What do you think?
Love and Terror: The Helter-Skelter History of the Manson Murders
A major new history of the Manson murders, an infamous twentieth century criminal cases and defining moment of the American countercultural 1960's
In August 9-10, 1969, ex-convict, musician, and charismatic leader Charles Manson ordered members of his countercultural “family” to kill some of Hollywood's wealthy, white, “beautiful people.” He also told them to leave clues that would implicate black radicals, in hopes of thereby triggering an apocalyptic race war. Rather than a race war, however, the violence only unleashed terror. Once “the family” had been named as suspects and then as the “love and terror cult”, the case placed the entire counterculture under suspicion and came to mean, in line with a famous sentence handed down by Joan Didion in The White Album, the end of the Sixties.
Based upon newly released archival material of case transcripts, Love and Terror presents the Manson case as an exemplary site for historical scholarship. The book shows how the standard story of the Manson murders came to be told the way it was, excavating its fragmented sources and then tracing the way these were arranged—in the media and in court—into the official version of events. Based on years of empirical research, Love and Terror presents the Manson murders as a prism of American culture, and as an event best understood in the context of global avant-gardist movements and revolutionary violence.
In August 9-10, 1969, ex-convict, musician, and charismatic leader Charles Manson ordered members of his countercultural “family” to kill some of Hollywood's wealthy, white, “beautiful people.” He also told them to leave clues that would implicate black radicals, in hopes of thereby triggering an apocalyptic race war. Rather than a race war, however, the violence only unleashed terror. Once “the family” had been named as suspects and then as the “love and terror cult”, the case placed the entire counterculture under suspicion and came to mean, in line with a famous sentence handed down by Joan Didion in The White Album, the end of the Sixties.
Based upon newly released archival material of case transcripts, Love and Terror presents the Manson case as an exemplary site for historical scholarship. The book shows how the standard story of the Manson murders came to be told the way it was, excavating its fragmented sources and then tracing the way these were arranged—in the media and in court—into the official version of events. Based on years of empirical research, Love and Terror presents the Manson murders as a prism of American culture, and as an event best understood in the context of global avant-gardist movements and revolutionary violence.
384 pages, Kindle Edition
Published May 26, 2026
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 19 of 19 reviews
June 2, 2026
realistically 4.25 stars
Claudia Verhoeven sets out to understand the cultural resonances of the Manson murders from the moment that they happened through to CM’s death in 2017. She stakes out a middle position that isn’t a full throttled endorsement of prosecutor Vincent Bugliosi’s Helter Skelter Thesis, nor full on “Helter Skepticism” seen in writers like Jeff Guinn and Tom O’Neill. Through looking at aesthetics, rhetoric, race, gender, survivalism, temporality, and Vietnam, Verhoeven builds an understanding of the Family layer by layer to bring a fuller picture not just of CM, but of contemporary society.
The sections that fall flat for me are around Manson’s contradictory views on race and the authors understanding of gender. Verhoeven elucidating Manson’s correspondence with the OG white power accelerationist James Mason in the 80s and Manson’s contemporary claiming by groups like atomwaffen don’t go far enough for me for a book by a scholar of terrorism and political violence who has already previously written two books on terrorism. the christian nationalist apocalyptic white separatist survivalism that Manson preached and believed is upstream from later developments like the Order, OKC, and Sandy Hook in terms of beliefs and motives.
The author also frequently refers to Charles Manson as non-cisgender/nonbinary which seems to stem from an interview he gave to occultist-fascist/esoteric satanist/white power rock star Nikolas Schreck, who asked CM his opinion on feminism and a few questions later CM declares himself to be a woman and says that all his followers know that. From a man that often said the most shocking thing that he could at any given time I don’t think this is grounds to rehabilitate CM as a nonbinary/transgender figure, especially when this is a common tactic to make certain figures seem more grotesque and deviant in the eyes of the public (ted kaczynski/ed gein/etc…), but also Verhoeven doesn’t really commit to this argument either. Verhoeven sees CM as a male chauvinist and yet never seems to try and untangle the knot of her own argument. but then again what does one expect from verso-published left-liberal slop?
Claudia Verhoeven sets out to understand the cultural resonances of the Manson murders from the moment that they happened through to CM’s death in 2017. She stakes out a middle position that isn’t a full throttled endorsement of prosecutor Vincent Bugliosi’s Helter Skelter Thesis, nor full on “Helter Skepticism” seen in writers like Jeff Guinn and Tom O’Neill. Through looking at aesthetics, rhetoric, race, gender, survivalism, temporality, and Vietnam, Verhoeven builds an understanding of the Family layer by layer to bring a fuller picture not just of CM, but of contemporary society.
