When Is It Too Early to Publish a Book?

by Laura James

Long gone are the days when a true-crime author—like William Roughead, or Truman Capote more recently—waited until after the verdict to write the whole story (or, in Capote's case, after the hangings). In the instant era, books speed to release, and the publishers are becoming even quicker about releasing true-crime titles in particular.

Readers seem to be of two minds when it comes to quick releases.

Many say they won't read a book that comes out before the trial even starts. Others hold that a book can be quickly written and still be well done. But if put out early, the timing of the release will dominate all reviews forever.

Some readers are really unhappy.

On a book about Laci and Scott Peterson: "This was obviously written BEFORE the trial and has no pertinent information at all about what happened after Scott's arrest. Hardly the 'whole story' advertised."

On Robert Graysmith's book about Bob Crane: "We learn nothing about Carpenter's trial (an integral part of this entire story) because Graysmith and the publisher couldn't seem to wait until the trial was over, to send this book to the press."

On another true-crime title: "I also don't understand why this book was written before the trial."

The booksellers who specialize in true crime consistently tell me that many true-crime fans buy not the first book about any given case but the fourth or the twelfth or the twentieth. Many of us who study human depravity for a pastime or a career find a case that especially intrigues us, and we read everything we can about it. Some cases that have inspired such intense study are Lizzie Borden, Bruno Hauptmann, Jack the Ripper, and so on. So the first book a reader buys may well not be the last, particularly if the first isn't entirely satisfying.

Readers are fickle and inconsistent, simultaneously lamenting early books while snapping them up. . . . One writer recently picked up an early book out about Austria's Fritzl case and reports: "If you want to read Monster, I'm afraid I bought the last copy at Borders. But just wait a month or so, and I'm sure there'll be more comprehensive alternatives. It's perverse, I know. But I can't wait."

Though quickly produced true-crime titles will always have their critics, in the end it is the quality of the publication and not its release date that matters the most, don't you agree? Is there a line to be drawn? After the verdict? After sentencing?

Readers, writers, and publishers can't seem to make up their minds, but one thing is certain: more of these quickly produced books will be on the shelves in the future (and Kindles, and cell phones. . . .)

Tweet

Fifteen Years for Twenty-Four: Fritzl Wins

by Pat Brown

Yesterday and today I did hits for CTV Newsnet on the "Dungeon Dad," Joseph Fritzl. Both times, I was asked the traditional questions: "What was going on in the mind of this man? What is wrong with him?" I answered those but I couldn't resist making commentary on what I think is a lot more important. The bigger issue is "What is wrong with us?"

Josef Fritzl committed crime after crime because we, society, have let him. After imprisoning his daughter, Elisabeth, in a bunker for twenty-four years, raping her repeatedly, fathering her children, and killing one of them, the Austrian father-from-hell Fritzl got a slap on the wrist. The only time before this that he saw the inside of a courtroom and got penalized for his behavior (if one can call his sentence much of a penalty) was when he viciously raped a stranger. He spent all of a year in jail (even though he had convictions of indecent exposure and attempted rape on his record).

Apparently, society feels rape isn't such a bad crime and people weren't much concerned that Fritzl, a repeat sexual offender, was a danger to women; they essentially condoned the action. Then the crime was actually expunged and his name cleared. Society seemed to feel the victim should have to suffer the rest of her life, but this man should not have to have his future ruined. And society must have determined that women in Austria, and elsewhere, deserved to live with the threat of this man raping and possibly murdering them.

Think this is a stretch? Fritzl is now being looked at in the sexual homicides of four teenage girls in his country and in other possible crimes outside Austria, including Thailand where he went for sex tourism. And a number of women have come forward to identify Fritzl as the man who raped them.

Fritzl's wife, Roseanne, clearly agreed with society. She went ahead and let her husband return home in spite of the fact that he brutally raped a woman while he was married to her. When her daughter went missing, she didn't alert the authorities to the possibility her husband might have done something to her.

Year after year, Roseanne's husband acted in a manner that could not have failed to raise red flags. Did she not question why there were "no access" areas of the property and why her three grandchildren suddenly showed up from out of the blue with only her husband's word that Elisabeth dumped them on the doorstep? Fritzl's wife undoubtedly looked the other way and, in spite of that, society did not charge her as an accomplice.

Even the lodgers in the house and the neighbors saw suspicious behaviors on the part of Joseph Fritzl. They actually knew, at a point before she disappeared for two decades, that Elizabeth was being sexually abused; they just didn't think it was their duty to report it to the police. Society again gave Fritzl the green light for his hideous and evil actions.

Finally, part of society caught up with Joseph Fritzl and took him to court. The verdict? An unbelievable fifteen-year sentence for 3,000 rapes, kidnapping, imprisonment, and murder of an infant. Society must think all of this isn't much more of an offense than passing bad checks.

Now, in a continuation of this abomination, Fritzl doesn't have to go to prison where other criminals go, but instead he gets to pick the senior citizen home of his choice—a psychiatric facility (pictured right) that has the most desirable amenities—where he can live out his declining years in comfort and safety.

But, wait, society isn't finished with Fritzl yet! They still have the right to free the man before his "sentence" is up! If this sweet old man makes enough nice art projects and finds "recognition of his behaviors through his personal and group therapy," society might decide to let the poor fellow live out his final years in the community.

Looking at this case, I am not sure Joseph Fritzl deserves to be found guilty if society so supported each and every one of his sick behaviors. How can society blame him when society did next to nothing to prevent, stop, or condemn his actions until Fritzl reached age seventy-three and had decades of enabling by his fellow citizens?

Joseph Fritzl has "confessed" and "expressed remorse" at what he has done. When will society do the same?

Tweet