Unmask Alice

This was a very entertaining/interesting book...but...

1) I think it should have been about Alden Barrett from the beginning. His was the most interesting story and made up the bulk of the book. I know Alice is more famous but it was weird that Alden Barrett is not even mentioned until Part 2. The section that was just a narrative of his life was the most compelling and read like a sort of real life, third person and slightly more clinical version of catcher in the rye. Then the following stuff about how his family suffered and his story was exploited was really sad. The author still could have included the satanic panic and Beatrice Sparks stuff, but framing it explicitly around that story would have made sense since it was by far the most interesting part...

2) A lot of the negative reviews on Goodreads focus on the fact that he didn't cite any sources (he explains in a general sense how he got the info). Unlike some of the reviewers, I don't think he did this maliciously or made anything up necessarily...but this feels like a very lazy/stupid move in light of what this book is largely about (debunking fraudulent works of “non-fiction”). Like, sir, why not just list your sources and clearly delineate yourself from the person you just wrote an entire book criticizing?