The sections that fall flat for me are around Manson’s contradictory views on race and the authors understanding of gender. Verhoeven elucidating Manson’s correspondence with the OG white power accelerationist James Mason in the 80s and Manson’s contemporary claiming by groups like atomwaffen don’t go far enough for me for a book by a scholar of terrorism and political violence who has already previously written two books on terrorism. the christian nationalist apocalyptic white separatist survivalism that Manson preached and believed is upstream from later developments like the Order, OKC, and Sandy Hook in terms of beliefs and motives.
The author also frequently refers to Charles Manson as non-cisgender/nonbinary which seems to stem from an interview he gave to occultist-fascist/esoteric satanist/white power rock star Nikolas Schreck, who asked CM his opinion on feminism and a few questions later CM declares himself to be a woman and says that all his followers know that. From a man that often said the most shocking thing that he could at any given time I don’t think this is grounds to rehabilitate CM as a nonbinary/transgender figure, especially when this is a common tactic to make certain figures seem more grotesque and deviant in the eyes of the public (ted kaczynski/ed gein/etc…), but also Verhoeven doesn’t really commit to this argument either. Verhoeven sees CM as a male chauvinist and yet never seems to try and untangle the knot of her own argument. but then again what does one expect from verso-published left-liberal slop?
May 30, 2026
LOVE AND TERROR: THE HELTER SKELTER HISTORY OF THE MANSON MURDERS SCHOLARLY
BY: CLAUDIA VERHOEVEN
THIS IS NOT TRUE CRIME
First of all, the synopsis on both Net Galley, and the Good Reads Websites need to be edited because they don't begin to prepare readers how this SCHOLARLY written dense and repetitive newest Citations and SCHOLARLY multiple prisms that this examines The Charles Manson and his multiple people that it cites since It's not merely a narrative or how since Charles Manson died in 2017, and how many vast amount of different fields that it involves which took me a few days to finish this . It is not just a History about History. I understand that this has been in a recent time period the Trial Case Transcripts are now in the decades that followed the Tate-LaBianca murders are released where this author has basically developed a new many subcategories that most people aren't familiar with them and it really needs editing. I didn't sign up to read about the one of the easier, but I don't think I should have to read about the Political sub category, and it's been Published and instead of letting me skip this if it was disclosed that I had to read among the Political lens among many other Sub Category;s that is just not going to be acceptable to other people. I also don't know if when I downloaded this that the Kaleidoscopic categories under that category instead of them being under one heading that it examines like in that they are scattered with the essays that a particular prism should be organized, and there were so much repetition that I read the same thing before and I am saying this having found this a fascinating book that I found that I was surprised at how many hours of the meticulous research that I had a hard time putting it down.
I couldn't read the maps since my Kindle had even when I enlarged the Font it was still too small to read. I thought the Life Magazine Cover with Charles Manson on it creepy but my favorite Photograph, and I wasn't expecting the Photographs so that was an unexpected bonus along with the Citations was appreciated that most everything written about was Cited.
In regards to the two murders on August 9==10, 1969 those murders were so sad, which I read in my Freshman year of Vincent B's, The Prosecutor's Non=fiction book who I remember reading it during my French Class at school, it's hard to believe that is still the #1 Best Selling True Crime book, unless the text was older since I didn't go looking in the back of my Kindle and lose my place since I am assuming since this is supposed to be an exemplary, newly dissection of which it views through a brand new lens not just the sadistic, slaughter which this outlines more than just the murders of Sharon Tate, the wife of Director Roman Polanski who wasn't home at the time, but more on him below. Sharon Tate was approximately eight months pregnant, and she was a Beautiful actress who her husband had cast her in three movies. The movies he gave her a leading role my only recollection was the movie "Valley of the Dolls." Her horrific murder involved many other guests staying with her which Charles the mastermind instructed his followers to do something "Witchy," which they had written in blood the word "Pig." His intent was at the time which is viewed through another lens as starting a grand scale race war. By leaving that word written in blood he was certain the Black Panthers would be blamed for the murders which in his delusional mind they would retaliate against the White society out of outrage. I had heard about how Charles Manson and his family broke into so many homes and moved things around while people were sleeping just enough to be obvious that the people would know that someone else was in their home because that did create a Culture of Terror and Fear that gripped the entire nation, and I think I must have read about that when I read Vincent B. the Prosecutor's book but forgot it since I have only read his book but the "Creepy Crawlies,"memory surfaced. This was an impressive work of Non-Fiction that is very detailed, and I didn't think I would like it as much as I did that covers a lot more categories that aren't likely to interest the average reader, and probably not many Scholars either, unless they are interested in True Crime, and given the fact that this author's very thorough, but unless it's better organized than my copy, and the repetitive finished copy is heavily edited it will get tedious. Now I'm being repetitive and please update the synopsis on this to be less misleading, and state exactly what this covers otherwise there's going to be a very disappointed population of people that garnered the lower ratings that I just happened to see a few reviews when I posted mine. It will be the ethical thing to do since it would show a good faith effort.
