| |||||||||||||||
Product Details
|
"Astringent and absorbing. . . . Iphigenia in Forest Hills casts, from its first pages, a genuine spell — the kind of spell to which Ms. Malcolm’s admirers (and I am one) have become addicted."—Dwight Garner, New York Times
"She couldn't have done it and she must have done it." This is the enigma at the heart of Janet Malcolm's riveting new book about a murder trial in the insular Bukharan-Jewish community of Forest Hills, Queens, that captured national attention. The defendant, Mazoltuv Borukhova, a beautiful young physician, is accused of hiring an assassin to kill her estranged husband, Daniel Malakov, a respected orthodontist, in the presence of their four-year old child. The prosecutor calls it an act of vengeance: just weeks before Malakov was killed in cold blood, he was given custody of Michelle for inexplicable reasons. It is the "Dickensian ordeal" of Borukhova's innocent child that drives Malcolm's inquiry.
With the intellectual and emotional precision for which she is known, Malcolm looks at the trial—"a contest between competing narratives"—from every conceivable angle. It is the chasm between our ideals of justice and the human factors that influence every trial—from divergent lawyering abilities to the nature of jury selection, the malleability of evidence, and the disposition of the judge—that is perhaps most striking.
Surely one of the most keenly observed trial books ever written, Iphigenia in Forest Hills is ultimately about character and "reasonable doubt." As Jeffrey Rosen writes, it is "as suspenseful and exciting as a detective story, with all the moral and intellectual interest of a great novel."
"Iphigenia in Forest Hills is another dazzling triumph from Janet Malcolm. Here, as always, Malcolm’s work inspires the best kind of disquiet in a reader—the obligation to think." —Jeffrey Toobin, author of The Nine: Inside the Secret World of the Supreme Court
"A remarkable achievement that ranks with Malcolm's greatest books. Her scrupulous reporting and interviews with protagonists on both sides of the trial make her own narrative as suspenseful and exciting as a detective story, with all the moral and intellectual interest of a great novel." —Jeffrey Rosen, author of The Supreme Court: The Personalities and Rivalries that Defined America
Tag this product(What's this?)Think of a tag as a keyword or label you consider is strongly related to this product.
Tags will help all customers organize and find favorite items. |
|
Share your thoughts with other customers:
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Most helpful customer reviews
1 of 1 people found the following review helpful
4.0 out of 5 stars
Too much of a "remove"...,
By
This review is from: Iphigenia in Forest Hills: Anatomy of a Murder Trial (Hardcover)
In "Iphigenia in Forest Hills", journalist Janet Malcolm has recounted the story of a murder trial a completely dispassionate voice. That the writing could be taken almost entirely from a court reporter's records was done on purpose, I suppose, to give the reader a completely objective view of the case. However, it also places the reader at too much of a "remove" from the case or characters.In 2007, a Bukharan-Jewish orthodontist, Daniel Malakov, was gunned down in a park, in front of his estranged wife and their 4 year old daughter. The daughter was the subject of a bitter custody case, and the wife, Marina Borukhova, was immediately the chief suspect in the murder. A relative-by-marriage to Borukhova, was tracked down by police and the two were charged with homicide and murder-for-hire. After a three week trial, both were found guilty of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. The daughter went to live with her father's brother and his family. Okay, most true-crime books are written with a lot of heated rhetoric. The victims - usually women - are always described as "beautiful", even if they're not, because "beautiful" victims are worth more press. In Malcolm's book, the convicted murderer is described as "beautiful", though "plain-at-best" seems to be more to the truth. That one example of heated rhetoric is about the only one I could find in the book, and I suppose the book's publisher's sales team had the word put in there to increase sales. By reading Malcolm's book, I learned about the closely-knit Bukharan-Jewish community in New York, made up of Russian emigrants who arrived here in the 1980's and 1990's and settled in the Forest Hills area of Queens. Both the victim and his wife - who was an internist - chose the wrong partner-in-life and divorce was the answer to their problems. Their daughter was caught in the middle, custody given to the father in an inexplicable court rendering shortly before the murder. On a sunny day, the father was gunned down. Everything told in dispassionate voice by the author. Now, I really don't know if writing a true-crime book in a dispassionate voice IS a bad thing. I certainly am glad I read Malcolm's book and it is well-written, in a technical sense. And there was a little, enough actually, rigor to her writing that I sensed a slight favoritism towards the convicted wife and her troubles. But, I could have learned as much by reading the accounts from the New York Times articles about the murder and trial. I will be interested to see other readers' takes on Malcolm's book. I can recommend it but I just wish I felt more connected to the characters and the case.
