In the late 1960âs, and early 1970âs, an enigmatic serial killer terrorized the San Francisco âŠ
(I should have waited until I was at 69% so I could have just made a single-word comment!)
Despite it seeming like I'm barely above half-way through the book, because of how big the footnotes/attached materials are, I'm actually getting pretty close to the end of the actual chapters of this. The moment the book departs from the facts and enters speculation territory (apart from an interesting episode on some very preliminary code-breaking basics) it really loses steam for me. There's a chance I won't finish this.
(I should have waited until I was at 69% so I could have just made a single-word comment!)
Despite it seeming like I'm barely above half-way through the book, because of how big the footnotes/attached materials are, I'm actually getting pretty close to the end of the actual chapters of this. The moment the book departs from the facts and enters speculation territory (apart from an interesting episode on some very preliminary code-breaking basics) it really loses steam for me. There's a chance I won't finish this.
(Wait, I thought I imported the English book, but I guess it's the French one. Well, note to self, this is originally in English, get that version if you can.)
(Wait, I thought I imported the English book, but I guess it's the French one. Well, note to self, this is originally in English, get that version if you can.)
In the late 1960âs, and early 1970âs, an enigmatic serial killer terrorized the San Francisco âŠ
About to start chapter 10. We're getting heavy into the speculation and "never before revealed/seen" suspects of these unsolved cases. The book is divided pretty neatly into the first 7-8 being a fairly straightforward chronological narrative of the 5 murders and sightings/communications with the zodiac, and the 4-5 last chapter are really about the suspects and what the evidence does and does not say. However, important to remember fact-checking here, as there was probably very little done.
About to start chapter 10. We're getting heavy into the speculation and "never before revealed/seen" suspects of these unsolved cases. The book is divided pretty neatly into the first 7-8 being a fairly straightforward chronological narrative of the 5 murders and sightings/communications with the zodiac, and the 4-5 last chapter are really about the suspects and what the evidence does and does not say. However, important to remember fact-checking here, as there was probably very little done.
In the late 1960âs, and early 1970âs, an enigmatic serial killer terrorized the San Francisco âŠ
The typos start to make themselves apparent around chapter 4 or 5, which is fun, but thankfully nothing too awful. Seems like transcription leftover awkwardness that got missed during the editing phase. A good reminder that these nonfiction projects often have non-existent fact-checking to go along with the inconsistent and very rushed copy proofing. While I haven't read anything so far that jumps out to me as incorrect based on my own cursory googling (not to be confused with research) it's still something to keep in mind with all this True Crime stuff.
The typos start to make themselves apparent around chapter 4 or 5, which is fun, but thankfully nothing too awful. Seems like transcription leftover awkwardness that got missed during the editing phase. A good reminder that these nonfiction projects often have non-existent fact-checking to go along with the inconsistent and very rushed copy proofing. While I haven't read anything so far that jumps out to me as incorrect based on my own cursory googling (not to be confused with research) it's still something to keep in mind with all this True Crime stuff.
In the late 1960âs, and early 1970âs, an enigmatic serial killer terrorized the San Francisco âŠ
So I finally rewatched the David Fincher film Zodiac (2007) yesterday (I had forgotten Jake Gyllenhaal's portrayal of Graysmith had really touched me when I was younger, because I was also called those names and considered creepy/obsessive as a young person â but I digress) and it made me want to reread in depth about the Zodiac, but I remembered that there were some fact-checking issues with Graysmith's original book. I don't like listening to podcast (or audiobooks, for that matter) which is unfortunately where most of the "True Crime" universe seems to live, so it felt lucky to stumble upon this book, which is essentially a write-up+documents+extras of the Morford and Ferguson podcast about the Zodiac case. Presented in chronological order, it's a very fast read, and I'm really enjoying it so far.
So I finally rewatched the David Fincher film Zodiac (2007) yesterday (I had forgotten Jake Gyllenhaal's portrayal of Graysmith had really touched me when I was younger, because I was also called those names and considered creepy/obsessive as a young person â but I digress) and it made me want to reread in depth about the Zodiac, but I remembered that there were some fact-checking issues with Graysmith's original book. I don't like listening to podcast (or audiobooks, for that matter) which is unfortunately where most of the "True Crime" universe seems to live, so it felt lucky to stumble upon this book, which is essentially a write-up+documents+extras of the Morford and Ferguson podcast about the Zodiac case. Presented in chronological order, it's a very fast read, and I'm really enjoying it so far.
On November 15, 1959, in the small town of Holcomb, Kansas, four members of the âŠ
Back to Capote. The book was written in 66 and most of the time it's so fluid and clear that its age is difficult to remember. But then there will be something like a mention to someone with chronic pain having an "aspirin addiction" (in a serious manner) and that's when the half-century between me and its writer lurches back into being.
Back to Capote. The book was written in 66 and most of the time it's so fluid and clear that its age is difficult to remember. But then there will be something like a mention to someone with chronic pain having an "aspirin addiction" (in a serious manner) and that's when the half-century between me and its writer lurches back into being.