Publication Date: May 26, 2026
Thank you to Net Galley, Claudia Verhoeven, and Verso Books (U.S.) for generously providing me with my ARC, in exchange for a fair and honest review. All opinions are my own, as always.
#LoveandTerror #ClaudiaVerhoeven #VersoBooksUS #NetGalley
BY: CLAUDIA VERHOEVEN
THIS IS NOT TRUE CRIME
First of all, the synopsis on both Net Galley, and the Good Reads Websites need to be edited because they don't begin to prepare readers how this SCHOLARLY written dense and repetitive newest Citations and SCHOLARLY multiple prisms that this examines The Charles Manson and his multiple people that it cites since It's not merely a narrative or how since Charles Manson died in 2017, and how many vast amount of different fields that it involves which took me a few days to finish this . It is not just a History about History. I understand that this has been in a recent time period the Trial Case Transcripts are now in the decades that followed the Tate-LaBianca murders are released where this author has basically developed a new many subcategories that most people aren't familiar with them and it really needs editing. I didn't sign up to read about the one of the easier, but I don't think I should have to read about the Political sub category, and it's been Published and instead of letting me skip this if it was disclosed that I had to read among the Political lens among many other Sub Category;s that is just not going to be acceptable to other people. I also don't know if when I downloaded this that the Kaleidoscopic categories under that category instead of them being under one heading that it examines like in that they are scattered with the essays that a particular prism should be organized, and there were so much repetition that I read the same thing before and I am saying this having found this a fascinating book that I found that I was surprised at how many hours of the meticulous research that I had a hard time putting it down.
I couldn't read the maps since my Kindle had even when I enlarged the Font it was still too small to read. I thought the Life Magazine Cover with Charles Manson on it creepy but my favorite Photograph, and I wasn't expecting the Photographs so that was an unexpected bonus along with the Citations was appreciated that most everything written about was Cited.
In regards to the two murders on August 9==10, 1969 those murders were so sad, which I read in my Freshman year of Vincent B's, The Prosecutor's Non=fiction book who I remember reading it during my French Class at school, it's hard to believe that is still the #1 Best Selling True Crime book, unless the text was older since I didn't go looking in the back of my Kindle and lose my place since I am assuming since this is supposed to be an exemplary, newly dissection of which it views through a brand new lens not just the sadistic, slaughter which this outlines more than just the murders of Sharon Tate, the wife of Director Roman Polanski who wasn't home at the time, but more on him below. Sharon Tate was approximately eight months pregnant, and she was a Beautiful actress who her husband had cast her in three movies. The movies he gave her a leading role my only recollection was the movie "Valley of the Dolls." Her horrific murder involved many other guests staying with her which Charles the mastermind instructed his followers to do something "Witchy," which they had written in blood the word "Pig." His intent was at the time which is viewed through another lens as starting a grand scale race war. By leaving that word written in blood he was certain the Black Panthers would be blamed for the murders which in his delusional mind they would retaliate against the White society out of outrage. I had heard about how Charles Manson and his family broke into so many homes and moved things around while people were sleeping just enough to be obvious that the people would know that someone else was in their home because that did create a Culture of Terror and Fear that gripped the entire nation, and I think I must have read about that when I read Vincent B. the Prosecutor's book but forgot it since I have only read his book but the "Creepy Crawlies,"memory surfaced. This was an impressive work of Non-Fiction that is very detailed, and I didn't think I would like it as much as I did that covers a lot more categories that aren't likely to interest the average reader, and probably not many Scholars either, unless they are interested in True Crime, and given the fact that this author's very thorough, but unless it's better organized than my copy, and the repetitive finished copy is heavily edited it will get tedious. Now I'm being repetitive and please update the synopsis on this to be less misleading, and state exactly what this covers otherwise there's going to be a very disappointed population of people that garnered the lower ratings that I just happened to see a few reviews when I posted mine. It will be the ethical thing to do since it would show a good faith effort.
Publication Date: May 26, 2026
Thank you to Net Galley, Claudia Verhoeven, and Verso Books (U.S.) for generously providing me with my ARC, in exchange for a fair and honest review. All opinions are my own, as always.
#LoveandTerror #ClaudiaVerhoeven #VersoBooksUS #NetGalley
June 21, 2026
First things first; this isn’t true crime nor is it narrative non-fiction. If you were hoping for an engaging, documentary-style deep dive into Charles Manson and his Love and Terror cult, look elsewhere. This was a bit of a letdown for me personally, because I was hoping to get deeper insight into Charlie’s early life, as well as some background on “Charlie’s girls.” Instead, the book offers a detailed microhistory of the Manson case and covers a multitude of different hypotheses and interpretations, with supporting evidence (or lack thereof) for each.
There are interesting concepts covered, such as the impact of antichronism or the lack of time-keeping on the memory loss experienced by the Family. In fact, many members stated that they never knew which day or month it was and could only remember the seasons. As Susan Atkins has stated, “You are all lost in time, I have stepped out of it.”
