Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.75 AVERAGE
3.75 AVERAGE
mysterious
medium-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
A mix
Strong character development:
No
Loveable characters:
No
Diverse cast of characters:
Yes
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
Wonderful audio production. A blend of cold case and folklore. Right in my wheelhouse. Looking for to listening to the next book.
Another excellent scary suspenseful book. Perfect for these times
Wow, I hated this.
I do not like true crime podcasts. While that might immediately put me at odds with this book, I do not like them for the "true" bit and concerns I have relating to that, not the format or conceit itself. So I was ready to like this. The issue is that this book has some thoughts, commentary if you will, that it is not especially well-equipped to actually handle.
The author knows that traditional media is kind of really shitty when it comes to crime, and thinks that podcasts are the perfect alternative to that. There is almost no interrogation of the issues surrounding this format, other than a few passing mentions to the intense fan reactions it can inspire. I honestly thought this book was written in about 2012 based on how naive it was.
For example, pretty early on in the book there's a line about how the victim might have gotten more media attention had he been young, rich and female instead of "troubled" working class. Ok, points made I guess, albeit in a shitty way. Except there's no interest in why though, such as the fact that reporting on these girls/women tends to be sensationalistic, voyeuristic and often victim blames. The author also seems oblivious to the fact that white middle-class female victims are also overrepresented in the true crime podcast genre, because it reflects their dominant audience. It's thought that at least part of the reason why this is the case is that it's another safe way to not only live through this fear, but also "prepare" for it - this dead woman did that so I will do the opposite and I will get to live. But again, the author is not interested in that.
Instead, he's interested in just...repeating cliches and stereotypes! Like congrats, you found your gimmick in your format but that doesn't mean you can just coast the rest of your story on archetypes you picked out of a hat. I've seen praise for the "psychology" in this book but it's about as deep as the body language analysis tottered out for celebrities. Did you know that teenagers have social hierarchies? That there are "alpha" males? That teenage girls "don't go for nice guys"? If you've watched any kind of crime or even teen show in the last ten years, the answer is yes. Hell, if you've been on any kind of right-wing forum you can get most of the same information.
The author spends quite a bit of time criticising traditional media's handling of crime, which would be fair except they spend the rest of the book perpetuating those same stereotypes. There's quite a bit of time devoted to how the autistic character was unfairly blamed in 1997 because it wasn't "understood" at the time, but while the character inspires sympathy I don't think he would be considered groundbreaking representation. Mostly though, it's the killer that's offensive. For one, the "twist" is extremely obvious pretty early on. I skimread a lot of his confession because it was all stuff we've heard before - his dad was an alcoholic and left, his mum was a neglectful alcoholic too, he constantly sought attention at school by doing weird, creepy things and he wrote stories filled with graphic violence. Like, this is "his mum was a prostitute and that's why he became a serial killer!" level shit. The narrator, who constantly says he will allow you to make your own mind up about what happened, constantly interjects to talk about the character's psychosis and how he "fell through the cracks". There is infinitely more sympathy here for this character than any other - the manipulated teen girl, the alienated one who had also experienced bullying and also seemed at risk, or the drug addict who we learn lost his sister at a young age but it's only to justify his rebelliousness and never brought up again. Most of all, there's way more sympathy for him than the victim. The victim is deeply unlikeable but he also probably had some kind of tragic backstory that we are never made privvy to because it might make him more sympathetic and that doesn't matter so much as the killer banging on about how he "knew he would be famous" and the revenge he wants for his dad. Focusing on the perpetrator instead of the victim is a major issue with both traditional true crime media and podcasts, by the way.
You could argue that this is all a commentary in and of itself. The killer almost seems to say something when, at the end of his confession, he taunts the listener for their desire for the truth, for their desire to know more about him. Should we interrogate our interest in the macabre, in how easy it is to focus on the murderer and not the murdered? Is it because the latter might actually be upsetting instead of entertaining? Well who gives a shit, because here's our podcast host to affirm that yes, this was a story worth telling. Goodnight! And I strongly disagree because, what exactly, did this book add to the genre? What was in anyway original about its cast of characters and their motivations, its meaningless supernatural hints, its questioning of who was REALLY telling the "truth", other than its adoption of an already popular genre? It certainly wasn't any kind of insightful commentary.
