Gene Weingarten, the subject of previous posts here, has a short but nice appreciation of Joe McGinniss and Fatal Vision
(Although this is dated March 11th, it only came to my attention today. There’s a note on it that says it originally came from Weingarten’s online chat.)
I am probably shooting a gigantic hole in my credibility as a true-crime buff. But, while I have read many of the “classics” of the genre (and some crap, too), I confess that I have not yet read Fatal Vision. Both Weingarten and Bill James
Edited to add: Discussion question for the huddled masses: was the Dreyfus affair really a “true crime” story? I would say “yes”: treason is, after all, a crime. Does the fact that Dreyfus was wrongly accused change that classification? Not in my mind: does the fact that O.J. was acquitted make the murders of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman any less a true crime story? Would it change my mind if it turned out there was no actual treason? I don’t think so; there was still a criminal accusation and trials, which to me qualifies it as a “true crime” story. Which raises the question: could you have a “true crime” story in which, not only is the accused innocent, but the crime itself never happened? For example, a murder charge where the alleged victim actually turns up alive and testifies for the defense? I am inclined to say “yes, and that’s a book I’d want to read”.