Charlie Rose: “When you’re gonna meet your God, and… you’re down to those last few, remaining breaths…”
Charlie Manson: “God, I’ve lived my whole life right in that spot.”
Charlie Rose: “OK, so if it all ended tomorrow…”
Charlie Manson: “It all, it did end tomorrow.”
Charlie Rose: “All right, suppose it ends tomorrow for some reason…”
Charlie Manson: “It does.”
Above all, the most captivating aspect of this book for me was how it captured Charlie’s multifaceted cult of personality. It covers the “fear games” and “creepy crawls” that he introduced to the Family, and how for many members, it was a freeing experience (and likely contributed to the disinhibition needed to commit the violent acts that were to follow).
The chaotic, frenetic energy that Charlie and his Family carried even influenced the court proceedings, with lawyers hitting the bailiff, verbally and physically attacking people on the stand, Charlie hitting his own lawyer, the girls, and Charlie developing isosteric hand symbols used in the media. An interesting takeaway from the chaos before, during, and after the Manson murders is the endless question of where the fear truly lies—wealthy, prominent people getting murdered in their own homes is scary, but isn’t the idea that one ex-con can convince a group of people to murder strangers even more horrifying?
Thank you, NetGalley and Verso Books, for the opportunity to read an advanced reader’s copy in exchange for my honest opinions.
“Remorse for what? You people have done everything in the world to me. Doesn’t that give me equal right? I can do anything I want to you people at any time I want to because that’s what you’ve done to me. If you spit in my face and smack me in the mouth and throw me in solitary confinement for nothing, what do you think is going to happen when I get out of here?” - Charles Manson.
There are interesting concepts covered, such as the impact of antichronism or the lack of time-keeping on the memory loss experienced by the Family. In fact, many members stated that they never knew which day or month it was and could only remember the seasons. As Susan Atkins has stated, “You are all lost in time, I have stepped out of it.”
Charlie Rose: “When you’re gonna meet your God, and… you’re down to those last few, remaining breaths…”
Charlie Manson: “God, I’ve lived my whole life right in that spot.”
Charlie Rose: “OK, so if it all ended tomorrow…”
Charlie Manson: “It all, it did end tomorrow.”
Charlie Rose: “All right, suppose it ends tomorrow for some reason…”
Charlie Manson: “It does.”
Above all, the most captivating aspect of this book for me was how it captured Charlie’s multifaceted cult of personality. It covers the “fear games” and “creepy crawls” that he introduced to the Family, and how for many members, it was a freeing experience (and likely contributed to the disinhibition needed to commit the violent acts that were to follow).
The chaotic, frenetic energy that Charlie and his Family carried even influenced the court proceedings, with lawyers hitting the bailiff, verbally and physically attacking people on the stand, Charlie hitting his own lawyer, the girls, and Charlie developing isosteric hand symbols used in the media. An interesting takeaway from the chaos before, during, and after the Manson murders is the endless question of where the fear truly lies—wealthy, prominent people getting murdered in their own homes is scary, but isn’t the idea that one ex-con can convince a group of people to murder strangers even more horrifying?
Thank you, NetGalley and Verso Books, for the opportunity to read an advanced reader’s copy in exchange for my honest opinions.
“Remorse for what? You people have done everything in the world to me. Doesn’t that give me equal right? I can do anything I want to you people at any time I want to because that’s what you’ve done to me. If you spit in my face and smack me in the mouth and throw me in solitary confinement for nothing, what do you think is going to happen when I get out of here?” - Charles Manson.
Did Not Finish
September 30, 2026⭐ DNF @ 10%
Thank you to NetGalley, Claudia Verhoeven, and Verso Books for a copy of Love and Terror: The Helter-Skelter History of the Manson Murders in exchange for an honest review.
Okay, first and foremost… this is a scholarly book. And apparently, I did not get the memo. 😂
I went into this expecting a true-crime book because, well, everywhere I looked described it that way. I know who Charles Manson is, obviously, but I don’t know a whole lot about him, his crimes, or the people involved. I was genuinely trying to educate myself and learn more about the Manson murders.
Instead, I got transported straight back to school.
You know that feeling when you’re assigned a paper, you’re desperately trying to sound intelligent, and you know damn well the teacher is the only person who is ever going to read it? Yeah. That.
This book felt incredibly academic from the very beginning, and unfortunately, that writing style did absolutely nothing for me. I kept waiting for the actual history, crime, people, details, SOMETHING that would pull me in, but instead I felt like I was reading a very long academic argument about a subject I was hoping to actually learn about.
And that's where my frustration comes in.
I wanted to learn. I learned nothing.
