Recently I ran across a review of Graysmith’s first Zodiac book done by a reviewer at the Santa Rosa Press Democrat. We all have our opinions about Graysmith’s books but I think most will agreed that if it wasn’t for him writing the books, particularly the first one, the Zodiac case may have slipped into obscurity and we wouldn’t be here today discussing it.
I found this contemporaneous interview to be interesting and it reflects what many people have said since about the book.
Cool – Thanks for posting this!
Thanks for sharing!
I for one, support Graysmith &’his research. Geeze, he did all that research before computers & all the networking that we do now. Drew attention to a case, that needs closure!
Zam*
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If Zodiac ever joined a Z forum, I’m sure he would have been banned for not following forum rules. Zam’s/Quote
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
MODERATOR
He’s a helluva good writer, independent of the criticism of his research. Both of his Zodiac books are very readable and avoid the tabloid, seedy feel of a lot of true crime works. And admittedly, it is the yellow book that first got many of us hooked on the mystery. It’s gripping from the front page to the back cover. I’ve read other books about the case and, in my opinion, none are as well written. Truman Capote’s In Cold Blood, Patricia Cornwell’s Portrait of a Killer and Erik Larson’s Devil in the White City are good reads, too. I will say I have read some of Graysmith’s other books and they aren’t nearly as well written. The Sleeping Lady was particularly disappointing. Talk about embellishing: he claims to have solved the Jack the Ripper case too!
