The book is about one of the most interesting legal cases I've ever encountered. Jeffrey MacDonald, convicted of the murder of his wife and two children, sued Joe McGinnis, whom he had authorized to write a book about his murder trial, and had made a part of his defense team. The book that McGinnis eventually published, called "Fatal Vision", took the position that MacDonald was guilty, which MacDonald alleged was a violation of the implied agreemnt between the two that the author would publish a book from the subject's point of view. A verdict was obtained for MacDonald, and the case was settled during the appeals process.
Malcom interviewed all of the players in the case who would talk to her. In interviewing MacDonald's attorney, the attorney said that his initial reaction to MacDonald was that he was "libel-proof", meaning that it is impossible to libel a convicted murderer. But as he investigated the facts, which showed that the author had spent four years ingratiating himself with the murderer, thereby disguising the fact that the book he was writing took the position that the subject was guilty, he changed his mind and went forward with the case, and won it.
Malcom's book is a philosophical essay on the complex relationship between journalists and their subjects. There are no easy answers here, but it is certainly a topic with exploring. Malcolm clearly believes that McGinnis crossed way over the line here, and, therefore, that she agrees with the jury verdict against him. But the question of where exactly the line is is something that cannot be clearly defined.
Malcom impresses me as one of the four great female journalists writing intelligently and thoughtfully, usually in "The New Yorker", about issues in the last half of the 20th century, along with Renata Adler, Joan Didion, and Hannah Arendt.
No comments:
Post a Comment