Maybe there is a fascinating and incredibly detailed book hiding underneath all of those words, but I wasn't willing to dig through them to find it. Throwing a bunch of scholarly words together, calling it a book, and publishing it doesn't automatically make me want to read it. 😂
I made it to 10% and DNF'd. And honestly? I didn't even bother scrolling ahead to see what pictures I apparently missed. That's how checked out I was.
Final Verdict:
This was simply not the true-crime experience I was looking for. If you enjoy heavily academic, scholarly examinations of historical crime, this may be right up your alley. But if you're looking for a compelling, accessible account of Charles Manson and the murders, I am clearly not your girl for this one.
DNF @ 10%. 📚💀
Thank you to NetGalley, Claudia Verhoeven, and Verso Books for a copy of Love and Terror: The Helter-Skelter History of the Manson Murders in exchange for an honest review.
Okay, first and foremost… this is a scholarly book. And apparently, I did not get the memo. 😂
I went into this expecting a true-crime book because, well, everywhere I looked described it that way. I know who Charles Manson is, obviously, but I don’t know a whole lot about him, his crimes, or the people involved. I was genuinely trying to educate myself and learn more about the Manson murders.
Instead, I got transported straight back to school.
You know that feeling when you’re assigned a paper, you’re desperately trying to sound intelligent, and you know damn well the teacher is the only person who is ever going to read it? Yeah. That.
This book felt incredibly academic from the very beginning, and unfortunately, that writing style did absolutely nothing for me. I kept waiting for the actual history, crime, people, details, SOMETHING that would pull me in, but instead I felt like I was reading a very long academic argument about a subject I was hoping to actually learn about.
And that's where my frustration comes in.
I wanted to learn. I learned nothing.
Maybe there is a fascinating and incredibly detailed book hiding underneath all of those words, but I wasn't willing to dig through them to find it. Throwing a bunch of scholarly words together, calling it a book, and publishing it doesn't automatically make me want to read it. 😂
I made it to 10% and DNF'd. And honestly? I didn't even bother scrolling ahead to see what pictures I apparently missed. That's how checked out I was.
Final Verdict:
This was simply not the true-crime experience I was looking for. If you enjoy heavily academic, scholarly examinations of historical crime, this may be right up your alley. But if you're looking for a compelling, accessible account of Charles Manson and the murders, I am clearly not your girl for this one.
DNF @ 10%. 📚💀
April 17, 2026
First I would like to thank NetGalley and Verso Books for my eARC of Love and Terror by Claudia Verhoeven. This book is a historical examination of the Manson murders and the 1960s counterculture.
This book was not what I was expecting. I actually read Helter Skelter back in the 90’s as a teenager and really enjoyed it. I am a fan of historical fiction and nonfiction and find the 1960’s and 70’s era and culture are extremely fascinating. I am also a big fan of true crime. But, Love and Terror read exactly like a dense textbook and was a compilation of research, maps, and quotes. Some of the ideas were fascinating, especially comparing our viral and cancel culture of 2026 and the media and social networks of the 1960’s, but they weren’t written in a way that kept me interested and focused. I felt like I was studying for a history final. It was heavy with facts and figures which I can appreciate, but there wasn’t a good flow to the narrative. It felt more like a thesis paper than a true crime history novel. I wanted to enjoy this more because I haven’t read a lot of true crime lately, but this book was just not for me.
I think readers that are really interested in research and the history of history would find this book a great examination of that, but that wasn’t what I was looking for from this book. I made the mistake of thinking it was going to be like a fresh, modern take on the case and along the same vein as Helter Skelter, but it was not that. Honestly, about halfway through the book I started to just skim it for the best narrative parts because the way the facts were laid out was very dense and felt like work instead of enjoyed reading.
This exploration of the Manson murders and extensive research on history may be for some readers, but for thriller and horror fans looking for a true crime novel, this one is not that.
For all of my book reviews and recommendations please follow me on instagram @chelleshelf365.
This book was not what I was expecting. I actually read Helter Skelter back in the 90’s as a teenager and really enjoyed it. I am a fan of historical fiction and nonfiction and find the 1960’s and 70’s era and culture are extremely fascinating. I am also a big fan of true crime. But, Love and Terror read exactly like a dense textbook and was a compilation of research, maps, and quotes. Some of the ideas were fascinating, especially comparing our viral and cancel culture of 2026 and the media and social networks of the 1960’s, but they weren’t written in a way that kept me interested and focused. I felt like I was studying for a history final. It was heavy with facts and figures which I can appreciate, but there wasn’t a good flow to the narrative. It felt more like a thesis paper than a true crime history novel. I wanted to enjoy this more because I haven’t read a lot of true crime lately, but this book was just not for me.
I think readers that are really interested in research and the history of history would find this book a great examination of that, but that wasn’t what I was looking for from this book. I made the mistake of thinking it was going to be like a fresh, modern take on the case and along the same vein as Helter Skelter, but it was not that. Honestly, about halfway through the book I started to just skim it for the best narrative parts because the way the facts were laid out was very dense and felt like work instead of enjoyed reading.
