Customer Reviews

Child of Satan, Child of God

5 star:		(16)
4 star:		(3)
3 star:		(6)
2 star:		(5)
1 star:		(8)

 

 

I got to this book after reading Helter Skelter, The Family, The Shadow Over Santa Susannah, The Garbage People and Manson In His Own Words. Having heard Manson's take I was curious to read what the others involved in the murders would have to say for themselves, and dug up a second-hand copy of Child Of Satan, Child Of God.

It's somewhat interesting, and seemed to me quite honest about Susan Atkins' (fairly horrible) early life, but generally it's quite hard to decode what's going on behind the words. It's written in a flat, detached style that might be the consequence of having a ghost writer or might also reveal the affectlessness of a psychopathic personality.

Some reviews of this book have focussed on the sincerity (or otherwise) of Susan Atkins' conversion to Christianity as the key to evaluating its worth. I'm not religious, so have no stake in whether she's sincere or not. Truman Capote was once asked if any mass murderers were religious and he replied, 'They all are.' If you're in prison for life, then having God and the Devil fight over your soul is something to do that makes your imprisonment seem meaningful, even epic. Susan Atkins showed in her belief in Manson a predisposition to fall for epic belief systems bolstered by divine revelations. The miracle would have been if, once in jail, she had evinced scepticism about the evidence of things not seen.

One reviewer (at least) slates Susan Atkins for denying that she stabbed Sharon Tate, having previously bragged about it to all and sundry, including a grand jury. Well, I don't know what really went down then, but what I do know is that in his own autobiography Charles Watson confessed that he, in fact, stabbed Sharon. One thing that comes across strongly in Helter Skelter is how Susan Atkins got caught up in enjoying shocking anyone she met - witness the ludicrous celebrity murder list she came up with while in Sybil Brand (flaying Frank Sinatra; sending Liz Taylor's eyes to Eddie Fisher etc), which had nothing to do with Manson's plans, (tho Vince Bugliosi didn't think Susan Atkins was 'smart enough to dream it up on her own').

Where I found this book most lacking was in Atkins' description of her life and relationship with Manson. While it's interesting to hear her account of how bitchy and competitive the girls got with each other, and how bored everyone got, and how Manson had constantly to come up with new dramas to hold the group together, Susan Atkins writes sceptically, as if she was never really under Manson's spell. Reading her account of life in The Family prior to the murders one would take her for a peripheral member, someone who was never taken in by Charlie. This inevitably creates a great hole in her story, because if she saw through Manson as, by her own account, she seemed to, then why on earth did she take part in murders at his command? After all Linda Kasabian said, 'I'm not you, Charlie, I can't kill.' Juan Flynn refused to murder the sheriff of Shoshone when Manson asked him to, and plenty of other people pulled back from crossing that line.

Perhaps it's inevitable that the sort of person who could do what Susan Atkins did will be unable to really reveal the deep reasons behind it.

Just possibly shame prevented her from being able to re-enter that state of belief in Manson that led her to become involved with the murders: there's an embarassment involved in recalling when one was fooled by somebody under any circumstances. Perhaps under Susan Atkins' circumstances the extremity of the embarassment would be massively magnified. Whatever the reason, this is a book that only takes the reader so far, and no further.

As to whether Atkins could be said to be rehabilitated, I'm glad that's not a decision I have to make. It is, however, somewhat salutary to compare her with Squeaky Fromme, who was also, but passionately remains, a true believer in the cult of Manson.

I'm sure it's been said but it bears repeating: Skip it and go ahead and get another copy of 'Helter Skelter'. I found this one in a used book shop and jumped on it. I was dissapointed. As someone who reads true crime constantly, and is as familiar with the Manson case as are most part-time enthusiasts, there wasn't anything to here to recommend to you that you should invest in it.
There's nothing in it that you didn't already know. Atkins writes as if she's shrugging her shoulders the whole time, saying, "Uhmmm....well....you know how it was."
Yes. We do. We've read all about it. Now what do you have as far as personal insight, Susan? You were there, after all.

Nothing, unfortunately.

Too bad. The opportunity for a great biography or personal history of the notorious case was here. She doesn't capitalize on it in the least. Or, even more of a let down, she simply may not have anything worth writing. Hard to believe, but there it is nonetheless.

An empty, dissapointing read.

