Good article in The New Yorker I posted on the Berry-DeJesus-Knight general thread. (Caveat: when author Sasha Weiss discusses the Coetzee novel, the first quotation from it may be disturbing.) Weiss asks if the preponderance of information we learn when reading the grim details of true crime can in fact damage us. In the excerpt from Natascha Kampusch's book about her eight year ordeal, she voices the same concerns, this time from the perspective of a victim of a kidnap/hostage victim. How much is too much? In terms of the victims, is there a point when should just we leave well enough alone? The Cleveland victims: Our hunger for the obscene details (New Yorker) After kidnap: Natascha Kampusch on being freed after 8 years in captivity (Guardian) the rest at the links above There's a certain voyeuristic quality when reading about any crime. I've read scores if not hundreds of true crime books, and more reports than I care to remember about crimes in the newspapers and magazines. The question: how much do we, the public, have a right to know, and how much do we need to know? Is there a point in learning of the prurient details of what went on? At what point is that information too much information? At what point are both the victims, and the reader, damaged by the facts of what took place?