17 Comments
Sep 11, 2020Liked by Best Evidence

After going back and forth (Donnellys in Southern Ontario vs Riel in Manitoba; Oklahoma City bombing vs 9/11; the Casefile podcast on the murder of the Janabi family vs death camps), I think it has to do with the amount of institutional power the perpetrators have. There was implications of corruption in government leading to the death of the Donnellys, but it was at the local level, as opposed to the full force of the Canadian government. The murder of the Janabi family was done by a members of an occupying force, but it didn't have the support of that occupying force.

But then, there's the danger of slipping towards xenophobia. It's the other guys. So maybe this will take more thought.

Expand full comment
Sep 11, 2020Liked by Best Evidence

Speaking only for myself here, and sorry for the length (classification is something I love thinking about): If I read a book about terrorism, I would most likely categorize it as true crime, on Goodreads and in my book spreadsheet. I categorize books about cults and school shootings as true crime. A book about the Holocaust would probably be under my broad "social sciences" category, unless it were a biography/memoir. All of my Kennedy books are categorized as biography/memoir... except books about Martha Moxley, which are under true crime, because I don't really think of those as Kennedy books. But I'd most likely categorize Chappaquiddick and William Kennedy Smith books as true crime, if I had read any.

Expand full comment
Sep 11, 2020Liked by Best Evidence

I think that there are definitely elements of these tragedies which fit into the true crime narrative tool kit. For instance, books and articles that look at the planning and execution of the attacks, at the process of carrying out these horrific actions, are very similar to true crime. Like true crime, they take the incomprehensible and make it comprehensible, make it human, give us some sense that we can understand what happened, and through understanding, assert some degree of control over it. To me, that's the social and psychological function of true crime, and, to some extent, I think dealing with 9/11 on that basis (rather than my personal experience of it) helps me to come to grips with it better than I could otherwise.

OTOH, there are plenty of ways of approaching 9/11 or similar tragedies that don't serve that function. Memorialization is important for a society, and maybe even cathartic, but I can't stomach narratives about the death of the victims of the attack. They don't do anything to salve the wounds that day left, but rather serve to re-open them. And there is utility in that, but it's nothing like the function served by true crime (which is part of the reason I get annoyed at shows that talk about how they're really all about serving the victim).

I think there is a place to talk about victimhood, and about the experiences of people during and after 9/11: if Studs Terkel was writing about the immediate aftermath of it, I'd be all about it. But the normal tools of true crime just aren't set up for that sort of deep empathy, and it feels hollow and exploitative when they do it (I know I've mentioned it before, but "Underground" about the Sarin attacks in Tokyo, seems like a good model for this sort of thing).

In sum, with a tragedy of this magnitude, we need to separate out the procedural elements that true crime can do, that serve a social and psychological function, from the elements that true crime generally doesn't do a good job of. More than most, it's a medium that has a function (though some work, and I'm thinking of writers like Calvin Trillian, who used true crime as travelogue, can transcend this), and there's nothing wrong with staying within that function.

Expand full comment
Sep 11, 2020Liked by Best Evidence

I don't have a well-thought-out answer (for this or anything else, I'm just a wine-drinking/bad movie-watching machine at this time on Friday evening), but think there are two axis of influence: scale (the Holocaust/a single murder), and the high-low cultural genre trappings.

It's incredibly difficult for the human brain to take in the degree of tragedy of 9/11, but someone murdered in the house down the road is a palatable fear, an understandable horror.

High/low culture: true crime has it's trappings, and it's fans, the black books with bulky red font, the tabloid headlines, the breathless podcasters, the L&O marathons. Some of this becomes medium-high or high culture (Serial, Once Upon a Time in Hollywood, Catch & Kill, James Ellroy); and/or it's such a big story it becomes "more" than crime reporting, and becomes news (a slippery category - look at how the Epstein reporting can be fitted into every genre of news broadcast). Once it's become the field of REALLY SERIOUS PEOPLE, the academics, the Pulitzer committee, and become memorialised in a sanctified way - that's history.

Expand full comment
Sep 11, 2020Liked by Best Evidence

I think for me it leans toward focus and motivation. True crime tells a narrative story about a single actor (person, group) with a limited impact. However that event could have a much larger impact (JFK) which could push it into history. If the focus is on societal factors surrounding that event (example The 57 Bus) then it is social science. So for me, the line would be: is the focus on the event or the impact?

Expand full comment
founding
Sep 12, 2020Liked by Best Evidence

Thank you for this question and all the thoughtful replies. This! Is why I come here at the end of the long week. The only thing I have to add is that I occasionally think about the topic of reparations for slavery. The history of slavery in the U.S. clearly falls into the category of, well, history based on scope and other measures. But i also think of it as one of the best-documented crimes in the world. There is just so much evidence that it always falls into the category of clear-cut crime. And I realize that my thinking is out of the norm on this one. Truly appreciate the discussion.

Expand full comment