What do you think?
Rate this book
Удав, или Мальчики кровавые в глазах
462 pages, Hardcover
Published January 1, 1997
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 of 1 review
July 25, 2026
Had to translate this book, obviously. From Russian to English.
Easily one of the most horrific serial murder cases, let alone child serial killings, ever.
The book is pretty detailed through out the book. One scene that truly gripped me wasn't the absolute cruelty and brutality of the killer Golovkin, but when an investigator is interviewing students at the school 3 of the victims went to and they come across a fellow friend of the boys that were horrifically killed, and the investigator can tell the boy is holding information back and she tells him "You know the boys were killed, but do you know how the boys were killed?" and compares it to getting pricked on the finger with a needle and how that hurts, doesn't it? Then tells the boy his friends were horrifically cut on the chest and the book mentions she begins to cry at this point and begs "Please, tell us everything you know" ...quickly the boy confesses what happened the previous day. Linking Golovkin to the murdered boys. Obviously the investigator was traumatized by the crimes. Which truly were beyond horrible.
I have read a lot of true crime, and there are moments where I say to my self "Fuck, this guy was so morally depraved." but I've never felt that sentiment as strong as I did reading this book and about Golovkin. Especially with the last 3 murders, which was a triple murder.
Also, the book mentions that Golovkin wasn't into detective novels or anything. He only really read one thing, which had to do with his profession; horses and horse breeding. But from other sources, it's been mentioned that he was fascinated by WW2 and the nazis.
The book goes into detail about the crimes and overall case. The second murder, a false witness came forward and told the detectives a bullsh*t story about a "fisher". Which completely misdirected the investigation and cases. In the second case it mentions the fact of Golovkin doing what several other serial killers have been known to do....revisit the scene of the crime, in this case Golovkin wasn't exactly inconspicuous. He was literally watching the crime scene of his own murder while carving into a tree with a knife; the same knife he used to attack the victim with.
Overall, a good read. A 3+, almost a 4.
It has a photo section, It goes into Golovkin's childhood, a little bit. I would of liked to have known more about his mother and her reaction to his arrest and trial. It goes into some of the aftermath of the case, which reminds me of Dahmer. In the Dahmer case, the victims and the city of Milwaukee tried to completely erase Dahmer and the case from existence. They got the apartment building Dahmer lived at demolished. Displacing the residents who lived there, one old man said he lived in that apartment for like 15 years and refused to leave "That had nothing to do with me". He stayed literally right up till the moment the wrecking crew demolished the place. They had to call the police to force him out of the building. They then went after the chocolate factory Dahmer worked at. Laying off thousands of workers and forcing the factory owner to shut the factory down and move out of state. In the Golovkin case, it was far far less egregious and nobody got hurt; the family members and out raged citizens torched his car, the car he used to prowl for victims, the car that he conned his victims into getting into the trunk of his car so nobody would see them together. They also torched the torture cellar/basement/dungeon that Golovkin had created.
The author, is very unique and "colorful" I'll say. He calls Golovkin a "bastard" at times...which brings me to No notoriety. I have long went against this movement and sentiment and part of their bullsh*t sentiment is this "Don't name the killer, if you call them anything, call them a coward" there is a mass shooter documentarian who quite frankly sucks at making documentaries and never uses the shooter's name, instead he calls them a coward and my view on that is .......THIS IS HISTORY. I don't see anybody calling Adolf Hitler a "coward" or making fun of Adolf Hitler during a documentary. There is also this self righteousness and pretentious element to it. In the case of this book, it's very specific and in no way does he censor anything about Golovkin. He isn't just willy nilly calling Golovkin a "bastard" out of some pretentious virtue signaling self censorship and mockery and it in no way invalidates the rest of the book. I have seen countless documentaries about mass shooters, serial killers, even celebrity stalkers and they will use the word "coward" or the term "loser" "he was a loser" but it's very specific and deliberate. They don't just call them a "loser" or "a coward" devoid of context and a disgusting obscene attempt as self censorship.
Explaining the circumstances of a mass shooter, like my favorite criminologist James Fox, who I am always quoting said about one mass shooter "It was an indivisual who was a failure, who was a loser, lonely and isolated" guess what? That is 100% true and accurate.
