Wow. This was an exhausting read. Between the epilogue, the afterword 1986, the last chapter 1989, the update: twenty years later 2000, and a postscript penned by Rule's daughter, I thought I might never finish this.
That said, it is considered by many to be the definitive work not only on Bundy the serial killer, but also on Bundy the charismatic, attractive, and promising law student.
And really. What are the chances? You're a struggling single mom of four, eking out a living writing true crime articles for detective magazines and suddenly not only have you received a contract to write a book detailing a string of grizzly murders, but once the murderer is caught you find out he is a friend and previous coworker.
Seriously. You can't make this stuff up.
At times, I found Rule's narrative to be repetitive and overly introspective, but I guess given the circumstances, it was hard to avoid. And what the hell. She deserves to get it off her chest. Plus, eventually, she makes some valid observations, particularly with respect to Bundy's final interview in which he tries to "blame" his actions on violent pornography and detective magazines (ie true crime stories). I had actually watched the interview earlier on in the reading process and admit that he almost had me biting--hook, line, and sinker. However, after reading Rule's analysis, I think she was spot on. Which, I think is the point. A sociopath, Bundy was a master manipulator, incapable of empathy and lacking a conscience. He certainly wasn't able to fully appreciate his culpability. Pointing the finger at society seems consistent with his character.
I personally found some of the add-ons to be of little value, with the exception of the afterword and the last chapter, which both document the remainder of Bundy's ordeal.
All in all, a fascinating story told with competence, at least for the most part. If you happen to pick up a later printing like I did, consider skipping the epilogue, the update 2000 and the postscript.
As an aside, though unintentional or not on the part of Rule, I think there is an interesting discussion of the death penalty. It took millions of dollars to put Bundy to death, far more than it would have cost to keep him alive. Furthermore, seeing that he represents a "diseased" brain, I wonder if "we" (society) missed an opportunity to better understand exactly what contributes to the making of a Bundy.
I also wonder if as a society we need to redefine what constitutes sanity and insanity and the legal implications. I'm not sure men like Bundy have the power to stop themselves, just like I don't think most of us with normal functioning brains can understand how a Bundy couldn't stop himself. Anyone who does what he did has to be playing by a different set of rules, and it seems to me they are suffering from something that may be no more their fault than a man who is stricken with cancer. What does that mean legally? I'm not sure. But while putting men like Bundy to death "feels" right on some visceral level, it doesn't even begin to address the underlying problem.
Of course, on the other hand, this is a man who escaped twice, murdering and/or brutally attacking a half-dozen victims before being recaptured. Had he the opportunity, he would have killed again.
Anyway, lots of food for thought.