This exploration of the Manson murders and extensive research on history may be for some readers, but for thriller and horror fans looking for a true crime novel, this one is not that.
For all of my book reviews and recommendations please follow me on instagram @chelleshelf365.
Review of advance copy received from NetGalley
DNF.
I expected more. I'm not sure of what, exactly.
"Love and Terror: The Helter-Skelter History of the Manson Murders" was about the Manson family and the murders they committed, from a sociological and historical perspective. Claudia Verhoeven broke down some of the rumours and falsehoods that the media helped spread, and looked at the Manson murders, and the "Helter Skelter" theory, from a modern perspective.
This was a challenging book to read. I had the book open in one hand and a dictionary in the other, as every other word was a five-syllable tongue-twister that I couldn't pronounce and had to look up. That got exhausting. Verhoeven used big words just because she could, not because they helped the story at all.
Some of the parts were interesting, but mostly it was just wordy gobble-dee-gook, putting a sociological spin on a story most of us are familiar with. I tried, ya'll. I really did.
I expected more. I'm not sure of what, exactly.
"Love and Terror: The Helter-Skelter History of the Manson Murders" was about the Manson family and the murders they committed, from a sociological and historical perspective. Claudia Verhoeven broke down some of the rumours and falsehoods that the media helped spread, and looked at the Manson murders, and the "Helter Skelter" theory, from a modern perspective.
This was a challenging book to read. I had the book open in one hand and a dictionary in the other, as every other word was a five-syllable tongue-twister that I couldn't pronounce and had to look up. That got exhausting. Verhoeven used big words just because she could, not because they helped the story at all.
Some of the parts were interesting, but mostly it was just wordy gobble-dee-gook, putting a sociological spin on a story most of us are familiar with. I tried, ya'll. I really did.
Review of advance copy received from Publisher
There’s some decent insights here but Verhoeven can’t stick to a point long enough to develop them. The point usually is “well, actually…” about someone else’s take on an aspect of the story of Manson, his “family,” and their crimes, and she’s got a lot to get to, I guess.
Verhoeven’s a “terrorism studies” person, a subfield that displays many of the vices of what we broadly call “theory” — bad arguments, superciliously made, in bad writing — with none of the sophistication some of the theory-heads bring to the table. This isn’t the worst example — the Manson family actually fits the terrorism studies paradigm better than most groups we call terrorist — but it’s still pretty weak.
I knew going in (had read Verhoeven’s previous underwhelming book in school), but I can see from other reviews that this might be useful to spell out to people who are considering reading this book- THIS. IS. NOT. TRUE. CRIME. It’s also not a narrative history. It’s an academic “cultural history” which means she’s writing about what other people wrote, mostly. If you want a narrative, look elsewhere.
I got an ARC of this from Verso. I guess I’m always supposed to say this when I score a review copy? If they were going to bribe me, they could do better, I’m cheap but not THAT cheap.
Verhoeven’s a “terrorism studies” person, a subfield that displays many of the vices of what we broadly call “theory” — bad arguments, superciliously made, in bad writing — with none of the sophistication some of the theory-heads bring to the table. This isn’t the worst example — the Manson family actually fits the terrorism studies paradigm better than most groups we call terrorist — but it’s still pretty weak.
I knew going in (had read Verhoeven’s previous underwhelming book in school), but I can see from other reviews that this might be useful to spell out to people who are considering reading this book- THIS. IS. NOT. TRUE. CRIME. It’s also not a narrative history. It’s an academic “cultural history” which means she’s writing about what other people wrote, mostly. If you want a narrative, look elsewhere.
I got an ARC of this from Verso. I guess I’m always supposed to say this when I score a review copy? If they were going to bribe me, they could do better, I’m cheap but not THAT cheap.
Review of advance copy received from NetGalley
Thank you to NetGalley for providing me with a copy of this book in exchange for my honest review.
I always hesitate to write a poor review of a book, but Love and Terror was a huge disappointment. This book looks at the crimes of the Manson Family through various lenses, written as a series of essay-like chapters, and the author notes that stories surrounding the crimes are convoluted, confusing, and sometimes conflicting. The same can be said of this book. Most chapters are almost incomprehensible, filled with run-on sentences and random criticisms of Vincent Bugliosi, meandering through various subjects without pulling them all together, and lacking compelling arguments. For every event the author discusses in excruciating detail, there are almost as many statements that are completely lacking in detail and/or sources, leaving the reader with significant questions. In addition, she engages in so much speculation that her assertion that this book is a history of the murders is a bit laughable. There is a plethora of Manson Family literature out there; I would suggest looking somewhere else.