I do not like true crime podcasts. While that might immediately put me at odds with this book, I do not like them for the "true" bit and concerns I have relating to that, not the format or conceit itself. So I was ready to like this. The issue is that this book has some thoughts, commentary if you will, that it is not especially well-equipped to actually handle.
The author knows that traditional media is kind of really shitty when it comes to crime, and thinks that podcasts are the perfect alternative to that. There is almost no interrogation of the issues surrounding this format, other than a few passing mentions to the intense fan reactions it can inspire. I honestly thought this book was written in about 2012 based on how naive it was.
For example, pretty early on in the book there's a line about how the victim might have gotten more media attention had he been young, rich and female instead of "troubled" working class. Ok, points made I guess, albeit in a shitty way. Except there's no interest in why though, such as the fact that reporting on these girls/women tends to be sensationalistic, voyeuristic and often victim blames. The author also seems oblivious to the fact that white middle-class female victims are also overrepresented in the true crime podcast genre, because it reflects their dominant audience. It's thought that at least part of the reason why this is the case is that it's another safe way to not only live through this fear, but also "prepare" for it - this dead woman did that so I will do the opposite and I will get to live. But again, the author is not interested in that.
Instead, he's interested in just...repeating cliches and stereotypes! Like congrats, you found your gimmick in your format but that doesn't mean you can just coast the rest of your story on archetypes you picked out of a hat. I've seen praise for the "psychology" in this book but it's about as deep as the body language analysis tottered out for celebrities. Did you know that teenagers have social hierarchies? That there are "alpha" males? That teenage girls "don't go for nice guys"? If you've watched any kind of crime or even teen show in the last ten years, the answer is yes. Hell, if you've been on any kind of right-wing forum you can get most of the same information.
The author spends quite a bit of time criticising traditional media's handling of crime, which would be fair except they spend the rest of the book perpetuating those same stereotypes. There's quite a bit of time devoted to how the autistic character was unfairly blamed in 1997 because it wasn't "understood" at the time, but while the character inspires sympathy I don't think he would be considered groundbreaking representation. Mostly though, it's the killer that's offensive. For one, the "twist" is extremely obvious pretty early on. I skimread a lot of his confession because it was all stuff we've heard before - his dad was an alcoholic and left, his mum was a neglectful alcoholic too, he constantly sought attention at school by doing weird, creepy things and he wrote stories filled with graphic violence. Like, this is "his mum was a prostitute and that's why he became a serial killer!" level shit. The narrator, who constantly says he will allow you to make your own mind up about what happened, constantly interjects to talk about the character's psychosis and how he "fell through the cracks". There is infinitely more sympathy here for this character than any other - the manipulated teen girl, the alienated one who had also experienced bullying and also seemed at risk, or the drug addict who we learn lost his sister at a young age but it's only to justify his rebelliousness and never brought up again. Most of all, there's way more sympathy for him than the victim. The victim is deeply unlikeable but he also probably had some kind of tragic backstory that we are never made privvy to because it might make him more sympathetic and that doesn't matter so much as the killer banging on about how he "knew he would be famous" and the revenge he wants for his dad. Focusing on the perpetrator instead of the victim is a major issue with both traditional true crime media and podcasts, by the way.
You could argue that this is all a commentary in and of itself. The killer almost seems to say something when, at the end of his confession, he taunts the listener for their desire for the truth, for their desire to know more about him. Should we interrogate our interest in the macabre, in how easy it is to focus on the murderer and not the murdered? Is it because the latter might actually be upsetting instead of entertaining? Well who gives a shit, because here's our podcast host to affirm that yes, this was a story worth telling. Goodnight! And I strongly disagree because, what exactly, did this book add to the genre? What was in anyway original about its cast of characters and their motivations, its meaningless supernatural hints, its questioning of who was REALLY telling the "truth", other than its adoption of an already popular genre? It certainly wasn't any kind of insightful commentary.
dark
mysterious
reflective
tense
fast-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Character
Strong character development:
No
Loveable characters:
Complicated
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
Interesting concept and a pretty good twist.
