You need to sign in or sign up before continuing.
Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.78 AVERAGE
3.78 AVERAGE
I’m a true crime fan and lately I’ve become disillusioned with the genre, with its exploitative focus on gruesome details and its rampant cop propaganda. With Gabby Petito’s case on the news and how so many true crime fans have been salivating over its updates, I’ve decided to read this book based on the recommendation of others who have been critical of the genre.
If you love true crime but also feel ambivalent about its ethics, you will appreciate this book. This isn’t a typical true crime book that presents a timeline of a crime; it’s more of a sociological exploration of this subculture. I’ve read some mixed reviews on this site who seem defensive that the author decided to be critical than to laud true crime, so if you’re not ready for a discussion of true crime ethics, go read Ann Rule or go back to listening to MFM.
If you love true crime but also feel ambivalent about its ethics, you will appreciate this book. This isn’t a typical true crime book that presents a timeline of a crime; it’s more of a sociological exploration of this subculture. I’ve read some mixed reviews on this site who seem defensive that the author decided to be critical than to laud true crime, so if you’re not ready for a discussion of true crime ethics, go read Ann Rule or go back to listening to MFM.
dark
informative
reflective
slow-paced
Four stories of women who have in different ways become obsessed with true crime. An heiress who dedicated so much of her time and money to develop the field of forensics in the US, a woman who imbedded herself within the Tate family, a woman who fell in love with a man falsely convicted of murder during the satanic panic, and a woman who became so obsessed with the columbine shooters she planned on emulating their crimes. I was mostly confused at the point or the message of these stories other than just being stories. They were interesting, but I wish that the theme was a bit tighter. There weren't really any statements about what these stories may mean in general or how they relate to larger things, studies etc.
They are four interesting stories, but because crime is so personal, they all felt off somehow. I think the last scene where the author is at Crime-Con and is asked along with the rest of the room to bind themselves so as to ‘empathize’ and feel the fear of a certain murder victim, grossly voyeuristic, was very good. I guess I just walked away not knowing what the thesis was besides ‘true crime is so wildly varied, here are a couple stories.’
They are four interesting stories, but because crime is so personal, they all felt off somehow. I think the last scene where the author is at Crime-Con and is asked along with the rest of the room to bind themselves so as to ‘empathize’ and feel the fear of a certain murder victim, grossly voyeuristic, was very good. I guess I just walked away not knowing what the thesis was besides ‘true crime is so wildly varied, here are a couple stories.’
2.5 stars I think. Found the writing style a little hard to get into and also was a little astounded by what the author said was normal behaviours but an interesting and informative read all up. She also seems to have a weird thing about weight which is mentioned oddly a few times throughout the book. Glad it’s finished now.
This is one hot mess of a book.
The introduction reads like a bad article someone with an interest in true crime might dig up on the internet, read a little bit of, click elsewhere, and then forget entirely. By the time I made it to the last page (heaven help me, somehow I made it) it was more than eminently clear that whatever fascination the author might have originally held for true crime had soured. And with it, went whatever interesting magic this book might have held.
Here’s a thought: maybe don’t judge and alienate the people who will be interested in reading your book? I am all for a critical look at whatever the hell you want, and people are more than entitled to their own opinions (as I sit here and type mine out), but the descriptions of the people attending CrimeCon in the first and last section of this book felt savagely judgmental to me. The author’s ire is also focused mainly at women (problematic to say the least!) and she doesn’t really explore the reasons behind the fascination with crime. That’s the book I want to read.
Look. Is there an issue with romanticizing serial killers and exploiting real people’s trauma and loss for the sake of entertainment? Yes, I think there definitely is. And it’s definitely something to keep in mind before you buy that shirt with Gacy’s face on it. But I also think it’s OK to be interested, to want to explore the details, to want to know why. It’s part of the human condition to face death, and to do it head-on is kind of badass. If we can just know what happened to JonBenet or see what makes someone like Dahmer tick, then maybe, just maybe . . . everything else that’s exploding around us won’t seem so out of control. Who knows. Isn’t it worth a try?
The book goes on to explore four different perspectives(?) of crime by looking at a few high-profile cases and crime related personalities. I am definitely well-versed in crime, but I have to say that all of the stories chosen for the book have been covered so extensively that I felt the author didn’t really have anything interesting or new to add. In each chapter, there were also some random memoir-y stuff that felt extremely out of place.
This structure just felt so hodge-podge to me. None of the ideas from chapter to chapter strung together. The book felt like it needed a strong developmental edit. I would have been more interested if it have focused on one of the four chapters more fully, or incorporated a bunch of vignettes on each chapter instead of just one.
The book also ends on such a sour note, it just put me off the whole thing. Even if it had some interesting ideas here and there, it comes down so negatively on the whole idea, the whole field of true crime, that I’m left wondering why the author even wrote the book at all. Doesn’t she know who the book is going to be marketed to?
My thanks to Scribner Books for my copy of this one to read and review.
The introduction reads like a bad article someone with an interest in true crime might dig up on the internet, read a little bit of, click elsewhere, and then forget entirely. By the time I made it to the last page (heaven help me, somehow I made it) it was more than eminently clear that whatever fascination the author might have originally held for true crime had soured. And with it, went whatever interesting magic this book might have held.
Here’s a thought: maybe don’t judge and alienate the people who will be interested in reading your book? I am all for a critical look at whatever the hell you want, and people are more than entitled to their own opinions (as I sit here and type mine out), but the descriptions of the people attending CrimeCon in the first and last section of this book felt savagely judgmental to me. The author’s ire is also focused mainly at women (problematic to say the least!) and she doesn’t really explore the reasons behind the fascination with crime. That’s the book I want to read.
Look. Is there an issue with romanticizing serial killers and exploiting real people’s trauma and loss for the sake of entertainment? Yes, I think there definitely is. And it’s definitely something to keep in mind before you buy that shirt with Gacy’s face on it. But I also think it’s OK to be interested, to want to explore the details, to want to know why. It’s part of the human condition to face death, and to do it head-on is kind of badass. If we can just know what happened to JonBenet or see what makes someone like Dahmer tick, then maybe, just maybe . . . everything else that’s exploding around us won’t seem so out of control. Who knows. Isn’t it worth a try?
The book goes on to explore four different perspectives(?) of crime by looking at a few high-profile cases and crime related personalities. I am definitely well-versed in crime, but I have to say that all of the stories chosen for the book have been covered so extensively that I felt the author didn’t really have anything interesting or new to add. In each chapter, there were also some random memoir-y stuff that felt extremely out of place.
This structure just felt so hodge-podge to me. None of the ideas from chapter to chapter strung together. The book felt like it needed a strong developmental edit. I would have been more interested if it have focused on one of the four chapters more fully, or incorporated a bunch of vignettes on each chapter instead of just one.
The book also ends on such a sour note, it just put me off the whole thing. Even if it had some interesting ideas here and there, it comes down so negatively on the whole idea, the whole field of true crime, that I’m left wondering why the author even wrote the book at all. Doesn’t she know who the book is going to be marketed to?
My thanks to Scribner Books for my copy of this one to read and review.
I thoroughly enjoyed Monroe's breakdown of the true crime genre as well as telling the stories of 4 women via the lens of archetypes associated with true crime. The history buff in me loved the brief history lessons, and her writing really made me look inward and analyze my own interest in true crime. Really loved this read and was disappointed that I let it sit on my shelf for so long!