I always hesitate to write a poor review of a book, but Love and Terror was a huge disappointment. This book looks at the crimes of the Manson Family through various lenses, written as a series of essay-like chapters, and the author notes that stories surrounding the crimes are convoluted, confusing, and sometimes conflicting. The same can be said of this book. Most chapters are almost incomprehensible, filled with run-on sentences and random criticisms of Vincent Bugliosi, meandering through various subjects without pulling them all together, and lacking compelling arguments. For every event the author discusses in excruciating detail, there are almost as many statements that are completely lacking in detail and/or sources, leaving the reader with significant questions. In addition, she engages in so much speculation that her assertion that this book is a history of the murders is a bit laughable. There is a plethora of Manson Family literature out there; I would suggest looking somewhere else.
Review of advance copy received from Netgalley
Thanks to NetGalley and Verso Books for the eARC; all opinions are my own!
If you're not already very well-versed in the Manson murders, I don't think this book is for you. I can't tell if it's just the set-up of the book (and the idea of visiting the 'facts' in multiple ways), but I wish there had been even a brief overview of the facts of the case. Instead, we jump into where the ranch is situation in relationship to the other crimes - potentially interesting, but also hard to follow if you don't know the murders well.
I don't think Verhoeven did herself any favors with her introduction. I was with her to the point she got to explaining what helter-skelter (the name) actually refers to. But then she basically says the book doesn't have a viewpoint. Maybe this would have worked better as a series of essays? It felt very much like she just had a lot of ideas, but not a lot on any particular idea, and so rather than trying to find a truly unifying thread, she just chose a way that would allow her to talk about all the disparate things.
If you're not already very well-versed in the Manson murders, I don't think this book is for you. I can't tell if it's just the set-up of the book (and the idea of visiting the 'facts' in multiple ways), but I wish there had been even a brief overview of the facts of the case. Instead, we jump into where the ranch is situation in relationship to the other crimes - potentially interesting, but also hard to follow if you don't know the murders well.
I don't think Verhoeven did herself any favors with her introduction. I was with her to the point she got to explaining what helter-skelter (the name) actually refers to. But then she basically says the book doesn't have a viewpoint. Maybe this would have worked better as a series of essays? It felt very much like she just had a lot of ideas, but not a lot on any particular idea, and so rather than trying to find a truly unifying thread, she just chose a way that would allow her to talk about all the disparate things.
Review of advance copy received from NetGalley
This was unfortunately not what I expected at all. I hate giving super low ratings to books when it's just because I had a false expectation, but with this one, I feel it wasn't what I was led to believe it would be.
Love and Terror has no narrative whatsoever. Even once discovering that, I tried to power through, but it's entirely a collection of scholarly essays about the Manson murders, which, again, I was not expecting. And when I say scholarly - I mean it. It's like the most dense textbook I've ever read. The language used is not easy to read at all and combined with the lack of narrative, I just found it to be too difficult and unrewarding to white-knuckle it through the book.
If you enjoy reading scholarly essays, then you might really enjoy this book. But unfortunately for me, it was nothing like Helter Skelter (which I loved) or the other popular true crime novels I usually enjoy reading.
Love and Terror has no narrative whatsoever. Even once discovering that, I tried to power through, but it's entirely a collection of scholarly essays about the Manson murders, which, again, I was not expecting. And when I say scholarly - I mean it. It's like the most dense textbook I've ever read. The language used is not easy to read at all and combined with the lack of narrative, I just found it to be too difficult and unrewarding to white-knuckle it through the book.
If you enjoy reading scholarly essays, then you might really enjoy this book. But unfortunately for me, it was nothing like Helter Skelter (which I loved) or the other popular true crime novels I usually enjoy reading.
June 29, 2026
this was the verso book club pick for this month, this is my favourite type of a history read - a metahistoriography which analyses what happened alongside the ways it has been narrativized, i really liked the structure of the book - each chapter applied a different analytical lens, with that being said, some of them offered much less quality analysis than the others, for example, the chapter on gender can be summed up by saying "go, give us nothing" - im so sorry; however, the book can be read for the chapter on temporality in the terrorist organizations and the comparisons with the manson cult alone (yeaaaaah i know, some would not classify this as a cult, im not trying to make any point here), this is where the author's previous academic work on terrorism and political violence really comes through in the text; at 350 pages, however, some of the material regarding manson himself was a bit redundant in my opinion, but overall, an incredibly interesting read
Review of advance copy received from Netgalley
DNF at 20%
An odd, repetitive semi-history of the Manson murders and trial organized in a very unusual way. For example, the long first chapter looked at the crimes and the history of the Manson family through various maps. Yep, maps.
It’s almost written as a textbook for a class I can’t imagine being offered anywhere except for, perhaps, the New School OR a class somewhere attended by a bunch of people wearing a lot of layers whom you probably don’t want to sit beside. They are drinking something that might be tea but it looks and smells like dirt.