To quote the founder of No Notoriety
"name him once, if you got to name him once in the story and I would say call him the coward, because I would say anybody who sneaks into a public school with an AR15 and shoots 26 little kids is nothing but a coward". Here the problem....first off "name him once" but there are a f*ck ton of people, including academia who refuse to name them even once. So you can say all day "Name him once" but is that what is actually happening?! Also.....name them once and call them "the coward" for the rest of the article, documentary, academic paper, book....WHY?! That makes no sense and is that REALLY how this stuff works? I write a paper, make a documentary, etc about Adolf Hitler and the nazis.....so I'm suppose to just write his name ONCE in the paper and call him what? A "coward" for the rest of the paper/documentary, etc???? Doesn't that sound incredibly silly and just plain bizarre to you? The founder of No notoriety said in a single article they mentioned the murderer of his son James Holmes "41 times" and I am going ...SO?! So what?! What does that proof. I can read a book about WW2 and Adolf Hitler and I can come out of that and say "This book says Hitler's name 250 times" ...SO WHAT?!
Also The founder of No notoriety said this "take a picture of them in the morgue, it's the same thing. The same person." "here's where your gonna end up, you ready for that? Your not gonna end up like this powerful figure on the news. No, we're gonna show in the morgue" This is hilarious to me, because part of their bullsh*t "contagion effect" which is falsely conflated with social contagion and a ton of other stuff, they like to link their "contagion effect" to "Suicidal contagion" and most mass shooters are suicidal. So this is an incredibly ironic statement and would actually also play right into the mass shooter's psychology. JUST LIKE the crimes them selves. Again, it's the ACTIONS, not the person's name that people actually give a f*ck about. If Eric and Dylan, the shooters of Columbine didn't commit the school shootings, then they wouldn't have admirers and so forth and "copycats" are not the same f*cking thing as contagion. At least not the contagion they have made up. So I find it laughable that they are all for memorials for the victims, all for the news reporting what happened; the atrocity all over TV and saying "That has no effect" but the killer's name and photo, that has such a profound effect that we must now censor? That makes ZERO SENSE. Even censorship happy China realized that, because after a ton of mass stabbings and mass vehicle attacks in China in 2024 and 2025, China began to blacklist the entire thing. Not just the killer's name and photos and information, but the event it's self. I don't even think memorials for the victims are allowed to be made public. And that is a major point for me against the No notoriety movement...why not censor the entire thing? ALL OF IT?! ....because if your not gonna censor ALL OF IT, then why the f*ck should I take this bullsh*t seriously at all?!
The author also at the end of the book hilariously talks to all the potential "maniacs" out there potentially reading his book and gives them some sound advice. He never says or even implies it in the book, but it 100% fits. To quote Emmanuel Kant "The rules of the imagination are more permissive." That art, creation, and hobbies are far more better, productive, and obviously do not entail absurd self destruction like murdering children and of course Golovkin was caught, imprisoned, and then executed.
And that's another bullsh*t talking point. "oh it's glamorizing. We are romanticizing a serial killer"
....the guy was caught and then executed by the state. Or murdered in prison by another inmate, or in the case of a mass shooter, they committed suicide. How the f*ck is that "glamorizing?" It's only "glamorizing" in the context of "in the eye of the beholder" no matter what, somebody is gonna see it in a different light. Cult leader Jim Jones. He was just a child during WW2 and he had a childhood fascination, obsession, and idolization for Hitler and the nazis. Serial killer Patrick Mackay, his father fought against the nazis in WW2 and would tell him stories about killing nazis during the war and how the war scarred his life. And yet Mackay became obsessed with the nazis, became a nazi, owned a home made nazi shrine. Nazis and Hitler are the world's "boogieman" absolutely without question. Documentaries, books, and Hollywood have spent decades showing how evil and terrible the nazis were....and yet people still admire Hitler? Still want to be Nazis? So ya. It's a bullsh*t fucking argument. "romanization", no it isn't, and that you aint gonna stop anyway.
Anyway, a good book.
What would of made it a 4? I aint exactly sure.
More on the detectives in the case, some of the historical perspective in terms of Russia.
