Wilderness Of Error author interviews Stephen King

I am anxiously awaiting the publication of a book by Errol Morris.  The book is titled, "A Wilderness of Error, the trials of Jeffrey MacDonald."

As I poked around, learning more about Morris, I found he had  done an interview with Stephen King when King published 11.22.63.   (HERE)

Morris points out that King has his hero spy on Oswald in 11.22.63.  King responds, "The guy and his wife spoke Russian the whole time. That was the worst part of writing the book. I hope it’s not too boring."  Interesting, since that is about the point where I found myself wondering when the book would get moving again.

Here's something cool; King says that in a way 11.22.63 is a rethinking premise behind the The Dead Zone.  That is, if you know the future (or the past) and can change it -- then you should.  But in 11.22.63, we get a different answer from King . . . you should not!

This book is, in a way, like a photo negative of my novel “The Dead Zone.” In that book, Johnny Smith is the guy in the high place with the rifle who feels like he’s seen the future. He’s seen this guy, Greg Stillson, and he sees what he’s going to do when he becomes president, because he has this precognitive talent. And he feels like he has to kill him. At the last moment, fate intervenes. I got really uncomfortable with the idea of saying, “Well, under certain circumstances, assassination is a good thing.” And this book is a chance to do it the other way and to take the assassination back.

Morris also wrote a positive -- insightful -- review of the novel.  Morris offered all out relief that King did not worry about the machinery of Time Travel or swim through the depths of philosophy on the subject -- the author stuck to the story and allowed time travel to be little more than a vehicle to carry the story.

About the MacDonald case:

Morris is set to publish a true crime novel on the MacDonald murders.  The book Fatal Vision brought the case worldwide fame, though it was already on the media's radar long before!  And ever since I was a child I have found this one particular case interesting.  It really is a "did he do it?"

One thing that is so interesting about this murder is that the people who confessed are not the one's who are in jail.  People confess often to things they did not do, and the lady in question used a lot (LOT) of drugs.

A while back  there was an interesting book that rebutted Fatal Vision, titled Fatal Justice.  I thought it was well done.  However, there are so many things that leave the reader scratching their head at the end of any of the books about this case.  How could intruders enter the home and not awake the neighbors?  How many people were really in the house?  Why did MacDonald tell his father in law that he hunted down and killed one of the murderers?  Why were only weapons from within the home used? Why wasn't MacDonald more severely injured?  And then Fatal  Justice comes along and raises a whole new set of questions!  (Here is Ted Gunderson's interview with Helena Stoeckley, who claims to have been the woman in the floppy hat.)

I look forward to Morris' verdict, and hope he offers one!  According to the Atlantic, the books (as the title implies) argues for MacDonald's innocence.  The Atlantic's review of the book is HERE.

Morris' book, A Wilderness Of Error, is at Amazon HERE.