Content Warnings
Graphic: Bullying, Drug use, Alcohol
Moderate: Child death, Violence, Schizophrenia/Psychosis
I picked this up from my local bookstore, thinking it seemed interesting. I quickly realized it wasn't, but given it was so short, I decided to finish anyway. Oh boy. I should have just trusted my instincts. It felt like having my teeth pulled, one by one, and I was about as keen on picking it up as going to the dentist.
A bunch of teenagers camp in the woods in the mid-1990's. Before smart phones and social media. One of them, Tom, disappears and is found a year later, in what is deemed an accidental death. Now, there is a podcast interviewing his friends in attempt at finding out what really happened.
I give it two stars because it's not all that bad. I just didn't like it. You might. My problems with it was that since it's an anthology, the story telling was choppy at best and I never developed any sympathy for any of the characters. Furthermore, it was all quite predictable. I managed to sniff out the twists in considerable advance. This didn't live up the reviews on the back by a long shot, so the only feeling that remains is disappointment, mingled with annoyance that I just didn't drop it at page 30 as I knew I should have.
A bunch of teenagers camp in the woods in the mid-1990's. Before smart phones and social media. One of them, Tom, disappears and is found a year later, in what is deemed an accidental death. Now, there is a podcast interviewing his friends in attempt at finding out what really happened.
I give it two stars because it's not all that bad. I just didn't like it. You might. My problems with it was that since it's an anthology, the story telling was choppy at best and I never developed any sympathy for any of the characters. Furthermore, it was all quite predictable. I managed to sniff out the twists in considerable advance. This didn't live up the reviews on the back by a long shot, so the only feeling that remains is disappointment, mingled with annoyance that I just didn't drop it at page 30 as I knew I should have.
dark
mysterious
tense
medium-paced
3.5 really unique format, good story. I did guess who Scott King would turn out to be.
"Cleared of all vegetation, this hole in the side of the fell is an ugly wound. It bleeds its darkness across this land."
"Mother, is that father's form at the door?
It's taller and longer than ever before,
His face is all white, coat black like a loon,
His teeth glow like blades in the light of the moon."
I picked this one up without knowing much about it. I had just read the first lines of several reviews and a few key words, together with the enthusiastic opinions, were enough for me to dive in: a mystery/crime with a tinge of horror. I was also aware it was in the form of a podcast transcript, which I found a nifty concept.
I had so little knowledge of it, that in the beginning I thought there were going to be six separate plots! (Sad, I know). This notion obviously got dispersed in the first few paragraphs, which was a bit disappointing, as I was hoping for an anthology along the lines of Lore. However, the premise was still sufficiently interesting to go on.
And, boy, did this pay off.
The story centers around the disappearance of a teenage boy that took place about twenty years before the podcast is released. Tom Jeffries’ body was found in the marsh a year after he went missing. The titular six stories are interviews with six people who knew Tom and were with him shortly before he disappeared, describing the events leading up to the disappearance from different perspectives.
Firstly, I was instantly drawn in by how the location is presented. The Scarclaw Fell and everything it consists of – the fell, the marshes, the collapsed mine – all of it combined, is given a personality; it seems to be a living, breathing organism and have its own (might I add, insidious) character. I thoroughly enjoyed reading the nature descriptions, which is not something I can say very often.
Secondly, the horror element. As it turned out after watching the Netflix Black Spot series (could not recommend enough – watch it!), I am a sucker for a bit of horror thrown into a crime story. And Six Stories definitely delivers that, but in a subtle, ambiguous way that I liked a lot. It is a little bit difficult to decide how much I can actually comment on here without spoiling it, due to what the novel’s main focus is (and it is not the plot. I will touch more on that in the next paragraph). I will add that I loved the folk tale elements inserted in the story and how that was executed. I just love, love dark English folklore.