Share your thoughts with other customers: Create your own review
Most Helpful Customer Reviews on Amazon.com (beta) Amazon.com:
2.9 out of 5 stars (15 customer reviews) 15 of 16 people found the following review helpful
5.0 out of 5 stars
Troubling and intriguing,
By kevnm "kevnm" - Published on Amazon.com
This review is from: Iphigenia in Forest Hills: Anatomy of a Murder Trial (Hardcover)
I was initially disoriented by Ms. Malcolm's account, expecting the "anatomy" promised by the subtitle. The word suggested to me an ordered analysis of a system, in this case the justice system. What the reader gets, though, is a deeply felt meditation on the impossibility of objectivity, the very limited "truth" allowed through the strictures of the legal system, the bewildering treatment of children by legal and social service agencies,the petty tyranny of judges, and our indeterminate sense of equality. Incidents and personalities appear, fade, and reappear, eschewing a temporal, linear flow; This is by no means a straight, suspense-filled true crime account. Rather it is a thoughtful (and appropriately disordered) reflection on why no system that involves humans can ever make complete sense or produce fair, coherent results. Malcolm is a clear thinker and an able guide through this dark territory. Scenes from this case will stay with you a long time. Terrific read.
7 of 7 people found the following review helpful
4.0 out of 5 stars
the Journalist and the Murderer redux,
By Gerald A. Heverly - Published on Amazon.com
This review is from: Iphigenia in Forest Hills: Anatomy of a Murder Trial (Hardcover)
It's certainly true that Janet Malcolm is not a traditional courtroom reporter. In this case Malcolm carries you with her in apparent skepticism about the guilty verdict, even as she piles on trial details that would--without her mediation--seem clearly to implicate and convict the defendants, Mazoltuv Borukhova and Mikhail Mallayev. Malcolm does everything she can to wring sympathy for Ms. Borukhova, though just about everyone else in this book despises her. We learn that Borukhova has been apparently mistreated by one judge (in a custody battle) and now she is getting less-than-perfect 'justice' from the judge in her murder trial. We further learn that the two keys pieces of evidence against her are dubious (an indistinct, muffled translation of a Russian conversation; and a partial finger print). Whether she is guilty or not I leave to the reader.What fascinated me about this book is its connection to Malcolm's best book, *The Journalist and the Murderer*. That book revolved around Malcolm's own misgivings about the things that journalists do to get the story. It's a complicated story within a story within a story about one journalist's relationship with a criminal defendant and Malcolm's own relationship with the author. Among other sins Malcolm ruminates about how journalists ingratiate themselves with people they secretly revile--all in the name of getting access to the kinds of details that sell a story. And yet here, many years later, Malcolm describes her own use of that same method: "Joseph and Nalia {relatives of the victim} evidently felt no impropriety in speaking unguardedly to a journalist," remarks Malcolm, no doubt fascinated herself at people's willingness to spill the beans for that modicum of glory you can get by being quoted in The New Yorker (or the subsequent book). At another point Malcolm reveals that she was so alarmed at the apparent lunacy of one witness in the trial (whom she interviewed) that she 'meddled with the story I was reporting." It's Malcolm's honesty that makes her writing so compelling. You sense that she isn't sure if she is qualified to decide whether Ms. Borukhova is really guilty and that anything she writes is tainted by her own biases. Yet she isn't sure that the jury system is any better. Who is more suspect: a lying, conniving journalist or the paid lunatics who populate the court system? 5 of 5 people found the following review helpful
3.0 out of 5 stars
So Much for Common Law, What About an Inquisitorial System?,
By Martin Chorich "wahnsinnig" - Published on Amazon.com
This review is from: Iphigenia in Forest Hills: Anatomy of a Murder Trial (Hardcover)
Readers expecting a True Crime potboiler should go elsewhere. Instead, we have Janet Malcolm, a literary journalist strongly influenced by psychology and structuralism inquiring, into the possibility of justice in an adversarial trial system. She analyzes the Borukhova case as matter of competing narratives offered by prosecution and defense with a judge acting in a triple role of ringmaster, spectator, and sentencing oracle. Needless to say, while trials of this kind make for good theater, they have a hit-and-miss approach to getting at the truth of matters. Frankly, the hard evidence points towards Ms. Borukhova's guilt, but the theatrics of the system require the prosecutor to go beyond factual presentation and into layering on the story-telling necessary for the jury to visualize and actuate a guilty verdict. The defense tells stories, too, aimed at disrupting the prosecutor's portrait of the defendant as a stressed-out but legally guilty orchestrator of a murder for hire. Malcolm's post-trial interviews with jury members indicate that their perceptions of the defendant's demeanor, personal appearance, and inability to culturally connect influenced them to accept the prosecution narrative, especially the elements that depart from physical or witness evidence of the crime itself.On the whole, this makes for an interesting book, but Malcolm has covered this ground before. From a structuralist point of view, she clearly finds adversarial trial system an absurdity if truth telling is important to the legal system. I'd be very interested to see her apply the same analytical framework to European-style inquisitorial criminal justice procedures. Do they do a better job of things, or is human justice impossible? |
|
|