Scan barcode
abbuelita's review against another edition
challenging
dark
informative
medium-paced
4.25
I really like Maureen Callahan’s writing style; this is a well-done piece of narrative non-fiction. It’s a fascinating look at one of the most depraved (and relatively unknown) people of this century. The book is very well done, although the subject matter is chilling. I hate that he got what he wanted, to live in infamy, but hopefully more awareness of his case and his crimes can allow the FBI to link him to more unsolved murders and allow their families to have an answer.
njdarkish's review against another edition
4.0
Well-written and compelling, but utterly harrowing and not exactly a pleasant reading experience. You get a very dark look into a very evil man, and the police work that caught him, as well as the failures of the legal system in discovering the extent of his crimes or in bringing about any real justice.
It's hard to say I recommend this book unless you're really prepared for some truly upsetting monstrosities.
It's hard to say I recommend this book unless you're really prepared for some truly upsetting monstrosities.
gracefullypunk's review against another edition
3.0
Decent
A decent look at Israel Keyes but nothing worthy of being named one of the best true crime accounts of the year, as the writing was often poor or contained errors at the beginning, and is often hard to follow as the author does not remind the reader of first names, roles, or institutions. Disappointed that there was little included that wasn't already known about Keyes.
A decent look at Israel Keyes but nothing worthy of being named one of the best true crime accounts of the year, as the writing was often poor or contained errors at the beginning, and is often hard to follow as the author does not remind the reader of first names, roles, or institutions. Disappointed that there was little included that wasn't already known about Keyes.
paigedevallwatts's review against another edition
4.0
nick_thebucket's review against another edition
dark
informative
mysterious
sad
medium-paced
3.25
I'm gonna write a lot because I read this for a crim book club and I'm not sure when we'll talk about it, so I want to make sure I don't forget things.
The books was a slow start, imo. I tried repeatedly without much luck to start reading it. I think I had it for weeks before I got more than 25 pages in. It didn't really hook me until like 50 pages in, so almost 20% of the way through. I never really got hooked in all honesty. It's a pretty quick read though, especially more towards the end. I'm not sure if it was the writing or the organization. I think part of it was how much there was to cover. But yeah, it wasn't a book that I couldn't put down.
Sometimes it felt like she was a journalist trying to be a writer (yes ik what those words mean, but bare with me). Journalists tend to have very matter of fact, unembellished writing styles. When I got some newspaper writing training, my boss went on and on about accuracy. So it makes sense, don't add stuff unless you know it's true. Keep it simple, get the facts down clearly. But writers are allowed to be more creative, to embellish, to do what is necessary to keep the reader's attention, to make things interesting. To build narratives. At times it felt like she was being pushed and pulled between being a writer and a journalist. I don't mean that she seemed dishonest or anything. She seemed like she was telling the truth, or what she believed it to be. But at times it felt like she fancied herself a writer? Like she was almost enjoying herself too much. Idk how else to explain it, but I think she should stick to the journalist mentality. Not just because the topic is so sensitive.
We were jumping all across the country, but there wasn't a lot to cover. Or at least there wasn't a lot that she covered. There's not really a way to assign blame without seeing the source material, because with nonfiction you are inherently limited by your source material, or lack thereof. This was more apparent in the latter part of the book. The beginning was detailed and very fleshed out and the latter half was vague. A lot was covered but not with much depth or meaning, it got repetitive. At least it went by fast. After maybe Part 3? Or 200 pages? It stopped being memorable
Overall it was quite confusing at times. It wasn't always clear what was a theory and what they proved. Or where they were and what the chronology was. This to a degree is understandable because sometimes it is less confusing to only mention a detail when it becomes relevant.
Tbh this book was kinda repetitive at times and I think it would have been better as a documentary rather than novel.