But for what it is and it's time and place, this book came out in the 90s after he was caught, it's well done.
Easily one of the most horrific serial murder cases, let alone child serial killings, ever.
The book is pretty detailed through out the book. One scene that truly gripped me wasn't the absolute cruelty and brutality of the killer Golovkin, but when an investigator is interviewing students at the school 3 of the victims went to and they come across a fellow friend of the boys that were horrifically killed, and the investigator can tell the boy is holding information back and she tells him "You know the boys were killed, but do you know how the boys were killed?" and compares it to getting pricked on the finger with a needle and how that hurts, doesn't it? Then tells the boy his friends were horrifically cut on the chest and the book mentions she begins to cry at this point and begs "Please, tell us everything you know" ...quickly the boy confesses what happened the previous day. Linking Golovkin to the murdered boys. Obviously the investigator was traumatized by the crimes. Which truly were beyond horrible.
I have read a lot of true crime, and there are moments where I say to my self "Fuck, this guy was so morally depraved." but I've never felt that sentiment as strong as I did reading this book and about Golovkin. Especially with the last 3 murders, which was a triple murder.
Also, the book mentions that Golovkin wasn't into detective novels or anything. He only really read one thing, which had to do with his profession; horses and horse breeding. But from other sources, it's been mentioned that he was fascinated by WW2 and the nazis.
The book goes into detail about the crimes and overall case. The second murder, a false witness came forward and told the detectives a bullsh*t story about a "fisher". Which completely misdirected the investigation and cases. In the second case it mentions the fact of Golovkin doing what several other serial killers have been known to do....revisit the scene of the crime, in this case Golovkin wasn't exactly inconspicuous. He was literally watching the crime scene of his own murder while carving into a tree with a knife; the same knife he used to attack the victim with.
Overall, a good read. A 3+, almost a 4.
It has a photo section, It goes into Golovkin's childhood, a little bit. I would of liked to have known more about his mother and her reaction to his arrest and trial. It goes into some of the aftermath of the case, which reminds me of Dahmer. In the Dahmer case, the victims and the city of Milwaukee tried to completely erase Dahmer and the case from existence. They got the apartment building Dahmer lived at demolished. Displacing the residents who lived there, one old man said he lived in that apartment for like 15 years and refused to leave "That had nothing to do with me". He stayed literally right up till the moment the wrecking crew demolished the place. They had to call the police to force him out of the building. They then went after the chocolate factory Dahmer worked at. Laying off thousands of workers and forcing the factory owner to shut the factory down and move out of state. In the Golovkin case, it was far far less egregious and nobody got hurt; the family members and out raged citizens torched his car, the car he used to prowl for victims, the car that he conned his victims into getting into the trunk of his car so nobody would see them together. They also torched the torture cellar/basement/dungeon that Golovkin had created.
The author, is very unique and "colorful" I'll say. He calls Golovkin a "bastard" at times...which brings me to No notoriety. I have long went against this movement and sentiment and part of their bullsh*t sentiment is this "Don't name the killer, if you call them anything, call them a coward" there is a mass shooter documentarian who quite frankly sucks at making documentaries and never uses the shooter's name, instead he calls them a coward and my view on that is .......THIS IS HISTORY. I don't see anybody calling Adolf Hitler a "coward" or making fun of Adolf Hitler during a documentary. There is also this self righteousness and pretentious element to it. In the case of this book, it's very specific and in no way does he censor anything about Golovkin. He isn't just willy nilly calling Golovkin a "bastard" out of some pretentious virtue signaling self censorship and mockery and it in no way invalidates the rest of the book. I have seen countless documentaries about mass shooters, serial killers, even celebrity stalkers and they will use the word "coward" or the term "loser" "he was a loser" but it's very specific and deliberate. They don't just call them a "loser" or "a coward" devoid of context and a disgusting obscene attempt as self censorship.
Explaining the circumstances of a mass shooter, like my favorite criminologist James Fox, who I am always quoting said about one mass shooter "It was an indivisual who was a failure, who was a loser, lonely and isolated" guess what? That is 100% true and accurate.
