What do you think?
Rate this book
Man Who Wanted Seven Wives: The Greenbrier Ghost and the Famous Murder Mystery of 1897
Many West Virginian’s will recognize this story because they have seen the historical mile marker dedicated to the Greenbrier Ghost, described as the "only ghost to testify in a murder trial." In January 1897, young Zonie Shue was discovered dead in her home in Greenbrier County, apparently of natural causes. Some weeks after her burial, her ghost appeared at the bedside of her mother, Mary Jane Heaster, telling her that she had in fact been murdered. The appearance of the ghost led to the case being re-opened. The body was exhumed, new evidence was gathered, and ultimately Zona’s husband, Trout Shue, was convicted of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment.
- GenresTrue CrimeNonfiction
201 pages, Paperback
First published April 1, 1986
1 person is currently reading
75 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 7 of 7 reviews
December 7, 2016
This book could have been so good. Lyle had all the pieces she needed: a fascinating story, comprehensive research into both the original crime and trial and into what had happened to the story in the intervening century., her own innate knowledge of the part of West Virginia where it happened. She's quite good as a historian/journalist, understands what her evidence does and does not prove; she even has an interesting theory about what "really" happened.
But she also has a fatal flaw. She didn't trust her material. "I am not the first to observe that fiction is, or can be, more real than truth. Thus I feel that the purposes of history, in this instance at least, are better served by a carefully documented account interspersed with invented scenes based on the best information I could find, than by an account so dry no one would have wanted to read it" (xv).
She could not be more wrong.
The parts of this book that are historiography are great, compelling and lively. The parts of this book that are fiction (and, credit where credit is due, she does delineate very clearly the bits that are made up) are terrible. They're not necessarily badly written, but they feel false because I was so aware, as a reader, that she was just making it up. She doesn't know how Zona Heaster Shue met her murderer. She doesn't know the story Mary Jane Robinson Heaster told about her daughter's ghost. And she doesn't know a goddamn thing about what was going on in Trout Shue's head.
Part of being a historian, it seems to me, is owning the parts of your story you will never find. She could have written a lovely chapter on the kinds of ghost stories that Mary Jane Heaster would have known as someone who grew up in the Appalachians (her endnotes indicate clearly that she did the necessary research into folklore and ballads)--and on that very interesting tidbit in the local paper, printed the same week as Zona's funeral, about a man in Australia who invented a ghost because he knew of no other way to convince people that the victim was in fact murdered. Instead, she makes up her own ghost story, with an endnote saying: "Mrs. Heaster must have told Preston something like this" (37). It's just wrong, and it's disappointing.
But she also has a fatal flaw. She didn't trust her material. "I am not the first to observe that fiction is, or can be, more real than truth. Thus I feel that the purposes of history, in this instance at least, are better served by a carefully documented account interspersed with invented scenes based on the best information I could find, than by an account so dry no one would have wanted to read it" (xv).
She could not be more wrong.
The parts of this book that are historiography are great, compelling and lively. The parts of this book that are fiction (and, credit where credit is due, she does delineate very clearly the bits that are made up) are terrible. They're not necessarily badly written, but they feel false because I was so aware, as a reader, that she was just making it up. She doesn't know how Zona Heaster Shue met her murderer. She doesn't know the story Mary Jane Robinson Heaster told about her daughter's ghost. And she doesn't know a goddamn thing about what was going on in Trout Shue's head.
Part of being a historian, it seems to me, is owning the parts of your story you will never find. She could have written a lovely chapter on the kinds of ghost stories that Mary Jane Heaster would have known as someone who grew up in the Appalachians (her endnotes indicate clearly that she did the necessary research into folklore and ballads)--and on that very interesting tidbit in the local paper, printed the same week as Zona's funeral, about a man in Australia who invented a ghost because he knew of no other way to convince people that the victim was in fact murdered. Instead, she makes up her own ghost story, with an endnote saying: "Mrs. Heaster must have told Preston something like this" (37). It's just wrong, and it's disappointing.