There are some interesting thoughts here but they are buried too deeply (and they are too wordy and written by someone who used the very best thesaurus they could afford) under things people already know, or they are too speculative to be of much import.
If the Manson family and their crimes are your reason for living then run, don’t walk to preorder this. Otherwise you likely aren’t missing much if you pass it by.
An odd, repetitive semi-history of the Manson murders and trial organized in a very unusual way. For example, the long first chapter looked at the crimes and the history of the Manson family through various maps. Yep, maps.
It’s almost written as a textbook for a class I can’t imagine being offered anywhere except for, perhaps, the New School OR a class somewhere attended by a bunch of people wearing a lot of layers whom you probably don’t want to sit beside. They are drinking something that might be tea but it looks and smells like dirt.
There are some interesting thoughts here but they are buried too deeply (and they are too wordy and written by someone who used the very best thesaurus they could afford) under things people already know, or they are too speculative to be of much import.
If the Manson family and their crimes are your reason for living then run, don’t walk to preorder this. Otherwise you likely aren’t missing much if you pass it by.
Review of advance copy received from NetGalley
Unfortunately, I didn’t get what I was expecting from Love and Terror. It read a lot like a textbook, including dozens of pages of citations, and with no new take or information, it felt a lot like a regurgitation of books that I’ve already read on the topic.
The book was heavy on facts and citations, and even as a scholar, that felt really hard to read for long periods of time on this topic. I also think that there were too many instances where the author might have been attempting to sound nuanced and it just read really clunky to me.
While I did power through to finish it, I don’t think this will appeal to many people unless they’re looking for a scholarly compilation of essays on the Manson murders, in which case, you would probably love this.
Love and Terror is due to be published May 26, 2026 and I received an advanced copy from Netgalley in exchange for my review.
The book was heavy on facts and citations, and even as a scholar, that felt really hard to read for long periods of time on this topic. I also think that there were too many instances where the author might have been attempting to sound nuanced and it just read really clunky to me.
While I did power through to finish it, I don’t think this will appeal to many people unless they’re looking for a scholarly compilation of essays on the Manson murders, in which case, you would probably love this.
Love and Terror is due to be published May 26, 2026 and I received an advanced copy from Netgalley in exchange for my review.
July 2, 2026
Long winded and felt as though I was reading someone’s doctoral dissertation. I’ll respect the amount of work put into it, but to sell it as a novel meant for an average reader is a long shot. I felt that most of her essays never truly wrapped up into the point she was trying to make (hello thesis sentences?). By the end of the book, I wasn’t sure what point it was trying to make outside of how other events and mainstream media changed the context of the Manson murders. And by the end, Manson is still simply a con man.
Review of advance copy received from Netgalley
This s not at all what I expected. It’s a series of academic essays examining the Manson murders via multiple critical lenses: cinema, socio-political, historical, feminist. Some of these lenses hold up better than others. I enjoyed the maps and the challeging of various versions of events. Found the discussion of cinematic qualities of the murders engaging also. Otherwise it’s a bit of a slog. Small font didn’t help?
June 16, 2026
Thank you to NetGalley, Claudia Verhoeven, and the publisher for granting me access to this ARC.
I had a hard time reading this book, not because of the content (I am familiar with the Manson murders) but because it seems a bit messily formatted on the Kindle for me. Things seemed out of order, unevenly spaced, and didn't seem to have proper page divisions, making it hard for me to actually get through. Once this book is published in print, I'd love to give it another chance.
I had a hard time reading this book, not because of the content (I am familiar with the Manson murders) but because it seems a bit messily formatted on the Kindle for me. Things seemed out of order, unevenly spaced, and didn't seem to have proper page divisions, making it hard for me to actually get through. Once this book is published in print, I'd love to give it another chance.
July 26, 2026
While I like the physical content of the book, the way the writing was structured made it soo hard to get through. It felt slightly word vomit-esque at times which made it difficult to follow as well. Overall, I think I just wish the content was better organized throughout.
Review of advance copy received from NetGalley
Thank you to NetGalley for an Advance Reader Copy of this book. This historiography (history of history) examines how both popular media and academia considered the Manson murders in the immediate aftermath and through the decades. It's interesting to think about how the case became "viral" before that was even a thing; for example, the prosecuting team held a Manson-themed party during the same year as the trial. Verhoeven reviews how the Helter Skelter theory of the case might have been more an invention of prosecutor Vincent Bugliosi than an actual motive. She illustrates how Manson slipped in and around so many ideologies, from Scientology to radical environmentalism to Dale Carnegie's How to Win Friends and Influence People to white nationalism. It was also enlightening to consider the similarities of the murders with the My Lai Massacre in terms of free will and collective responsibility. Like anything related to Manson, it was a grim read, but addresses gaps in the cases's extensive coverage in our media.
June 6, 2026
This book reads like a textbook. An interesting textbook about the murders .
Displaying 1 - 19 of 19 reviews