It was super boring how Keyes kept saying, "I don't want to talk about that now," or "let's talk about that later." But here the fault really lies with the author because she could have just cut that out. Condensed it. Trimmed it. Idc. Just tell us he didn't want to talk. Stop having him tell us that and then repeating it yourself. Or better yet, skip it altogether. Mention it once and move on. We don't need to keep hearing him say he doesn't want to talk about it.
The author tries to build these special agents as characters. If you read how she describes them it'll make sense. She introduced so many people that it was hard to keep track and I literally resorted to highlighting passages and dog earring pages so I could refer back to who she was talking about.
I was left with a lot of questions and they weren't questions like, "did he actually kill that person?"
Some of my questions were;
-why did Payne hate Doll so much?
--was it sexism?
--or was he still upset that she didn't let him on the case when he knew something was wrong (basically did he view her as putting her career/a desire for glory before Samantha and her safe return)?
--I just had a lot of questions about the whole implied Payne/Doll fued. I'm guessing she didn't go into details since Doll declined to be interviewed and so she didn't have both sides of the story. She didn't hesitate to write about when other cops were being incompetent and at times it seemed implied that Doll was, so I was just wondering why the author was so generous with Doll.
-how many fiancées did Keyes have? Ik there was at least the girl from Colville but from the way it was written it seemed like there were more women in his life than her, Kimberly, and Tammie.
-why was Payne the lead agent? I thought Bell had seniority.
--Assuming Bell was the senior agent, was he really okay with Payne and then eventually the lady whose name started with a G being in charge? Idk it kinda seemed like Payne and Bell were the main characters, based on how it was written, but the hierarchy didn't make all that much sense to me.
-if Chacon was called in by the other guy, which implies that guy was his boss, how did Chacon have the authority to assign that guy to go diving for the body?
This book REALLY could have benefitted from a timeline and some graphics. I get it if maybe she didn't want to spoil things like his suicide but she could have put them at the start of chapters, like when more info got added to them. There were some sections that were really dedicated to his travel and the paths he was taking and I just think it would've been easier to follow if she had added a map and labelled it. FOR EXAMPLE when she talks about the map with all the circles why not just show the map or recreate a simplified version of it???? Listing the states is wildly unhelpful. Especially if your readers are from outside the US. I'm American and even I got a bit lost when she rambled off lists of over a dozen states.
The book talks about a lot of super tough and potentially triggering topics, which I will tag below, but nothing is super explicit, so keep that in mind. I mean they come up frequently but it's never super detailed.
I thought the acknowledgements were quite sweet and well-written. At least the first part with the FBI.
I liked that she included times when both Payne and Bell cried. Society really stigmatizes men showing emotion, especially emotions that deal with vulnerability. But they have hard jobs and they see terrible things and it is understandable that these things would affect them. Basically I liked that their vulnerability was included and it wasn't mocked or dismissed or whatever. The case was hard on them and they cried. The end. Same goes for the diver and his PTSD. These examples prove that being a hero/being a "man" and having emotions are not mutually exclusive. Men are allowed to be affected by difficult things and it doesn't make them any less heroic. The diver still brought Samantha home. Bell and Payne still caught Keyes.
Also given that Keyes is bisexual, it would have been very easy for her to twist the narrative and blame his being LGBTQ+ for all the horrible things that he did. Ik it’s kinda the bare minimum not to do that, but I appreciated it nonetheless that she just kept things neutral. Straight people have done terrible things and so have LGBTQ+ people. Sexual identity doesn't make people monsters, despite what many people believe.
On a different note, her reference to Bell's weight was triggering for me as someone who has gone through ED treatment. Although she didn't say it explicitly, it sort of implied that being fat was a moral failing/reaffirmed this societal belief that being fat is a personal failing or a result of laziness when it can be the result of environment, family, genetics, physical and mental health, etc. The comment will probably be super minor and unnoticeable to most people. They might not think it's a big deal, but I felt that it reflects a diet culture mentality and overall is entirely unnecessary. Like why mention Bell's weight at all? It never becomes relevant to the story.