Thirdly, the main focus of the book – the relationships. The plot is there, but it is very short and simple, with somewhat of a twist at the end, but it is just a skeleton of the novel. The meat, plump and juicy, are the characters and the relationships between them in the period before the tragedy. This is explored in depth, each of the six stories adding something new to the picture we thought we already had of how the group functioned and how the relationships fluctuated.
As far as the twist goes, there are actually two, on two different levels, and one did totally take me by surprise. It certainly enhanced the entire novel for me.
The plot twist is something that some will say they saw coming from a mile, and some will not. However, the narrational twist was great and I had to re-think the whole thing from the beginning. For some it might even prompt a re-read, just to see the interactions between the interviewer and the witnesses from the new perspective.
I also enjoyed the format, it felt fresh and real. It might be slightly confusing in the beginning, as we do not know who is talking at first and who they are talking to, but this becomes clear quite quickly and is easy to follow from there.
Now, to explain why I am not giving this 5 stars – mostly nitpicking, so do not get too deterred:
Reason one (the most important one):
For all the depth that went into the characterisation, I found it really difficult to actually like any of the main characters. Out of the whole cast, the only two I really liked and felt for were Haris Novak, who I am not sure can be considered one of the main characters, and the secondary figure of Harry Ramsay.
Most of the main witnesses are not super nasty, but I was not able to relate to any of them, and that made me less engaged. This is despite it being frequently emphasised that they were “open, tolerant, good, sensible kids.” For me, they were anything but – their actions being often quite the opposite. Perhaps this is a conscious device on the part of the writer, employed to make the readers see the characters for what they really are, as opposed to what is being said about them. Well, what I saw I did not like, and it left me less captivated than I might have been otherwise.
Reason two:
An instance of a very unlikely human reaction: I find it extremely hard to believe that three 21-year-old men – no matter how drunk – would whip themselves into a frenzy of fear upon hearing an old folk rhyme. A serious eyebrow was raised there. And this event is significant to the plot, as it starts a chain of events resulting in an important discovery.
Also, some unrealistic circumstances: an alcoholic, jobless dad who is not in the picture and a depressed, pill-popping mother, who does not get out of bed the whole day. Where is the money coming from to feed both the mother and the child, pay rent, get the child expensive clothes???
Reason three:
Forensically unrealistic. There are many cases where the forensic scientists were able to conclude in what conditions a corpse had been kept, by examining its state and how preserved it was. They were able to determine whether it had been kept in dry or damp conditions, warm or cold, etc.
This leads me to believe that even in 1998 forensic experts would have been able to determine that Tom’s body did not spend a year in the swamp, but was kept somewhere much drier and dumped in the swamp only recently. That would have most likely led to a different coroner’s verdict than “misadventure” – because why would anyone bother to move and hide the body and then move it back, if it was a misadventure?
I may be nitpicking here, I might also be wrong about the state of advancement of the forensic sciences in 1998, but it bugs me.
Despite the above flaws, Six Stories is a really good read, with a fantastic, dark mood, that kept me going till the end. Definitely recommended.
"Mother, is that father's form at the door?
It's taller and longer than ever before,
His face is all white, coat black like a loon,
His teeth glow like blades in the light of the moon."
I picked this one up without knowing much about it. I had just read the first lines of several reviews and a few key words, together with the enthusiastic opinions, were enough for me to dive in: a mystery/crime with a tinge of horror. I was also aware it was in the form of a podcast transcript, which I found a nifty concept.
I had so little knowledge of it, that in the beginning I thought there were going to be six separate plots! (Sad, I know). This notion obviously got dispersed in the first few paragraphs, which was a bit disappointing, as I was hoping for an anthology along the lines of Lore. However, the premise was still sufficiently interesting to go on.
And, boy, did this pay off.
The story centers around the disappearance of a teenage boy that took place about twenty years before the podcast is released. Tom Jeffries’ body was found in the marsh a year after he went missing. The titular six stories are interviews with six people who knew Tom and were with him shortly before he disappeared, describing the events leading up to the disappearance from different perspectives.
