Customer Reviews

The Gates of Janus: Serial Killing and Its Analysis

5 star:		(9)
4 star:		(3)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(4)
1 star:		(4)

 

 

Remember if you read this book that there is no Evil more depraved than to molest and kill children. And that is Ian Brady's only claim to recognition.

Brady obessionally praises the evil-doer as a heroic figure. Yet no where does he discuss or even allude to his own torturing, sexual molestation and murder of five helpless children. A strange omission indeed. Instead this accomplished child abuser treats, and largely bores, the reader with lies about his fanciful criminal career, incessant displays of his grandoise and fragile ego, inferior re-hashes of other serial killers and verbose psuedo-philosophizing. All mixed with ample doses of whining self-pity about the way he has been treated.

Remember too that Ian Brady is a consummate and complusive liar. He inadvertently reveals his lies {at page 284} when he points out that many prisoners escape into fantasy and come to half believe their "fictitious past". So take anything he says with more than a grain of salt.

The first half of "Gates" is taken up with Brady's sociopathic rantings. He hates everyone indiscriminately- except for himself. His monotonous diatribes are interpersed with idle threats about how the criminal classes are going to rise up and kill all the rest of us. In actuality, criminals despise child killers like Brady who they call "baby rapers" and attack whenever they are given the opportunity. Brady has had to be protected for his entire prison stay from his fellow prisoners. These comical rantings are more evidence of Brady's disconnect from the real world.

Brady's current populist pose is ridiculous. He was an avowed neo-Nazi who held the" masses" in contempt and himself above the law. And his child victims were hardly oppressors of the poor and down-trodden. Indeed they came from the same lower class working background as Brady himself. Brady never lifted a finger in his life against the upper-classes.

One of Brady's "heroes" is Richard Ramirez, the Los Angeles "Night Salker" of the mid-1980s. Brady paints him as a fellow revolutionary who attacked and killed members of the WASP establishment. He did no such thing. Instead Ramirez attacked tiny Asian- American women because they were easy to subdue,like the wimp Brady who only attacked children. And Ramirez was finally captured by a crowd of his fellow Hispanics who were as appalled as everyone else by his butchery.

Another fantasy of Brady was that he killed after applying "auto-hypnosis" to himself. He never explains what this is. But what he really did was to idrink massive doses of alcohol. He was a heavy drinker and incipient alcoholic. Like Ted Bundy, he used alcohol to dull his senses and self- control. Colin Wilson, in his introduction to the book, makes a fundamental error in glorifying Brady as a man seeking super- normal experiences. But the opposite is true. Brady was incapable of any kind of exalted experience. His personal life was one of unremitting banality.

Brady incessantly lies too in portraying himself as a master criminal. He asserts he travelled about England committing unspecified crimes with a band of disciples. No such incidents occurred. He committed only his child killings and only in and around Manchester. His "disciples were only Myra Hindley and the dullish 17- year old Daivd Smith. And it was Smith who turned him into the police.

Like other serial killers, Brady was a weakling and coward who attacked by ambush only the weakest prey he could find. In the face of authority he became meek and compliant. And when the end came he meekly surrendered to an unarmed policeman disguised as a baker.

Only at the typewriter does he now construct a fictional larger-than- life portrait of himself. Then he asserts he killed disloyal disciples. Another lie, the result of wishful thinking. His follie-a- deux with Myra Hindley ended in prison when she opportunistically turned against him to tried to get released through her champion the deranged "Lord" Longford.

In compensation for all Brady's b.s., there is his laughable bad writing. One example is his fantasy of master criminal "whilst in pursuit of multifarious criminal activities in many cities". {page 217}. Such "multifarious criminal activies" never occurred. Brady's criminal career consisted of petty crimes for which he had a genius for being caught.

There is one key insight in the book. Brady admitts that his child-killing episodes were less than satisfactory. He realizes much too late- for Lesley Ann and his four other victims-the superiority of Fantasy over deed. Brady writes here in a rare authentic moment. He notes that killing itself is secondary. The real goal is to gain control over the victim. But the mundane requirements of this obviate the "pleasure". He cannot enjoy the tormenting, torturing and sexually abusing the victim because the practical considerations interfere. Hence he argues for the pure pleasures of fantasy. Too bad five children had to go through such torment for him to learn this lesson. But the children were killed primarily to destroy the evidence.
See page 39.

Conclusion:

Given the propensity of novelists and movie- makers to concoct serial killers as brilliant, bigger-than-life monsters- a la Hannibal Lector and "American Psyche"- Brady's book is a needed corrective. Behind his mask of "Janus" he is a pathetic loser, a tawdry little man.