If you care about neautrality/unbiased writing when it comes to nonfiction/true crime novels then this is probably not the book for you.
She had some narratives that she pushed that (to me) there didn't seem to be a lot of evidence for (based on what she presented).
It was also evident at times what she felt towards certain officers. Which is deserved. There were many instances of incompetence and it is important to recognize that and call it out, but her feelings did come through. It didn't bother me, but it is something to keep in mind. I can think of several people in the book that I know she disliked. Rightly so, but it isn't neutral/unbiased writing.
She argued a lot that his planning and his intelligence and so on made him unique for a serial killer, a special type of monster.
But he was simultaneously very organized and unorganized. Intelligent and stupid. He's supposed to be a fast learner and good with tech but somehow never got the whole atm withdrawal limit thing through his head.
She presents him as so clever thar the bodies can't be found/people don't realize that they are murder, but...
he got away with the Curriers because of sheer dumb luck. Of his potential victims, there were several that were found and whose deaths were deemed suspicious.
The dude apparently can't spell.
To me Keyes seems to be full of contradictions. She portrays him as a good father, someone who truly loves his family and wants to protect his daughter.
Yet he hurts children. She acknowledges this contradiction.
But she seems to focus on his planning and intelligence when to me his impulsiveness stands out. She portrays him as a mastermind, who toys with the agents like puppets on a string, but this guy is a yapper.
They would not have got him on any of the murders if it had not been for his inability to shut up. That's not exactly a sign of superior intellect.
She focuses on how cold and evil and remorseless and overall how much of a freak he is. All of which is true. No denying that.
But the way he speaks to Heidi earlier on, around the part when religion is mentioned actually signals to me that he isn't actually as cold and callous as she depicts him. I got the impression that a small part of him actually was ashamed of himself for killing and for being the way that he was. At least when he was younger. At times it also seems like he cares for Kimberly and is protective of her.
Basically my conclusion is that he's a monster but also a mess.
He tries to be methodical and to plan ahead, but ultimately his evil impulses win over. He seems capable of loving/caring for others, but can't seem to empathize with them. Refer back to when he calls the people around him his victims. How do you think Kimberly would have felt to learn her makeup had been used on a corpse?? That her vehicle was used in a crime? That the man she was presumably sleeping with was also sleeping with corpses. I assume he's braided his daughter's hair at least once, like he did for his younger siblings. How would she feel knowing that the same hands that braided her hair also braided that of a dead girl? Either he never thought about it or he just didn't care. No consideration for their feelings. He seems to want to shield his daughter and family from the impact of his reputation, yet he enjoys the media attention. He craves control yet so many aspect of his crimes are impulsive. He seems to oscillate vetween extremes and this aligns with how his fellow soldiers described him, in polar opposite ways. Although the author at times recognizes how inconsistent he is, she seems to ignore that in favor of a more 'appealing' or marketable narrative.
For example, option A (the more accurate version imo): wishy washy serial killer who is only consistent in being despicable kills maybe? 11 people. A man of contradictions, he's organized and a mess. He's controlling bur out of control. He seems like he's remorseless and apathetic but also somehow a doting father. He's apparently super manipulative of interrogators yet keeps digging his own graves despite how much of a hot mess the interrogation and investigation were.
Or option B:
The books was a slow start, imo. I tried repeatedly without much luck to start reading it. I think I had it for weeks before I got more than 25 pages in. It didn't really hook me until like 50 pages in, so almost 20% of the way through. I never really got hooked in all honesty. It's a pretty quick read though, especially more towards the end. I'm not sure if it was the writing or the organization. I think part of it was how much there was to cover. But yeah, it wasn't a book that I couldn't put down.