February 12, 2008
You win a few, you lose a few. Very bizarre book. It is a mixture of history based on records from the time, and interspersed with the facts are things people might have said, according to the author's information. Some people might like this format, but I absolutely did not. I even got to the point where I was skimming the imaginary conversations and reiminisces just to find the factual material. If you're into true crime, ghost stories or a good historical account, skip this one and go on to another choice. I was SO disappointed I felt cheated.
Here's the basic outline. 1897 in Greebriar County WV, a young girl is discovered to be dead at the foot of her stairs. Some time later her mother reported that her daughter's ghost came to visit her several times to tell her that she was murdered by husband. Zona Heaster Shue was the dead girl; her husband was Trout Shue. According to the author's fictional conversation between Trout Shue and another party (47), the man boasted that he planned to live long enough to marry seven wives. So -- he did have a history with two women before Zona, but no one knew this in the area up to the time Zona had died. The short story here, folks, is that the mother's story of ghostly visitations and eyewitness accounts of the state of the body in the coffin and other things (like Trout not going through the undertaker but putting his wife in her coffin himself after dressing her himself, etc etc) led the DA of the time to open up an investigation and did up the body.
So...here's the deal. Lyle gives the reader only a few facts to go with her, for the simple reason that there weren't very many REAL facts about either the case or the trial. She gives us "what might have been" looks into both. There are no transcripts, there are few court records, and she goes on a lot of hearsay and a lot of newspaper articles as her sources. I wouldn't really call this "history" in its truest since. She should have probably just made a novel out of this, interweaving the real with the fictional, instead of setting up her book to have fictional parts and real parts. It didn't work for me.
Sorry...I'd love to recommend the book, but I cannot.
Here's the basic outline. 1897 in Greebriar County WV, a young girl is discovered to be dead at the foot of her stairs. Some time later her mother reported that her daughter's ghost came to visit her several times to tell her that she was murdered by husband. Zona Heaster Shue was the dead girl; her husband was Trout Shue. According to the author's fictional conversation between Trout Shue and another party (47), the man boasted that he planned to live long enough to marry seven wives. So -- he did have a history with two women before Zona, but no one knew this in the area up to the time Zona had died. The short story here, folks, is that the mother's story of ghostly visitations and eyewitness accounts of the state of the body in the coffin and other things (like Trout not going through the undertaker but putting his wife in her coffin himself after dressing her himself, etc etc) led the DA of the time to open up an investigation and did up the body.
So...here's the deal. Lyle gives the reader only a few facts to go with her, for the simple reason that there weren't very many REAL facts about either the case or the trial. She gives us "what might have been" looks into both. There are no transcripts, there are few court records, and she goes on a lot of hearsay and a lot of newspaper articles as her sources. I wouldn't really call this "history" in its truest since. She should have probably just made a novel out of this, interweaving the real with the fictional, instead of setting up her book to have fictional parts and real parts. It didn't work for me.
Sorry...I'd love to recommend the book, but I cannot.
May 26, 2021
No ghost, just old times murder 👻😅
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
June 25, 2013
This is not nearly as good a book as it could have been. In lieu of presenting a wealth of information in a cohesive, compelling, and thematically consistent manner, Katie Lyle has segregated and compartmentalized her material into four modes of presentation: narrative non-fiction, fiction, footnotes, and appendices. Constantly switching between modes is jarring, exhausting, and alienating. Lyle often deems fascinating details insufficiently pertinent and consigns them to obscurity as footnotes. As I was reading, I kept thinking, “Where was the editor?”
August 30, 2012
Excellently Researched. Zona Heaster was my 1st Cousin twice removed. Her father, Jacob Hedges Heaster and my maternal Great Grandfather, Charles Bivens Heaster were brothers. I have heard the family legend of the “Greenbrier Ghost” since I was a little boy back in the 1950’s. Her work is very fair and objective. I feel this should be the optimal resource for the Zona legend.
January 26, 2016
Incredible true story of a murder case solved only because the victim's ghost appeared, well after she had been decently buried, and started the investigatory ball rolling by explaining that her death was no accident.
January 23, 2014
This was such a strange book. I never did finish it. There was so much potential for it to be really good, but it just fell short and I really couldn't go on reading it.
Displaying 1 - 7 of 7 reviews