Despite these criticisms, Brady's turgid exercise in self- justification is worth reading. He is the only child serial killer ever to try to justify himself in print. But it is the lies and fantasies that impress the discerning reader. It is Brady's own badly damaged ego that is most on display here.And his appallingly bad writing do provide some black comedic moments

Brady, a man of some intelligence, struggles with the written word. Like many an undereducated suburban letter-to-the-editor writer he tries to lift the tone by using long words where short would do. A fair proportion of the book is more or less lifted from other sources. Many of the crimes analysed start with fairly ludicrous descriptive passages dealing with the weather or the traffic, typical of lower end true crime writing. Given Brady was unable to do any field research you might assume that is what they are. Other more technical passages are lifted from such sources as Robert Hare's "Without conscience".

Brady could be accurately described as Sadean in that his crimes mirrored the fantasies you find in "120 days of Sodom", "Juliette" and other sources. On the other hand Nietzsche seems little more than a catch phrase to him. Old Friedrich would probably have found Brady's attacks on children more unter than uber.

Brady possesses little insight into his own psychological state and the resentments that drove him but does sometimes reveal himself obliquely. His analyses of the crimes of others are facile and occasionally random. All this is what we expect from a psychopath.

The book tries and fails to alter our impression of Brady, a small man who tortured and killed the weak.

I for a brief time studied criminal psychology, and was fascinated with Brady and Hindley. I never could wrap my mind around them, as they do not fit with the typical profile of couple killers. To me what made them all the more monstrous was the fact that, despite the way the evidence looked, I do not believe these were sexual killings, but intellectual exercises in evil. Personally, the guy that just can't help but eat human flesh because of some bizarre need is far less frightening than the controlled, icy-cold Brady and Hindley, who just wanted to see how far they could go into the darkness just because it was there. The fact that their victims were children speaks volumes that Hindley and Brady never did. So I began a short correspondence with Brady which lasted long enough for me to know that he would never really let anyone know why, because the real reasons were so cloaked in all his verbosity that one would only come away with an impression of Brady as a learned man who just happened some years ago to murder. Which is what this book displays. I agree with some of the other reviewers- if you are into this sort of thing, you will probably find something worthwhile in it, if one can use that term in this context. But I do feel moral qualms about buying it- I read it at the library.

Brady's "Gates of Janus" is one great read. He offers devastating social commentary, and I often found myself squirming as I turned the pages. His analyses of individual serial killers are less interesting (though they do have some splendid moments). A lot of his analysis of the profiling of serial killers seems to have been lifted from the FBI manual.

Brady is at his best when (1) philosophizing - talking about the nature of good and evil, of morality, choice, and free will; and (2) offering social commentary - white collar v. blue collar crime, nonviolent sociopaths who rise in business and politics, the growth of the prison and military industries, the corrosive influence of tabloid media, etc.

It's almost frightening to me that I agree with so much of his philosophy and social critique. However, his evil deeds ultimately undermine what he says. Society may well be as bad as he says it is, and morality may well be the sham he declares it to be, but how on earth could kidnapping, raping, torturing and murdering children possibly be an appropriate response? Big business may well be as corrupt as Brady says, but why did he think that doing what he did to Lesley Ann Downey could constitute an appropriate solution?

In the end, it's an attempt to justify the unjustifiable. Still well worth reading, and the ideas have considerable merit apart from their author's heinous actions.

Ian Brady's work is interesting, insightful, and generally well-written, though his penchant for 50-cent words gets a little tiresome. He is VERY full of himself (one of the defining points of serial killers, it would seem), and I think that his arguments would probably look better to the casual reader if he weren't so constant in his railing against authority. Instead of coming across as well-reasoned, as he honestly does most of the time, during these episodes he just appears childish and whiney. I think he could have gotten that particular point across--that evangelical Christians, politicians, and corporate CEOs are often far more dangerous and destructive in their repression and extremes of moral/ethical hypocrisy than the working-class criminal--without the constant railing against "The Man." Of course, I was able to remain patient with it, primarily because I understand that he hand-wrote the whole book, as do many who write from prison. It's a ton of pressure, knowing that you can't just hit the "backspace" key and edit your words; I think that, given that kind of pressure, he did an admirable job.

That said, he makes a LOT of good points, which is something that people, like the reviewer below who apparently thinks that people who want to understand such things should kill themselves (way to go, by the way--real nice attitude there), generally don't WANT to know about someone who could commit such atrocious crimes. He is extremely intelligent, very well-read, and often very well-reasoned. More importantly, I think he generally delivered on the stated purpose of the book, which is to provide an understanding of why people like him work the way they do. To a great extent, it's a treatise in moral relativism at its best--or worst. I honestly couldn't disagree with a lot of what he had to say, much as I may have liked to. He KNOWS himself, which is sadly something that I don't believe can be said of most people. In that, kudos to him.

The afterword by Peter Sotos is another creature entirely. To get a good grip on what he's driving at, it's helpful to have read some of his other works--if you can stomach them. A great fan of child torture and rape who professes an extreme misogyny second only to the medieval Church (as seen in his interview in the "Apocalypse Culture" series, if you don't have the fortitude to read anything else), Sotos is, in his way, far scarier to me than Brady. To put it bluntly, if I had to overnight with one of them, I'd take Brady any day--a perspective, I'm sure, that would leave Sotos smiling. Yet again, Sotos seems to have an understanding of himself and his own psychology that is demonstratively lacking in the general populace, so... much as I hate to say it (especially as a woman), kudos to him.