Sometimes it felt like she was a journalist trying to be a writer (yes ik what those words mean, but bare with me). Journalists tend to have very matter of fact, unembellished writing styles. When I got some newspaper writing training, my boss went on and on about accuracy. So it makes sense, don't add stuff unless you know it's true. Keep it simple, get the facts down clearly. But writers are allowed to be more creative, to embellish, to do what is necessary to keep the reader's attention, to make things interesting. To build narratives. At times it felt like she was being pushed and pulled between being a writer and a journalist. I don't mean that she seemed dishonest or anything. She seemed like she was telling the truth, or what she believed it to be. But at times it felt like she fancied herself a writer? Like she was almost enjoying herself too much. Idk how else to explain it, but I think she should stick to the journalist mentality. Not just because the topic is so sensitive.
We were jumping all across the country, but there wasn't a lot to cover. Or at least there wasn't a lot that she covered. There's not really a way to assign blame without seeing the source material, because with nonfiction you are inherently limited by your source material, or lack thereof. This was more apparent in the latter part of the book. The beginning was detailed and very fleshed out and the latter half was vague. A lot was covered but not with much depth or meaning, it got repetitive. At least it went by fast. After maybe Part 3? Or 200 pages? It stopped being memorable
Overall it was quite confusing at times. It wasn't always clear what was a theory and what they proved. Or where they were and what the chronology was. This to a degree is understandable because sometimes it is less confusing to only mention a detail when it becomes relevant.
Tbh this book was kinda repetitive at times and I think it would have been better as a documentary rather than novel.
It was super boring how Keyes kept saying, "I don't want to talk about that now," or "let's talk about that later." But here the fault really lies with the author because she could have just cut that out. Condensed it. Trimmed it. Idc. Just tell us he didn't want to talk. Stop having him tell us that and then repeating it yourself. Or better yet, skip it altogether. Mention it once and move on. We don't need to keep hearing him say he doesn't want to talk about it.
The author tries to build these special agents as characters. If you read how she describes them it'll make sense. She introduced so many people that it was hard to keep track and I literally resorted to highlighting passages and dog earring pages so I could refer back to who she was talking about.
I was left with a lot of questions and they weren't questions like, "did he actually kill that person?"
Some of my questions were;
-why did Payne hate Doll so much?
--was it sexism?
--or was he still upset that she didn't let him on the case when he knew something was wrong (basically did he view her as putting her career/a desire for glory before Samantha and her safe return)?
--I just had a lot of questions about the whole implied Payne/Doll fued. I'm guessing she didn't go into details since Doll declined to be interviewed and so she didn't have both sides of the story. She didn't hesitate to write about when other cops were being incompetent and at times it seemed implied that Doll was, so I was just wondering why the author was so generous with Doll.
-how many fiancées did Keyes have? Ik there was at least the girl from Colville but from the way it was written it seemed like there were more women in his life than her, Kimberly, and Tammie.
-why was Payne the lead agent? I thought Bell had seniority.
--Assuming Bell was the senior agent, was he really okay with Payne and then eventually the lady whose name started with a G being in charge? Idk it kinda seemed like Payne and Bell were the main characters, based on how it was written, but the hierarchy didn't make all that much sense to me.
-if Chacon was called in by the other guy, which implies that guy was his boss, how did Chacon have the authority to assign that guy to go diving for the body?
This book REALLY could have benefitted from a timeline and some graphics. I get it if maybe she didn't want to spoil things like
The book talks about a lot of super tough and potentially triggering topics, which I will tag below, but nothing is super explicit, so keep that in mind. I mean they come up frequently but it's never super detailed.
I thought the acknowledgements were quite sweet and well-written. At least the first part with the FBI.
I liked that she included times when both Payne and Bell cried. Society really stigmatizes men showing emotion, especially emotions that deal with vulnerability. But they have hard jobs and they see terrible things and it is understandable that these things would affect them. Basically I liked that their vulnerability was included and it wasn't mocked or dismissed or whatever. The case was hard on them and they cried. The end. Same goes for the diver and his PTSD. These examples prove that being a hero/being a "man" and having emotions are not mutually exclusive. Men are allowed to be affected by difficult things and it doesn't make them any less heroic. The diver still brought Samantha home. Bell and Payne still caught Keyes.