To quote the founder of No Notoriety
"name him once, if you got to name him once in the story and I would say call him the coward, because I would say anybody who sneaks into a public school with an AR15 and shoots 26 little kids is nothing but a coward". Here the problem....first off "name him once" but there are a f*ck ton of people, including academia who refuse to name them even once. So you can say all day "Name him once" but is that what is actually happening?! Also.....name them once and call them "the coward" for the rest of the article, documentary, academic paper, book....WHY?! That makes no sense and is that REALLY how this stuff works? I write a paper, make a documentary, etc about Adolf Hitler and the nazis.....so I'm suppose to just write his name ONCE in the paper and call him what? A "coward" for the rest of the paper/documentary, etc???? Doesn't that sound incredibly silly and just plain bizarre to you? The founder of No notoriety said in a single article they mentioned the murderer of his son James Holmes "41 times" and I am going ...SO?! So what?! What does that proof. I can read a book about WW2 and Adolf Hitler and I can come out of that and say "This book says Hitler's name 250 times" ...SO WHAT?!
Also The founder of No notoriety said this "take a picture of them in the morgue, it's the same thing. The same person." "here's where your gonna end up, you ready for that? Your not gonna end up like this powerful figure on the news. No, we're gonna show in the morgue" This is hilarious to me, because part of their bullsh*t "contagion effect" which is falsely conflated with social contagion and a ton of other stuff, they like to link their "contagion effect" to "Suicidal contagion" and most mass shooters are suicidal. So this is an incredibly ironic statement and would actually also play right into the mass shooter's psychology. JUST LIKE the crimes them selves. Again, it's the ACTIONS, not the person's name that people actually give a f*ck about. If Eric and Dylan, the shooters of Columbine didn't commit the school shootings, then they wouldn't have admirers and so forth and "copycats" are not the same f*cking thing as contagion. At least not the contagion they have made up. So I find it laughable that they are all for memorials for the victims, all for the news reporting what happened; the atrocity all over TV and saying "That has no effect" but the killer's name and photo, that has such a profound effect that we must now censor? That makes ZERO SENSE. Even censorship happy China realized that, because after a ton of mass stabbings and mass vehicle attacks in China in 2024 and 2025, China began to blacklist the entire thing. Not just the killer's name and photos and information, but the event it's self. I don't even think memorials for the victims are allowed to be made public. And that is a major point for me against the No notoriety movement...why not censor the entire thing? ALL OF IT?! ....because if your not gonna censor ALL OF IT, then why the f*ck should I take this bullsh*t seriously at all?!
The author also at the end of the book hilariously talks to all the potential "maniacs" out there potentially reading his book and gives them some sound advice. He never says or even implies it in the book, but it 100% fits. To quote Emmanuel Kant "The rules of the imagination are more permissive." That art, creation, and hobbies are far more better, productive, and obviously do not entail absurd self destruction like murdering children and of course Golovkin was caught, imprisoned, and then executed.
And that's another bullsh*t talking point. "oh it's glamorizing. We are romanticizing a serial killer"
....the guy was caught and then executed by the state. Or murdered in prison by another inmate, or in the case of a mass shooter, they committed suicide. How the f*ck is that "glamorizing?" It's only "glamorizing" in the context of "in the eye of the beholder" no matter what, somebody is gonna see it in a different light. Cult leader Jim Jones. He was just a child during WW2 and he had a childhood fascination, obsession, and idolization for Hitler and the nazis. Serial killer Patrick Mackay, his father fought against the nazis in WW2 and would tell him stories about killing nazis during the war and how the war scarred his life. And yet Mackay became obsessed with the nazis, became a nazi, owned a home made nazi shrine. Nazis and Hitler are the world's "boogieman" absolutely without question. Documentaries, books, and Hollywood have spent decades showing how evil and terrible the nazis were....and yet people still admire Hitler? Still want to be Nazis? So ya. It's a bullsh*t fucking argument. "romanization", no it isn't, and that you aint gonna stop anyway.
Anyway, a good book.
What would of made it a 4? I aint exactly sure.
More on the detectives in the case, some of the historical perspective in terms of Russia.
But for what it is and it's time and place, this book came out in the 90s after he was caught, it's well done.
Displaying 1 of 1 review