I read all of the reviews, including the horrible ones, prior to reading the book, yet I still found it an interesting account of a truly lost soul. It was gut wrenching, banal, fun, desperate, amusing, mundane, tragic, deceptive,and spooky all in one story.
The emphasis placed on the events prior to and after the August 1969-March 1972 was good. Little can be said of the crimes and the trial that has not been said already, so I was glad that she did not dwell on them. It was, however, chilling to read about the events of the Sharon Tate murders from a participant's point of view. I DO think Susan Atkins had more of a role in this than she states. The events of that night are probably blurred in her mind.

One the lighter side, the stories of the San Francisco hippie scene, the communes and the bus travels of 1967-1968 were fun to read about.

Her teenage dream about the hallway,with it's locked doors and the horrible, screeching black sheet engulfing her was something to behold.

Her first day at the CIW in the SSU might seem banal to some, but it described a person who had truly hit rock bottom. All these years I wondered how she had coped with the mess she created for other lives as well as her own. The isolation was obvious to her, and as time passes, the reality of her actions of August 1969 seem to finally sink in.
Many have commented on her lack of remorse.An apology will not bring back the dead. I think the remorse IS there. It shows itself in her gradual meltdown. Susan srikes me as one who puts up a front of "Look at me, I'm a bad ____!", but I do think inside she is a small, very insecure, little girl. I do think she has a few loose screws, and she may not know that the best of intentions will not tighten these screws.

Overall, I liked the book. It's not a great work of literature, but it is one of a kind.

I sincerely hope Miss Atkins is the changed person she claims to be in this book, but frankly, I find it almost impossible to believe anything she says. She has told so many lies over the years about the Tate-LaBianca case, I think it's quite possible that even she doesn't know the truth anymore.
Like the rest of the convicted killers involved in the Tate-LaBianca murders, she cops out by saying she had been brainwashed by Manson and had little control over her actions. I believe Manson knew who had the ability to kill and who didn't, and chose the people who went out to kill seven innocent people very carefully. Although Manson had the ability to capitalize on their weaknesses, the end result was these heartless people CHOSE to do his bidding. They could have gone back and told Charlie no one was home or simply refused his request in the first place.
I simply can't conjure up any sympathy for anyone who is capable of comitting such a heartless act and the thought of someone like that being free to walk among us again is terrifying. Atkins claims she has found god and tells us he has forgiven her. I believe god can forgive anyone for anything if that person is truly remorseful for his or her sins, and if he has forgiven her, then her afterlife is assured. However, she is being held in prison because she comitted a crime against society, and society says she will rot in a jail cell for her unspeakable crimes. It's incredibly obscene for someone like Miss Atkins to place such a high value on her own life, when she had no hesitation whatsoever about taking the life of an eight and half month pregnant woman who pleaded in vain for her life and that of her unborn child.
Seven innocent people are in their graves and they will never get a second chance. The killers deserve the same fate.

I got this book when it was first published and tried to read it with an open mind. sadly Susan Atkins did have a rotten childhood. But she also chose the path she went on long before joining Manson. I think regardless of Atkins background she was going to commit crimes. I have never beleived in her so called return to Christianity. Miss Atkins was a fine little actress and unfortuantely as given a life sentence when her death sentence was over turned. I have yet to see any memeber of the Family who has come clean so to speak on their roles in the tragedy that took so many lives. They all dump it on Charlie. I tried several times reading this book to not judge Atkins or her cohorts in crime. It just isn't possible. Don't waste your time on this one.

A few months ago when the news was covering the 40th anniversary of the Tate-LaBianca murders and stories about Ms Atkins' cancer. In the process of web surfing the story to get a refresher. I came across Susan's web site and was impressed by her artistic ability, esp. her jewelry having taken a few courses in it myself, and began to wonder how such a cute innocent looking and obviously not stupid girl could become one of the most notorious murderers, leading to an epiphany of sorts realizing there had to be a back story & side story to Crazy Charlie and those girls who shaved their hair & carved X's in their foreheads,

Beyond seeing the made for TV Helter Skelter movie I really didn't know much about the murders. If this version tells any more truth than any other remains an open question. As others mentioned any story connected to Manson seems to have multiple versions, some from the same person, and deciding which one to "believe" seems to be a matter of personal bias. On the plus side the book does tell about the events of her pre-Manson days and the events that contributed to her negative & anti-authority views, but beyond what is already urban folklore. it really doesn't give any new insight into the "thinking" that lead her to be involved with 8(+?) murders, I suppose after the drug wore off and she began to realize how she had screwed her up her life, she needed a way to explain her actions to herself and a way to deflect the harsh reality of her actions, If anything she seems to be a lost and confused person. When her parents failed her, she turned to Manson, when he failed her she turned to religion. So if being a Christian makes it so she can live with herself then leave her to her beliefs and let rest in peace.

