Save this article to read it later.
Find this story in your accountsSaved for Latersection.
Empire on Bloodis a complicated creature.
The podcast bears a somewhat unconventional structure that unfurls across time, threads, characters, directions.
Such momentum doesnt factor much inEmpire, which isnt particularly propelled by the usual did he or didnt he?
engine, nor by questions over Buaris ultimate fate.
But it does feel like a pulpy crime novel, and from that angle, it totally works.
Whats challenging is the trade-off that comes with these stylizations.
Seeing Buaris campaign for exoneration through Fishmans eyes is plenty compelling, but does it serve the case well?
As a narrator whose point of view builds the world ofEmpire on Blood, Fishman is totalizing.
(Fishman is a successful Caucasian writer.)
Further complicatingEmpireis how Fishman is an active character in Buaris story, both literally and emotionally.
Over years of reporting, Fishman develops intimate bonds with a number of his subjects.
He brokers conversations and occasionally helps move things along.
He sends gifts, passes messages.
He is present and active at pivotal moment of their lives.
Its a heartbreaking coda, but one thats doubly infuriating given Fishmans active presence throughout Buaris story.
Why did the reporter choose to help his subject in some ways, and not others?
Why doesnt he intervene here?
Its worth noting that you could flip this around.
I find the former incredibly valuable, but am still struggling with the latter.
