Most Helpful Customer Reviews
|
|
9 of 11 people found the following review helpful:
1.0 out of 5 stars
Bottom Shelf, September 1, 2007
I have been reading true crime for over ten years, and I don't have very high expectations as the publishing bar for this genre is very low. I have read some very badly written true crime, but this was the worst by far.
The author hardly goes a page without using the term 'serial killer', as if we'd forget what we were reading. As previous reviews stated, the author used cliches non-stop and made frequent references to films completely unrelated to the subject. I was willing to let the poor writing slide, until he actually Judged several of the victims that did not survive BTK. He actually says they could have/should have done something else to survive. In essence, they just gave up and did nothing to help themselves. How dare he!?!? No one can possibly know how they are going to react in life or death circumstances, and sometimes, doing nothing CAN save your life. It just depends on the kind of criminal you are dealing with.
Despite my outrage, I continued reading (once I start, I HAVE to finish, no matter how bad it is, it's a problem), and found several factual errors, particularly in the Bundy chapter.
Overall, the main selling point of this book seemed to be stories of survival. But I learned much more about the author's choice of beverages.
If you are looking for good true crime, look elsewhere (Ann Rule). If you're looking for stories of survival, read "Alive". If you want to read the lamest book ever written, by all means, this is the book for you.
|
|
|
6 of 7 people found the following review helpful:
1.0 out of 5 stars
Gross Generalizations, Rehashings and Lazy Interviews, September 12, 2007
I thought this book would offer some fresh information and insights on the serial killers that true crime fans know so well. Instead, the author rehashes the same old stories using trial transcripts and the like, material a lot of us have already read, interspersed with a only few pages of survivor interviews.
The author makes sweeping generalizations about serial killers and law enforcement officers and how his interviewees are feeling. For instance, the author talks about how profilers believe they are infallible. If you've read books by F.B.I. profilers, they stress that the profile is only one tool in a P.D.'s arsenal, and that suspects should not be excluded on the basis of any one factor mentioned in the profile. The F.B.I. does not insist that their profiles are completely accurate because in so doing they open themselves up to liability when they are wrong. Also, I remember the author's interview with a survivor who was accompanied by her father. The father was having a difficult time coping with the fact that his daughter was attacked by a serial killer. Instead of exploring that, really digging into it, the author surmises that it is because the father is upset that he couldn't protect his daughter. Then the author launches into a diatribe about how this country failed this military man, this father of a survivor. How? The killer was brought to justice, and his daughter lived -- I'm just not sure how the author makes that leap in logic, among many others.
The author writes the way Horatio Caine from CSI: Miami would write. You just want to laugh at his over-dramatization of the U.S. highway system and such, how it has aided serial killers in their hunting. Spare us the little history lessons on the Gulf Coast canebrake and a play-by-play of your drives around the country and give us more in-depth interviews.
The author also makes factual errors. One that comes to mind is when the author writes that BTK parked at Dillon's, "a local restaurant" in Kansas. It is actually a grocery store chain. If he can't check his facts on these little things, how can we believe him on the big stuff?
Finally, the author hypothesizes about the reasons why some people survive attacks by serial killers. The author suggests it might be God, implies that it is the fighter instinct, but doesn't go beyond these surface observations. It would be interesting to get a survivor's advice on how to fight off an attacker rather than just guessing why someone lived, as the author does.
All in all, this book draws you in because it seems to offer something new, it is small, and the cover looks exciting, but don't be fooled. It is not worth the purchase.
|
|
|
2 of 2 people found the following review helpful:
2.0 out of 5 stars
Good writer,bad book., April 2, 2008
Mr.Rosen does some good things with this book. He highlights the lives of some survivors of serial killers such as Jeffrey Dahmer,Dennis Rader,David Berkowitz and even Richard Speck.
The question of why some survive while others don't is an interesting one. He partially addresses that question.
The writer vents a lot of anger at criminal profilers in the B.T.K. case and the NYPD in general regarding the "Son of Sam" case. I think it's a detriment to the book itself and in some cases he overstates the obvious, like the fact that Richard Speck was a drunk and an idiot,and two Milwaukeee police officers blundered big-time in returning an eventual victim to Dahmer.
I didn't see the relevance of including transcripts of Dahmer's parents court battle over his brain and whether it would be donated to science or cremated. Speaking of cremation,what happened to Richard Speck in prison or to his body after death wasn't relevant to the subject either.
Good subject matter, it's just that the author roamed unto other areas a little too much for my liking.
|
|
|
Most Recent Customer Reviews
|
by Mark Olshaker
by Ronald M. Holmes
by Scotia J. Hicks
by Bruce Evan Blaine
by Eric W. Hickey
