Customer Reviews

Three Month Fever: The Andrew Cunanan Story

5 star:		(15)
4 star:		(6)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(3)
1 star:		(11)

 

 

WHY do so many people seem to dislike this book so much? First off, read Maureen Orth's 'Vulgar Favors' before reading Indiana's book--the two are a very good combination & Orth's book (which I also like, though less than Indiana's) gives a good idea how seriously to take Indiana's unusual technique. In at least two significant ways, Indiana's is the better book: he doesn't make the mistake of flailing around for some sort of conspiracy theory to explain Cunanan's murder of Versace and he convincingly discounts drug-use that Orth rather unwisely buys into. Also, his is better written. As to the debate about Indiana's fictionalization or creative non-fiction or whatever, it's certainly no more of a sin than anything Truman Capote did in 'In Cold Blood,' which if you take the time to read about it (e.g. George Plimpton's account) you'll see was fictionalized (though my edition was sold as NONFICTION/LITERATURE). Indiana is up-front about what he did, laying it out in the beginning, in the prefaces, specifying what he invented, which is good to know 'cause he has some excellent quotations from Cunanan's writings that are NOT fictionalized. Indiana isn't SYMPATHIZING with Cunanan, he's EMPATHIZING, & therein lies a world of difference & empathy with a murderer is no bad thing if you want to understand, which presumably would be one of the chief reasons to buy the book. Murderers are human & Indiana has a nice quotation from Gore Vidal about that in the beginning (if you want to see a killer, go look in the mirror). Indiana glorifies the murders much less than 90 percent of conventional 'true crime' books, which often seem to go overboard perhaps partly to justify their publication (gee, this murder was more brutal than most & that's why we need yet another account of yet another murder). Weaknesses of 'Three Month Fever' include that Indiana's sense of place is, as someone else commented, not very good at all ... but then the places are maybe not so very important in this book, which is surely mostly about the PLACE of Cunanan's mind & our collective minds reacting to Cunanan. It's a weakness for Indiana to claim, as he does, that he's invented a new approach, 'cause that's just not true, all the way back to 'In Cold Blood.' Nor is it true if you know anything about the much discussed 'new journalism' of people such as Tom Wolfe. The prose is overblown, but this might be deliberate, since it reflects the sort of overblown verbiage one would have heard from Cunanan & also it is, frankly, beautifully queeny, really evocative of the way some queens present themselves, really well done. So maybe it's intentional. Certainly Indiana has a hypothesis & that's all it can be, but it rings a good deal truer than Orth's, where hers collapses in her apparent inability to grasp that a sociopath might kill for the sake of killing & for no other reason. People seem to think there's no way Indiana could know much of what he writes. I beg to differ. It's astonishing how much one can get from court records, investigative reports, etc., including entire conversations essentially reconstructed & perhaps people don't realize that. I strongly suspect the big surprise if we all knew a lot more about this book would be how much of it is NOT fictionalized. ... But the bottom line is that SOME people CAN put themselves in certain other people's minds. Sure, every detail won't be accurate. But the general sense of things will feel chillingly true, as it does here. I suspect Indiana has as much right as anyone to do what he did. Most of us couldn't imagine Cunanan's viewpoint, but I think Indiana can & he does it very well ... & he's very honest about it all & we're free to disagree if we wish, just like we're free to turn off the TV if we don't like it. ... This is a well-written, really thought-provoking, compelling, mostly very convincing, brave book. One final question: Would you rather read YET ANOTHER formulaic, poorly written, newspapery 'true crime' book or would you rather read something different, fresh, more challenging? If your answer is the latter, buy & read Indiana's book (preferably in hardback ... I can't imagine why the paperback of this not very long book is abridged).

I've read this book about 4 times and enjoy it more each time I go through it again. It's probably one of the top 10 books I've read and enjoyed in my life and that's saying something...I'm a librarian! I'm also a true crime buff and a Cunanan buff. The book simply conjectures what MIGHT have happened in and around the known facts about Cunanan's life and killing spree. Most of Indiana's insights seem logical and probable to me. Take Lee Miglin for instance. Considering all the evidence it seems likely Cunanan probably met Miglin before, knew him and that Miglin was also gay or perhaps bi-sexual. He killed Miglin in a rage and because he wanted Miglin's stuff; mainly his car to get away in. I also read Orth's book about Cunanan and hers didn't hit me well; lots of anti-gay stuff in that book; also a boring read. Indiana writes terrific prose; wow what a writer. Great command of the language and I have to admit I laughed at something on every second page. His satiric turn of phrase is wonderful. Read it even if you aren't interested in Cunanan; he has some insights into American culture that are worth taking in. Probably it's this latter fact that makes people dislike the book. Reading uncomfortable things about the culture you sit in isn't pleasant for some people.

