Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.78 AVERAGE
3.78 AVERAGE
I wanted to rate this higher because the book's primary content is really well done. I just couldn't get around the author's unnecessary political commentary. It wouldn't bother me except that she's described on the book jacket as "a brilliant new journalist," and to me, that means abiding by journalistic standards. So here goes...
Throughout the book, when Democrats made policy choices she disagreed with, it was always described as bipartisan sweeps, with "even the most ardent Democrats" making these decisions or turnabouts, as if making excuses for the representatives of the party she appears to favor. When it was Republicans, however, she gave descriptions like "he was always on TV saying stupid things, blinking [his] dumb, frightened eyes" or "I could not imagine a stupider president." The latter was actually not included in relation to any of the four stories the book covers, but to the author's own media consumption and the topics of the day from the time she was in college, following the Taylor Behl murder coverage in her dorm room. You know, real critical exposition for her "rigorous and illuminating" work.
The most jarring was the two-paragraph aside when she reported on the details of a convention speech while also sharing in the same (irrelevant) anecdote that she continually switched the radio on and off throughout the speech - "the equivalent of watching a horror movie dismemberment through a screen of fingers." I want to be clear - I don't disagree with her and am not defending the sentiment of the speech; I just don't understand the logic in telling readers that she 1) didn't listen to the speech except in gathered snatches and then 2) drawing analysis and conclusions from a speech she told us she didn't listen to in its entirety. To top it off, the speech was wholly unrelated to the paragraphs it followed or preceded and to the book as a whole. It sat alone as a clear tangent that a sharper editor would have removed.
It didn't kill the book for me, but did jump out and make me question the author's agenda.
Throughout the book, when Democrats made policy choices she disagreed with, it was always described as bipartisan sweeps, with "even the most ardent Democrats" making these decisions or turnabouts, as if making excuses for the representatives of the party she appears to favor. When it was Republicans, however, she gave descriptions like "he was always on TV saying stupid things, blinking [his] dumb, frightened eyes" or "I could not imagine a stupider president." The latter was actually not included in relation to any of the four stories the book covers, but to the author's own media consumption and the topics of the day from the time she was in college, following the Taylor Behl murder coverage in her dorm room. You know, real critical exposition for her "rigorous and illuminating" work.
The most jarring was the two-paragraph aside when she reported on the details of a convention speech while also sharing in the same (irrelevant) anecdote that she continually switched the radio on and off throughout the speech - "the equivalent of watching a horror movie dismemberment through a screen of fingers." I want to be clear - I don't disagree with her and am not defending the sentiment of the speech; I just don't understand the logic in telling readers that she 1) didn't listen to the speech except in gathered snatches and then 2) drawing analysis and conclusions from a speech she told us she didn't listen to in its entirety. To top it off, the speech was wholly unrelated to the paragraphs it followed or preceded and to the book as a whole. It sat alone as a clear tangent that a sharper editor would have removed.
It didn't kill the book for me, but did jump out and make me question the author's agenda.
dark
informative
reflective
sad
tense
slow-paced
A good analysis of true crime, obsession and the impact that those things can have on actual policies and laws. There is a ton of good info in here and I love that the author examines things like who gets to be a "victim" and how our society's judgements and stereotypes can harm depending on the way media portrays a situation.
I felt like the pacing was kind of slow and it took some time for me to get interested in the book, but once I did it was a very educational and interesting piece. I think anyone who is interested in true crime should give this a read.
I felt like the pacing was kind of slow and it took some time for me to get interested in the book, but once I did it was a very educational and interesting piece. I think anyone who is interested in true crime should give this a read.
A fascinating view from four very different perspectives. I particularly liked the epilouge. She makes very enlightening points. Read as audiobook.
dark
informative
reflective
medium-paced
dark
informative
reflective
medium-paced
I met Lorri Davis very briefly in Little Rock; while it was a short encounter, I have trouble associating the words "savage" and "obsession" with her. I also found myself sympathizing with Frances Glessner Lee. I imagine having to work so hard to have her ideas taken seriously might have worked on her personality and made her seem obsessive and difficult. I wanted to like this book, but I wish it had been titled/marketed a little differently.
This was an entertaining read, although not altogether cohesive. It seemed like a general cautionary tale of the short-sightedness and lack of self-awareness of society in relation to our true crime obsession. A lot of interesting ideas were broached, along with specific examples used to illustrate them (The West Memphis Three, Sharon Tate, Columbine). I especially enjoyed the portion of the book where she discussed who "gets" to be a victim in society's eyes as well as the types of victims that are often ignored or written off (sex workers, people of color, etc), but was not as invested in her personal musings (which fortunately did not make up most of the book). Definitely worth the read, especially if you are someone (like me!) who is a long time true crime fan who has begun to examine/question their relationship with the genre.
dark
informative
reflective
sad
medium-paced
The concept of this book was so cool but the execution was not to my taste. There were so many examples and stories we were supposed to follow that I never felt her question, “why are women drawn to true crime stories,” was even answered.