
Comments
Post a Comment