Also given that Keyes is bisexual, it would have been very easy for her to twist the narrative and blame his being LGBTQ+ for all the horrible things that he did. Ik it’s kinda the bare minimum not to do that, but I appreciated it nonetheless that she just kept things neutral. Straight people have done terrible things and so have LGBTQ+ people. Sexual identity doesn't make people monsters, despite what many people believe.
On a different note, her reference to Bell's weight was triggering for me as someone who has gone through ED treatment. Although she didn't say it explicitly, it sort of implied that being fat was a moral failing/reaffirmed this societal belief that being fat is a personal failing or a result of laziness when it can be the result of environment, family, genetics, physical and mental health, etc. The comment will probably be super minor and unnoticeable to most people. They might not think it's a big deal, but I felt that it reflects a diet culture mentality and overall is entirely unnecessary. Like why mention Bell's weight at all? It never becomes relevant to the story.
If you care about neautrality/unbiased writing when it comes to nonfiction/true crime novels then this is probably not the book for you.
She had some narratives that she pushed that (to me) there didn't seem to be a lot of evidence for (based on what she presented).
It was also evident at times what she felt towards certain officers. Which is deserved. There were many instances of incompetence and it is important to recognize that and call it out, but her feelings did come through. It didn't bother me, but it is something to keep in mind. I can think of several people in the book that I know she disliked. Rightly so, but it isn't neutral/unbiased writing.
She argued a lot that his planning and his intelligence and so on made him unique for a serial killer, a special type of monster.
But he was simultaneously very organized and unorganized. Intelligent and stupid. He's supposed to be a fast learner and good with tech but somehow never got the whole atm withdrawal limit thing through his head.
She presents him as so clever thar the bodies can't be found/people don't realize that they are murder, but...
he got away with the Curriers because of sheer dumb luck. Of his potential victims, there were several that were found and whose deaths were deemed suspicious.
The dude apparently can't spell.
To me Keyes seems to be full of contradictions. She portrays him as a good father, someone who truly loves his family and wants to protect his daughter.
Yet he hurts children. She acknowledges this contradiction.
But she seems to focus on his planning and intelligence when to me his impulsiveness stands out. She portrays him as a mastermind, who toys with the agents like puppets on a string, but this guy is a yapper.
They would not have got him on any of the murders if it had not been for his inability to shut up. That's not exactly a sign of superior intellect.
She focuses on how cold and evil and remorseless and overall how much of a freak he is. All of which is true. No denying that.
But the way he speaks to Heidi earlier on, around the part when religion is mentioned actually signals to me that he isn't actually as cold and callous as she depicts him. I got the impression that a small part of him actually was ashamed of himself for killing and for being the way that he was. At least when he was younger. At times it also seems like he cares for Kimberly and is protective of her.
Basically my conclusion is that he's a monster but also a mess.
He tries to be methodical and to plan ahead, but ultimately his evil impulses win over. He seems capable of loving/caring for others, but can't seem to empathize with them. Refer back to when he calls the people around him his victims. How do you think Kimberly would have felt to learn her makeup had been used on a corpse?? That her vehicle was used in a crime? That the man she was presumably sleeping with was also sleeping with corpses. I assume he's braided his daughter's hair at least once, like he did for his younger siblings. How would she feel knowing that the same hands that braided her hair also braided that of a dead girl? Either he never thought about it or he just didn't care. No consideration for their feelings. He seems to want to shield his daughter and family from the impact of his reputation, yet he enjoys the media attention. He craves control yet so many aspect of his crimes are impulsive. He seems to oscillate vetween extremes and this aligns with how his fellow soldiers described him, in polar opposite ways. Although the author at times recognizes how inconsistent he is, she seems to ignore that in favor of a more 'appealing' or marketable narrative.