Though I only made it to page 47, and am therefore not qualified to review the entire book, what I did read was a mind numbingly self-important pretentious attempt at some fiction - non-fiction hybrid. Maybe the author got over himself as the book went on but frankly it is not worth the effort to findout. At least the tabloids the author seems to partly blame for the killings write a straight story. The authors point of view and sympathy for the killer is fine, I just wish he could express it without being so self-indulgent.

Part fact and part conjecture, this book is only mildly entertaining. Rather than imparting the intended sense of style, the author's use of poor punctuation is simply annoying to the reader. Wait for it to come out in paperback or hit the bargain bin.

An odd, book, best termed fantasy based heavily on research.
Witty and true to the voice of what we know about Cunanan and the scenes he was in. I recommend you read this after reading everything else - Maureen Orth's book, all the articles, and seeing the A and E biography on Andrew. With that as perspective, you can see how Indiana falls into place true to
voice. I know alot of people didn't like this book, but I think you have to be willing to take it for what it is to get it.
And I do advise you get it....

As an acquaintance of Andrew Cunanan and one of his victims, and as a longtime denizen of at least one of his social worlds, I can recommend this book without reservation. "Three Month Fever" is a far wiser book than Maureen Orth's "Vulgar Favors," which catalogs a lot of already known facts but suffers enormously from that author's cluelessness about gay life, drugs, BDSM, and "addictive pornography." Even at its most speculative, Indiana's book is eminently credible. What's more, it's often deliciously darkly humorous. If you want directions to the Mall of America, buy a road map. This book tells the larger truth about us all.

Indiana's book does show some intelligence behind it, but it seems in the end to want to make a kind of tragic hero out of Cunanan, a somewhat appalling decision in light of the multiple murders. The tabloid media's obsession with Cunanan's partygoing lifestyle is certainly lamentable, but it does not in any way take away from the enormity of Cunanan's crimes, or make them less despicable. And we receive very little information about Cunanan's victims or their lives away from him.

The book, as many have pointed out, is poorly researched. It seems as if there still is a need for a book more intelligently researched and objective than Indiana's but more aware of the realities of life in the gay ghettoes than Orth's.

I was interested in Andrew Cunanan, objectively and with no judgement to how he was percieved on tv. I was hoping that this book would give some factual insight into what initiated the "3 month fever", but found this book terribly difficult to read. Not just that, most of the book has "conversions" between dead killer and dead victim, written in italics, as if that is what transpired between them - like the author actually interviewed them or something. Where the hell did he get these "conversations" that clearly could NOT be true, almost insisting that is what truly occured. MOST of the book is written this way - some fantasy conversation the author thought to himself perhaps?

The thing that made this book so impossible to read was Indiana's writing style. He starts out painfully annoying, describing everything to death - way too many metaphors used. Sentences that ran on and on for pages (not making this up). It was like some grad student attempting to write in a "different" kind of writing style to show off, instead of doing the subject some justice and writing facts - did he run out of facts because he barely interviewed anyone??? Then toward the end, he rushes through everything - the details of the 3 months are only just a few pages long while the rest of the BS runs chapter upon chapter!

Overall, it was annoying to read and the reader NEVER finds the motive behind this man. Not even possible motives. Just ramblings of what Cunanan may have said to himself or to others, none of which can be proven to be true. Total waste of time!

This guy's writing style is awful, just awful. He's apparently a big fan of run-on sentences that are a half-page long. I've met high schoolers that were better writers.

As far as the Cunanan murders go, the author provides lots of speculation but few hard facts. Maureen Orth's "Vulgar Favors" was much better, IMHO.

Who could not remember the bizaare tell of the great homosexual flirt of South Miami's slaying of a fashion icon? It's so bizaare, so unreal, it reeks of Coen brothers. As they say - only in America.

The Cunanan story is fascinating. Rightly, Indiana adopts an almost dandy-esque
"In Cold Blood" interpretation of the story. What's even better is that there is a whole reference to the subtext of the love of fame. Oftentimes Indiana uses Cunanan as an interlocutor in a discourse about fame and the love thereof.

I'll not forget Indiana writing that Cunanan had confused fame and existence.

When humans muddle this distinction and construct artificial masque upon artifical masque a fascinating subject of psychological study is born.

Highly recommended.