The Demon in the Freezer is a 2002 nonfiction book on the biological weapon agents smallpox and anthrax and how the American government develops defensive measures against them. It was written by journalist Richard Preston, also author of the best-selling book The Hot Zone (1994), about ebolavirus outbreaks in Africa and Reston, Virginia and the U.S. government's response to them. Preston decided to write the book following the 2001 anthrax attacks, discussing the two diseases together because both could be potential biological weapons. The book is primarily an account of the Smallpox Eradication Program (1967–1980), the ongoing belief of the U.S. government that smallpox is still a potential bioterrorism agent, and the controversy over whether or not the remaining samples of smallpox virus in Atlanta and Moscow (the "demon" in the freezer) should be finally destroyed. Many reviewers praised Preston's writing style, but some found the attempts to interweave the anthrax investigation with the smallpox material "klutzy" and "disjointed".

Synopsis

Reception

Most critics enjoyed Preston's storytelling techniques, often describing the book as suspenseful and frightening. Michiko Kakutani of The New York Times bragged that "this book will give you nightmares", deeming it engaging but also overly dramatic at times. Publishers Weekly described it as scarier than any thriller. Kirkus Reviews praised Preston's "steady, ominous voice". Daniel Fierman, writing for Entertainment Weekly, called the book a "ripping real-life horror story." Chip Walter of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette likened Preston's prose to telling scary stories over a campfire. The Economist called the book "fascinating", "gripping", and "always entertaining", though it said Preston's attempts to add more details sometimes hurt pacing. Kevin Shapiro of Commentary found it easy to read, and while he felt that the book was "formulaic", he considered it only a minor shortcoming. In contrast, Bryan Appleyard of The Times characterized the book as style over substance, calling Preston a "master of...cinematic journalese." Many reporters and writers criticized Preston's decision to discuss both smallpox and anthrax in the same book. Appleyard described the jumps between the two subjects as "sketchy" and "hugely irritating". Fierman felt that the book's overarching narrative structure was "klutzy". Walter called the book "disjointed", though he felt that was ultimately an minor issue. Kakutani argued that cutting back and froth between accounts of the anthrax attacks and descriptions of smallpox was manipulative and constituted scaremongering.