For example, option A (the more accurate version imo): wishy washy serial killer who is only consistent in being despicable kills maybe? 11 people. A man of contradictions, he's organized and a mess. He's controlling bur out of control. He seems like he's remorseless and apathetic but also somehow a doting father. He's apparently super manipulative of interrogators yet keeps digging his own graves despite how much of a hot mess the interrogation and investigation were.
Or option B:
He's the most ambitious and terrifying serial killer in modern history... He was a new kind of monster, likely responsible for the greatest string of unsolved disappearances and murders in modern American history... the most meticulous serial killer of the 21st century
^quotes from the book
She makes a big deal out of how incompetent Feldis is (which is deserved) but she tries to build this rising action, this tension of 'omg is Feldis's stupidity and arrogance going to cost us the interrogation??' only for it not to matter at all because Keyes blabs an awful lot for someone who says he doesn't want to talk about it.
I get why it was still important to mention, because if Keyes hadn't been so eager to talk, Feldis's mistakes really would have cost them the case. The reader needs to understand just how significant his mistakes were.
But to keep building the same narrative arc again and again. Unnecessary. Just quit it with the whole, "we're going to lose the interrogation!" "Keyes might win because of Feldis." You're beating a dead horse. Feldis is incompetent. Wildly so. An idiot. About to ruin everything. We got that. You can talk about how frustrated Payne and Bell were to have the plan they worked so hard on be thrown out. You can talk about the mistakes Feldis made, what he should have done instead, etc. But stop doing the 'oh no we're losing Keyes because of Feldis! Oh jk everything is fine and this seems to have made no significant impact on the case' thing. She did it roughly a handful of times. It was repetive. It was annoying. It didn't benefit the story or narrative.
books_nooks_spooks's review against another edition
4.0
American predator is for the most part a well set out true crime book covering the case of Israel Keyes. It follows a structured time line which doesn’t confuse the reader and uses excerpts from interrogation transcripts frequently throughout. However, there was a very bold statement made around two thirds of the way through which immediately jumped out at me as I believed this to be false. I tried to do some research in case it was me who was incorrect but I cannot find where this author got her information from anywhere. This made me question how reliable she was as a reporter and it definitely disconnected me from my reading experience. I also felt like the ending and the speculation over potential victims was a bit abrupt.
I find the whole Israel Keyes case frustrating (and this is a reason as to why I’ve avoided this book for so long) as a whole because there is so much focus on Samantha Koenig and very little on other confirmed victims. I appreciate it was her murder that broke the case open but every victim should be remembered and personalised in the way she was.
Israel Keyes was vile. He was by no means a criminal mastermind. He was a chaotic pervert who got away with all he did by sheer fluke and chance in my opinion. I don’t find him particularly interesting which is the ultimate insult from me as I usually find serial killers fascinating.
I find the whole Israel Keyes case frustrating (and this is a reason as to why I’ve avoided this book for so long) as a whole because there is so much focus on Samantha Koenig and very little on other confirmed victims. I appreciate it was her murder that broke the case open but every victim should be remembered and personalised in the way she was.
Israel Keyes was vile. He was by no means a criminal mastermind. He was a chaotic pervert who got away with all he did by sheer fluke and chance in my opinion. I don’t find him particularly interesting which is the ultimate insult from me as I usually find serial killers fascinating.
jbrooks124's review against another edition
dark
medium-paced
2.0
I've listened to a number of true crime podcasts, and thought I would try reading some true crime as well. If you've listened to any true crime podcast episodes about Israel Keyes, this will not give you much more than what you've already heard, beyond more in-depth quotes from conversations. This book is obviously upsetting due to content. There are of course, many loose ends in this book, as there are aspects of Keyes' run of murder and domestic terrorism that have yet to be uncovered. I was looking for more analysis of the crimes/insight into the action (and inaction) of the professionals involved.
serafinamariac's review against another edition
dark
informative
tense
fast-paced
4.0
Content Warnings
Graphic: Murder, Sexual violence, and Rape