First off, regardless of any other response to this book I may have had, I want to state unequivocally that what happened to Carolyn was obviously completely terrible and tragic. I feel for her family and close friends who were affected by this shocking and violent loss, and I cannot imagine the lasting impacts of such grief. Although I struggled with this book in some ways, the most important thing in my view is that the book was hopefully somehow helpful or healing to Carolyn’s family and close friends. What they think of this book is the only thing that really matters to me, and they are best equipped to judge it.
I usually don’t have a problem rating books. First of all, who am I anyway, and what does it really matter to the world what I think about a book? I’m not a high powered critic with the ability to impact anything. Second, I don’t ever agree with the idea that rating memoirs or autobiographical writing is not okay. It’s not “rating lives,” it’s expressing a personal response to the particular telling of a story, a book, a work of art someone chose to create and publish and sell, thus opening it up to others’ opinions. It’s fair to assess that product.
Nonetheless, I don’t feel comfortable rating this particular book.
In fact: This book made me uncomfortable in a number of ways.
First, I often struggle when someone tells the story, from a memoir/autobiography angle, of another person’s tragedy, trauma, or murder, but still inserts themself into that story. It is one thing if the storyteller was truly close to that person, was their best friend or parent or child or partner or sibling. It feels appropriate in such cases. But I’ve read a few books lately, including this one, where the storyteller was not very close to the subject at all. In this case, it feels appropriating rather than appropriate.
Second, as other reviews have observed, the book contains lots and lots of often repetitive detail about Carolyn’s gifts and talents as a person, as well as the types of leisure and social activities she engaged in as a teen and early 20-something creative student, writer, and artist in Florida and NYC. Carolyn clearly was a unique person who lived life vibrantly and was adored by many. However, I do think the repetition was a bit much. There are only so many times I can read about someone and her friends smoking and writing and debating about aesthetic philosophy and spiritualism. It does start to feel a bit insufferable and claustrophobic, like being trapped in the subway car with an art school field trip.
Also, although I hate to say this, the descriptions of Carolyn did seem to border a bit on manic pixie dreamgirl glorification/idealization and even hagiography. I guess this suits the “obsession” theme in the subtitle, but it felt somehow disrespectful and I feel a more nuanced and humanized portrait would have been of greater service to the subject and to other victims. After all, one doesn’t have to be an angel to be a human worthy of respect and dignity and life. Carolyn did not deserve to be a victim, but that doesn’t mean she had to be perfect. Repeatedly emphasizing things like Carolyn’s beauty and fashion sense - ad nauseam - unfortunately has the effect of suggesting that Carolyn’s death was all the more tragic because she was a pretty white girl.
Thirdly - and I have had to strike and rewrite this paragraph several times to avoid going on a rant - I was unsettled that the author seems to suggest conclusions about Carolyn’s killer that I do not think the author has the psychological/academic knowledge and qualifications or the sufficient information/evidence to make. Suffice it to say that she seems determined to portray him as just a rich bad guy who murdered Carolyn on a whim so that he could malinger in a long-term prison vacay as opposed to a person whose behavioral health problems influenced his behavior. OK, so the guy did an awful thing, and he experienced some privilege in life too, but it also seems pretty clear that ample signs of mental illness and disturbed, odd behavior were present with him for some time and factored into what happened, and I don’t see how the tragic situation is helped by denying that. Refusing to accept this reality doesn’t make the situation any better or bring the victim back. He doesn’t have to be full-on intentionally evil for this to be a tragedy; he can also be sick. Is not greater awareness of and empathy around mental health - for all - a goal worth working for and that could ultimately benefit everyone? Isn’t this ostensibly one of the purposes of this book?
(A word about drug-induced psychosis: I work in mental health and have seen this and similar phenomena happen frequently enough, including with substances that people often prefer to think about as innocuous or even fully beneficial. I think the killer has way more pervasive and concurrent mental health issues going on than that episode alone, but I don’t think it’s a total bullshit excuse even if it’s unpleasant to think about. Additionally, it’s interesting that the author omits discussion of how the killer’s father, a once-famous cartoonist for The New Yorker, was eventually arrested on serious and still-mysterious child pornography charges after this murder and died of organ failure while the case was pending and his son still in prison - more evidence that things were potentially quite amiss in the killer’s supposedly perfect, privileged life.)
And as for the tangential chapter on Bard College - yes, it seems pretty horrible and retrograde, as are many elite educational institutions, stay away from it, but I still don’t see how realistically they could have done anything to address the killer’s mental health or prevent this tragedy from occurring given that it was a number of years after his graduation and that he didn’t display violent behavior while at school.
(And, it appears Bard did give Carolyn many chances to finish her coursework when factors such as anxiety, depression, and perfectionism seem to have been impairing, but if she never completed any of her classes despite these additional chances, it makes sense as a consequence that they would eventually have to let her go.)
Overall, I think this was an interesting twist on true crime in its effort to emphasize the life rather than the death of the victim as well as the lives of those who loved and survive her. However, this effort was marred for me by bias and writing beyond one’s scope of expertise. The result is a confusing passion project in which the author’s connection to the subject never seems entirely clear.