Scan barcode
A review by natreviews
Boy in the Box: The Unsolved Case of America's Unknown Child by David Stout
3.0
As a person who isn’t new to true crime I found this book wasn’t written for me. Don’t get me wrong, I learned more about the case than I originally knew, but it’s written in a way that seems like a person who is interested in true crime for the first time would like.
I did like how the chapters were short, but that doesn’t mean they are always to the point.
The book does mainly focus on The Boy in the Box, but has chapters (mainly 18, 19, and 35) diverge. Some of the stories that are mentioned are brought back in later chapters a lot, but some are throw away sentences.
In the end, this book could have been many chapters shorter if they just wanted to focus on this one case. OR, in my opinion, should have focused on multiple cases of America’s Unknown Children.
This leads me to the title. Written very much for a person experiencing true crime for the first time. The Boy In The Box. Gets to what the case is. I think a better fit for the title would have been “Fragile: Handle With Care, The Unsolved Case of America’s Uknown Child”. Especially with how the book diverts to other cases about people murdering children or other unsolved cases involving children that have no identity.
The last thing I will point out is the fact that it is dramatized. Every true crime book to some extent is. When you point this fact out, it makes me second guess what’s dramatized and what isn’t? Where the thoughts dramatized, or some of the story elements? This fact is pointed out at the beginning of the book. What isn’t though is if you may have any leads on the case where to direct them to. Yes, the case happened in 1957, but the book makes a HUGE point that we shouldn’t forget cases like these. I believe another book I’ve reviewed “The Forest City Killer” does have a place to contact, even if that’s just the local police department. Those cases happened in the 1960’s and 1970’s. Still, it seems weird not to have anything about it. I also wasn’t comfortable seeing crime scene photos and photos of the boy dressed up (if you read the book you will know what I mean). You don’t have to show those. The poster is fine (since it was super crucial to the story), the shots of the area are fine, but I don’t need to see the photos of the boy on the autopsy table. It’s distasteful to me. In another book I read about the women who followed Charles Manson they also included photos, but NEVER of the victims or the crime scene. I think that’s why seeing the photos of the dead child upset me. I’d be fine seeing the death cast, but I don’t want to see the body of the child.
Will I read this book again? No. Would I recommend this book to a person really into true crime? No. Would I recommend this book to a person who wants to be introduced into the genre, but doesn’t know where to start? Yes, yes I would.
I did like how the chapters were short, but that doesn’t mean they are always to the point.
The book does mainly focus on The Boy in the Box, but has chapters (mainly 18, 19, and 35) diverge. Some of the stories that are mentioned are brought back in later chapters a lot, but some are throw away sentences.
In the end, this book could have been many chapters shorter if they just wanted to focus on this one case. OR, in my opinion, should have focused on multiple cases of America’s Unknown Children.
This leads me to the title. Written very much for a person experiencing true crime for the first time. The Boy In The Box. Gets to what the case is. I think a better fit for the title would have been “Fragile: Handle With Care, The Unsolved Case of America’s Uknown Child”. Especially with how the book diverts to other cases about people murdering children or other unsolved cases involving children that have no identity.
The last thing I will point out is the fact that it is dramatized. Every true crime book to some extent is. When you point this fact out, it makes me second guess what’s dramatized and what isn’t? Where the thoughts dramatized, or some of the story elements? This fact is pointed out at the beginning of the book. What isn’t though is if you may have any leads on the case where to direct them to. Yes, the case happened in 1957, but the book makes a HUGE point that we shouldn’t forget cases like these. I believe another book I’ve reviewed “The Forest City Killer” does have a place to contact, even if that’s just the local police department. Those cases happened in the 1960’s and 1970’s. Still, it seems weird not to have anything about it. I also wasn’t comfortable seeing crime scene photos and photos of the boy dressed up (if you read the book you will know what I mean). You don’t have to show those. The poster is fine (since it was super crucial to the story), the shots of the area are fine, but I don’t need to see the photos of the boy on the autopsy table. It’s distasteful to me. In another book I read about the women who followed Charles Manson they also included photos, but NEVER of the victims or the crime scene. I think that’s why seeing the photos of the dead child upset me. I’d be fine seeing the death cast, but I don’t want to see the body of the child.
Will I read this book again? No. Would I recommend this book to a person really into true crime? No. Would I recommend this book to a person who wants to be introduced into the genre, but doesn’t know where to start? Yes, yes I would.