This is a long one – apologies in advance!
I'll start by acknowledging that this author has previously won a Pulitzer Prize and recognize the hard work that went into this substantial book. However, this. ain't. it.
This book was never marketed as a memoir, yet the author's personal life and experiences are woven throughout. I have nothing against memoirs, but I want to know I'm reading one when I pick it up. The author's personal anecdotes add nothing to the narrative or her theory about lead causing violence.
Several reviews praise the author's incredible writing and prose. However, this parataxis style is exhausting and awkward to read. I did enjoy how she captured the eeriness of the Pacific Northwest in the first chapter, but the book also includes countless sections about Tacoma's structurally unsound bridges. Why?
The entire book is predicated on the author's theory that lead in the air and other fumes are why the PNW has so many serial killers. This theory has major flaws and the author offers zero empirical evidence that lead caused the PNW's serial killers.
Second, there's no comparison of serial killer numbers between the PNW and other regions. How can she claim significantly more active serial killers existed there without this comparison? She even stretches her argument by including individuals not from the area (like Dennis Rader), tying them to places with heavy traffic or lead exposure, which invalidates her own PNW-specific argument.
The idea that serial killers stopped in the 80s because lead was eliminated makes no sense. There are numerous other factors that could explain the decrease: DNA technology, enhanced surveillance, better investigative tools, etc. This theory feels as flimsy as Peter Vronsky's suggestion that World War II caused post-war serial killers.
And speaking of, the author cites Vronsky's claim that 750 serial killers were active in 1980s. But how do you define serial killers? If you use the basic definition of three or more kills, sure. But the author's theory concerns psychosexual serial killers—a very specific type, not just anyone who's killed three people. A drug lord or mob member might kill more than three people for business, but they're psychologically different from Ted Bundy. She's discussing violence associated with personality disorders and paraphilias yet fails to make that distinction. Am I supposed to believe lead exposure creates necrophiles? According to the author, yes, apparently. She states that Bundy and others “have spent quality time in Tacoma, a place where paraphilias flourish like fungi.” No evidence is cited to support that claim either.
The author also perpetuates problematic serial killer myths. She insists Ted Bundy was attractive and a smooth talker. If Bundy was such a smooth talker, why did he need to pretend to be injured to get women to help him? Also, the unibrow—need I say more? 😒
She includes Israel Keyes, born in 1978, which undermines her own theory. If serial killers decreased as lead was phased out by the 1980s, how does someone born in 1978 support her lead theory?
Were there no other countries—especially industrialized nations—where people were systematically exposed to lead and other substances she mentions? Where are all the serial killers in those regions? She mentions Peter Sutcliffe briefly, but that's it. If the theory was sound, where are all the Australia, USSR, and other serial killers??
This quote particularly annoyed me: "The CDC doesn't know it, but functional derangements caused by lead are being seen all over the country, wherever men are repeatedly beating, raping, strangling, stabbing, and smothering women and children, as if compelled by some force as implacable as gravity."
This exemplifies another major issue: the author toys with the idea that serial killers are "insane" (using this legal term incorrectly—it means someone didn't know right from wrong). All the men she describes knew right from wrong.
There's also a common denominator she missed: violence against women and misogyny. Does lead make you a misogynist?
She also offers the example of the McDonald's mass shooter James Huberty, noting that "an analysis of his hair at autopsy reveals extraordinarily high levels of lead and cadmium... Cadmium, like lead, is associated with violent behavior." So even if you buy the premise that lead in the PNW creates serial killers, now we're claiming lead creates mass shooters too. Is ALL violence because of lead?
Finally, regarding all the author's anecdotes about men born in high lead concentration areas: what about the girls? Did they not breathe the same air? Why was it only men who became serial killers?
The confidence displayed in such a flimsy theory is baffling.