Review: Attacking those who disagree
Rating: 3 out of 5
Date: 05 14, 2013
I'm a reader and fan of Douglas Preston's work. I'm not a big Pendegast series enthusiast, but his other books are informative, entertaining and, I think, well written. The same holds true of Trial By Fury, at least in terms of writing, but I came away from my reading believing that this essay was written as a way of attacking those who took issue with his opinions regarding Amanda Knox. Preston states, right off the bat, that his knowledge of Knox was initially shaped by a friend of a friend, and Preston --as he accuses many-- took a side and became vocal about it. After reading his essay twice now, I have to say that I believe that his analysis of the Internet community is less a study of a phenomenon and more of a vehicle and podium for his opinions of the Knox case. I found that I wasn't reading an objective discussion of the facts available regarding the murder and its investigation and judicial outcomes, but instead a well crafted propaganda piece that defends his initial musings of the case.What things boil down to is that people have opinions, and often the opinions people have differ. Some reading this review may take issue with it, and that's fine. Unlike Preston, I won't argue my stance because it's my opinion and comments of others won't alter what I interpreted from my reading. Had Preston shrugged that others might disagree and moved on, as he admits in the text he should have, he wouldn't find himself feeling the need to write this defensive treatise. I also think it's kind of dirty pool to take issue with the interactive nature of the Internet in the one way forum of standalone publication. I remain a fan of Douglas Preston's writing and will continue to buy his books. But I came away from this essay feeling disappointed. His best works are fiction.