Firstly, I was instantly drawn in by how the location is presented. The Scarclaw Fell and everything it consists of – the fell, the marshes, the collapsed mine – all of it combined, is given a personality; it seems to be a living, breathing organism and have its own (might I add, insidious) character. I thoroughly enjoyed reading the nature descriptions, which is not something I can say very often.
Secondly, the horror element. As it turned out after watching the Netflix Black Spot series (could not recommend enough – watch it!), I am a sucker for a bit of horror thrown into a crime story. And Six Stories definitely delivers that, but in a subtle, ambiguous way that I liked a lot. It is a little bit difficult to decide how much I can actually comment on here without spoiling it, due to what the novel’s main focus is (and it is not the plot. I will touch more on that in the next paragraph). I will add that I loved the folk tale elements inserted in the story and how that was executed. I just love, love dark English folklore.
Thirdly, the main focus of the book – the relationships. The plot is there, but it is very short and simple, with somewhat of a twist at the end, but it is just a skeleton of the novel. The meat, plump and juicy, are the characters and the relationships between them in the period before the tragedy. This is explored in depth, each of the six stories adding something new to the picture we thought we already had of how the group functioned and how the relationships fluctuated.
As far as the twist goes, there are actually two, on two different levels, and one did totally take me by surprise. It certainly enhanced the entire novel for me.
Spoiler
The plot twist is something that some will say they saw coming from a mile, and some will not. However, the narrational twist was great and I had to re-think the whole thing from the beginning. For some it might even prompt a re-read, just to see the interactions between the interviewer and the witnesses from the new perspective.
I also enjoyed the format, it felt fresh and real. It might be slightly confusing in the beginning, as we do not know who is talking at first and who they are talking to, but this becomes clear quite quickly and is easy to follow from there.
Now, to explain why I am not giving this 5 stars – mostly nitpicking, so do not get too deterred:
Reason one (the most important one):
For all the depth that went into the characterisation, I found it really difficult to actually like any of the main characters. Out of the whole cast, the only two I really liked and felt for were Haris Novak, who I am not sure can be considered one of the main characters, and the secondary figure of Harry Ramsay.
Most of the main witnesses are not super nasty, but I was not able to relate to any of them, and that made me less engaged. This is despite it being frequently emphasised that they were “open, tolerant, good, sensible kids.” For me, they were anything but – their actions being often quite the opposite. Perhaps this is a conscious device on the part of the writer, employed to make the readers see the characters for what they really are, as opposed to what is being said about them. Well, what I saw I did not like, and it left me less captivated than I might have been otherwise.
Reason two:
An instance of a very unlikely human reaction: I find it extremely hard to believe that three 21-year-old men – no matter how drunk – would whip themselves into a frenzy of fear upon hearing an old folk rhyme. A serious eyebrow was raised there. And this event is significant to the plot, as it starts a chain of events resulting in an important discovery.
Also, some unrealistic circumstances: an alcoholic, jobless dad who is not in the picture and a depressed, pill-popping mother, who does not get out of bed the whole day. Where is the money coming from to feed both the mother and the child, pay rent, get the child expensive clothes???
Reason three:
Spoiler
Forensically unrealistic. There are many cases where the forensic scientists were able to conclude in what conditions a corpse had been kept, by examining its state and how preserved it was. They were able to determine whether it had been kept in dry or damp conditions, warm or cold, etc.
This leads me to believe that even in 1998 forensic experts would have been able to determine that Tom’s body did not spend a year in the swamp, but was kept somewhere much drier and dumped in the swamp only recently. That would have most likely led to a different coroner’s verdict than “misadventure” – because why would anyone bother to move and hide the body and then move it back, if it was a misadventure?
I may be nitpicking here, I might also be wrong about the state of advancement of the forensic sciences in 1998, but it bugs me.
Despite the above flaws, Six Stories is a really good read, with a fantastic, dark mood, that kept me going till the end. Definitely recommended.