These men are monsters, but they know it, understand it, and respect it. Can most people HONESTLY say the same?

Perhaps most disturbing about the Gates of Janus is Colin Wilson's Introduction and his persistent panhandling to the likes of Ian Brady, a deluded, self-inflated zero. Wilson implies that the publication would not have occured without his assistance. He even had opportunity to read the draft and claims he found sustenance in the chapters on other killers. That Colin Wilson would support Ian Brady's veiled attempt at "other blaming" has surely reduced Wilson's credibility in my eyes.

I was expecting an acedemic opportuntiy that would enrich my understanding of the psychopathic mind but all I received was a bombastic rehash of information already previous published. And I received it, no less, from someone who writes as if he is the originator of these concepts. Somehow, I think he believes just that.

Several times I wanted to not only hurl the book but hurl as well especially if I read the word "atavistic" one more time. If you want to read a book that comes close to enlightening you about what motivates a serial killer, try:The Only Living Witness: The True Story of Serial Sex Killer Ted Bundy . Another book, Panzram A Journal of Murder, while coming close to obscene, will at least allow you to walk away with an understanding of the internalized hate that a man can develop over a lifetime.

If ever there was a time I wished I believed in hell, this is it. Ian Brady, rot in hell.

I bought this because I thought it would be interesting to study the mind of Brady through his writing. This was a disappointment. The first part is just him raving about how cruel people are towards criminals and then he just talks about other serial killers and how he is smarter than both them and the police. I could only get about 3.5/4 of the way through before I had to put it down. I can sum it up for you by telling you he's a narcissistic socio/psychopath (not sure which).

What a concept -- a serial killer writes about serial killing and rates his contemporaries. (...) Brady is fond of quoting others, and among the usual suspects (DeSade, Nietzche)he mentions Henry Kissinger. Surprisingly, Brady doesn't go into details about his crimes but concentrates on others. He calls John Wayne Gacy "a perfect psychopath" and finds lots to laugh about poor Peter Sutcliffe (a nutter he met in captivity). Interestingly, he doesn't see any similarities with the Moors Murders and the crimes of Houston "candy man" Dean Corrl, which were both (...) homicide carried out with the assistance of unquestioning lovers.

All in all a good book -- but the REAL volume to look out for would be his galpal's memoirs.(...)

To just put down Ian Brady as just another mindless criminal cashing in on his infamy would be a mistake. This is a serious tome that has Brady casting a critical eye on the crimes of people like Ted Bundy, John Gacy, The Hillside Stranglers, Richard Ramirez and more. He also spends time speculating on such topics as the debate between insanity, sociopathy and psychotic behaviour, motivations of crime and more.
The forward by Colin Wilson and final chapter by Peter Sotos are also worth a look.

In years to come this will be regarded as a truly thought-provoking book which raises many interesting points. It's just a shame that many people won't buy it becasue of the nefarious activities the author carried out prior to his incarceration. This is just the kind of narrow-mindedness that will deprive the same people of much food for thought.
I doubt Brady's partner-in-crime Myra Hindley would ever be able to come up with such a literate and serious book. She was pliable and easily manipulated but as this book proves, it was Brady who was the brains behind the crimes.

Ian Brady and Myra Hindley are known as the "Moors Murderers" - 40 years ago they committed what is thought to be the most savage series of crimes in England ever - the killing of a child and two teen-agers and to this day are possibly the most hated people in England. This book is written by Ian Brady himself who proves to be quite intelligent despite his early lack of judgement.

Ian Brady for some reason seems to have a better grasp of reality than most sleep walking people on the streets today although he has been in prison for years. He also has a writing style that simply describes the trappings of society, government and religion that almost anyone can understand. A lot of people commit crimes because they can no longer make ends meet and Brady, as well as many, many others, myself included, seem to think that government, police, religion and society in general are to blame not human nature. Instead of supplying food and shelter, the powers that be would rather build jails to keep themselves in power and at the same time reaffirm in the public's eye the need for police and jails, using doublespeak terms such as "correctional institution" to describe what is really a "revenge institution" - and revenge breeds revenge. Now there is overcrowding in jails which leads to shorter terms for criminals - they are back on the streets in no time and immediately seek revenge on society and government. This is not just another book about serial murder - it is a scathing commentary on the ills of society, government and religion as well - and how it (in some extreme cases) can lead to murder. Police and government have but one function and that is to assist the people it supposedly represents. Unfortunately this is no longer the case - we seem to have forgotten its original purpose and it is no longer "for the people by the people" - in America or anywhere else as Brady plainly points out in so many ways. He then goes on to dissect about a dozen cases of serial murder and the killers in a non-sensationalist and psychological manner leaving the more gruesome details for the media and other writers who claim to be so appalled by murders but are the first to cash in on it all!