Hmmm… my gut reaction is that this smacks of very bad taste. Before I looked at the book, I checked out the names – a sad case of missing persons from almost 30 years ago (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Springfield_Three).
Then I saw the blurb: “Based on a true story regarding three females who disappeared one night known as The Springfield Three, Gone in the Night shocks the reader with unrevealed truths “. And, later in the description: “Based on a true story, this novel explores the details of a real missing-person’s case via a father-and-son’s fictional search for truth. “.
Maybe I’m being too judgmental, but “a fictional search for truth” and “shocks the reader with unrevealed truths” – it feels like this novel *exploits* (not explores) this tragedy.
Well, here’s my question–how the hell does a NOVEL “shock… the reader with unrevealed truths”? Hmmmm? I mean, it’s either fiction–which means, not based on a real event, a fictionalized version of a real event, with the author’s imagined solution(s) (a la all the various and sundry Jack the Ripper books), or it’s non-fiction, reflecting actual events and “real” facts, to be tautological. It isn’t some hybrid of both, or, should I say, oughtn’t be.
I agree that it feels exploitative, but so too are all the cursed “true crime” books that come out about sensational cases, like the Casey Anthony thing, missing little girls, etc., while the cases are still “hot” in the press. It’s appalling, but then we have to ask ourselves–would anyone go to the trouble, if readers were not reading/buying them? And then take a hard look at WHY those books are produced. It ain’t pretty.
Hmmm… my gut reaction is that this smacks of very bad taste. Before I looked at the book, I checked out the names – a sad case of missing persons from almost 30 years ago (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Springfield_Three).
Then I saw the blurb: “Based on a true story regarding three females who disappeared one night known as The Springfield Three, Gone in the Night shocks the reader with unrevealed truths “. And, later in the description: “Based on a true story, this novel explores the details of a real missing-person’s case via a father-and-son’s fictional search for truth. “.
Maybe I’m being too judgmental, but “a fictional search for truth” and “shocks the reader with unrevealed truths” – it feels like this novel *exploits* (not explores) this tragedy.
Either way – the cover sucks.
Well, here’s my question–how the hell does a NOVEL “shock… the reader with unrevealed truths”? Hmmmm? I mean, it’s either fiction–which means, not based on a real event, a fictionalized version of a real event, with the author’s imagined solution(s) (a la all the various and sundry Jack the Ripper books), or it’s non-fiction, reflecting actual events and “real” facts, to be tautological. It isn’t some hybrid of both, or, should I say, oughtn’t be.
I agree that it feels exploitative, but so too are all the cursed “true crime” books that come out about sensational cases, like the Casey Anthony thing, missing little girls, etc., while the cases are still “hot” in the press. It’s appalling, but then we have to ask ourselves–would anyone go to the trouble, if readers were not reading/buying them? And then take a hard look at WHY those books are produced. It ain’t pretty.
And yes, the cover is awful.