I read this book some years ago, and I have to admit I am tempted to read it again now that Susan Atkins has been diagnosed with terminal cancer.
I found the book to be an interesting insight into how bad decisions can truly ruin one's life. I am tempted to get my son to read it when he is older to show him that the decisions he makes as a young man might follow him his whole life. I definitely do not regret reading it.
As far as whether or not her conversion is real, well thats between her and God. None of us know for certain what is in her heart, but I see no obvious reason to doubt her sincerity. But I don't think that conversion should have any impact on her parole or release hearings.

I read this book years ago during the years I was interested in the Christian publishing output of books of supposed former " occult" or whatever turned born again Christian.

This is supposedly Atkins' personal story of her life and the events surrounding her conviction for the Manson Family murders and her alleged conversion to Christianity. One of the things that stays in my mind is that she minimalizes her participation in the ten people we know so far she killed and that one murder in particular she denies actually wielding the knife. But then admitting murdering a pregnant woman is hard to excuse away. Instead of admitting her guilt and actually showing remorse for the murders and regret, she has since this book shown remorse only for her own situation.

The point is valid by another reviewer that she has voiced details of the murders in shocking detail, even so far as to brag about it while she was in jail, leading to the murders being solved and members of the Manson Family being convicted of the murders. Maybe it was her posturing the image she's a bad woman, but I doubt it.

And yes Atkins did infer that Tate and Polanski's brief connection with what she CLAIMS was " satanism" resulted in Tate being murdered. The sin and devil's hand claim. She almost infers that Tate " deserved" her death for that "sin". Atkins herself served for a bit as a dancer for Satanic high priest Anton LaVey as leading up to her being used by Manson. The book is part self-serving " confessional" of how much a sinner she supposedly was before she " got saved". As such there is a suspicion in my mind that she was never being totaly honest. The claims she made in this book contrast with her own words testifying of her roles in the murders at the trials.

The validity of her conversion IMO can be judged by her words and behavior subsequent to the book's publication. While in prison she has paricipated in many helpful programs for others and obeys the rules, her statements regarding expressing actual remorse for ending the lives of ten people are not for the loss of their lives but for her own situation. She even has said that since God forgives her she doesn't need to ask forgivenes from the families of those she murdered. This is hardly the words of a remorseful person who truly has changed and reformed. A litle whitewash attempt.

And yes the timing of this book is close to her first parole hearing, thus making her story possibly self-serving. So obviously what she said in this book is what she wants people to believe, not the cold hard truth. And while Manson did " brainwash" Atkins and the others, I find it hard that she was as brainwashed as the others, as she turned against Manson without much difficulty early on. Which means, IMO, she chose to murder. According to her, even when this was a bestseller during its time she never recieved money for this. None of the profits went to the families of her victims, of course.

Read this book with tongue in cheek and bear in mind that she was targeting the born again audience who like testimonials and converison stories. She was selling herself, not honestly confessing the details.

This book is perhaps more important now, in this age of youth violence, gangs, and broken homes, than when it was written. More than merely an inner view of the Charles Manson Family and those crimes, this book offers an insight into how otherwise ordinary youth, from middle class backgrounds, were allowed to slip through society's fingers. To that extent, it shows us the pressures that effect youth even today. More importantly, it shows how such lost souls can and are reborn. That such an oppressive series of crimes could provide the background for such an uplifting, encouraging book, is a testiment in itself.

Some aspects of this book were great. Learning about her childhood and pre-Manson days was insightful. However, I could not stop and think that most of what she wrote in this book was contradictory of what she previously said-- and what she said after. It was obviously written in hopes the parole board would read it and be somewhat influenced.
She seemed to accept some responsibility, but also pawn off responsibility on others. She made Manson seem like this all-powerful man with hypnotic powers and we all know that's just total BS. Manson had no powers, no more than you or I.
All in all the book was kind of dull and rehashes tired stories with twists for personal gain. It's not as bad as Helter Skelter, but only read this if you have thoroughly researched the case.