What do you think?
Rate this book
Murder by Candlelight: The Gruesome Slayings Behind Our Romance with the Macabre
Arguing that it is “less the quality of the crimes than the attitude of the age which determines the gruesomeness of its murders,” Michael Beran brings to life the ghastly ambiance of a vanished epoch, and gives us a terrifying glimpse of the horror beneath the seeming civility of the Victorian era.
In the early nineteenth century, a series of murders took place in and around London which shocked the whole of England. The appalling nature of the crimes—a brutal slaying in the gambling netherworld, the slaughter of two entire households, and the first of the modern lust-murders—was magnified not only by the lurid atmosphere of an age in which candlelight gave way to gaslight, but also by the efforts of some of the keenest minds of the period to uncover the gruesomest details of the killings.
These slayings all took place against the backdrop of a London in which the splendor of the fashionable world was haunted by the squalor of the slums. Sir Walter Scott, Lord Byron, Thomas De Quincey, Thomas Carlyle, and Percy Bysshe Shelley and others were fascinated by the blood and deviltry of these crimes.
In their contemplations of the most notorious murders of their time, they discerned in the act of killing itself a depth of hideousness that we have lost sight of, now living in an age in which murder has been reduced to a problem of social science and skillful detective work. Interweaving these cultural vignettes alongside criminal history, acclaimed author Michael Beran paints a vivid picture of a time when homicide was thought of as the intrusion of the diabolic into ordinary life.
In the early nineteenth century, a series of murders took place in and around London which shocked the whole of England. The appalling nature of the crimes—a brutal slaying in the gambling netherworld, the slaughter of two entire households, and the first of the modern lust-murders—was magnified not only by the lurid atmosphere of an age in which candlelight gave way to gaslight, but also by the efforts of some of the keenest minds of the period to uncover the gruesomest details of the killings.
These slayings all took place against the backdrop of a London in which the splendor of the fashionable world was haunted by the squalor of the slums. Sir Walter Scott, Lord Byron, Thomas De Quincey, Thomas Carlyle, and Percy Bysshe Shelley and others were fascinated by the blood and deviltry of these crimes.
In their contemplations of the most notorious murders of their time, they discerned in the act of killing itself a depth of hideousness that we have lost sight of, now living in an age in which murder has been reduced to a problem of social science and skillful detective work. Interweaving these cultural vignettes alongside criminal history, acclaimed author Michael Beran paints a vivid picture of a time when homicide was thought of as the intrusion of the diabolic into ordinary life.
384 pages, Hardcover
First published August 15, 2015
27 people are currently reading
2755 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 - 30 of 93 reviews
October 28, 2015
The following is an actual sentence that Mr. Beran wrote. His editors thought it must be included in the final version of this book.
"Like Viking princes after the slaughter-hell of battle, embracing drink and woman-flesh with ecstatic vehemence, or sailors on leave indulging themselves in a mad carouse, the evil-doers embrace their freshly recovered normality with an insane avidity."
If this is your thing, have at it.
"Like Viking princes after the slaughter-hell of battle, embracing drink and woman-flesh with ecstatic vehemence, or sailors on leave indulging themselves in a mad carouse, the evil-doers embrace their freshly recovered normality with an insane avidity."
If this is your thing, have at it.
February 7, 2018
I so rarely rate books I didn't finish, but let me give you this - the two stars is because the author obviously put in a lot of work into the research and references.
But this was one of the most obnoxiously pretentious, deeply tedious, self-congratulatory smug-ass books I've ever picked up in my entire life. If you like a hyper-intellectual cramming four ten-dollar words into every sentence to drive the point home that he's just that much more cultured than everybody else while simultaneously reveling in some sort of masturbatory euphoria at murders - mainly murders of women, natch - while simultaneously taking a big ol' steaming dump on the mystery fans most likely to pick up this book, be my guest. He's all yours.
But this was one of the most obnoxiously pretentious, deeply tedious, self-congratulatory smug-ass books I've ever picked up in my entire life. If you like a hyper-intellectual cramming four ten-dollar words into every sentence to drive the point home that he's just that much more cultured than everybody else while simultaneously reveling in some sort of masturbatory euphoria at murders - mainly murders of women, natch - while simultaneously taking a big ol' steaming dump on the mystery fans most likely to pick up this book, be my guest. He's all yours.
August 29, 2015
Subtitled, “The Gruesome Crimes Behind Our Romance With the Macabre,” this is a look at some real life murder cases between 1811-1837 (what he describes as the macabre, ‘Golden Age’ of murder); although the book actually takes us up to the time of Jack the Ripper in 1888. At times, the authors prose is a little flowery – he describes the era as the, “High Noon of Romanticism,” but somehow the style seems to suit the time he is writing about. These are murders of a time now vanished, although many of them excited debate and much interest at the time, many will be unfamiliar. As well as examining the murders themselves, the author looks at these events from the period of literature – how they influenced authors and how they led to the modern metropolitan murder.
There are four parts to this book. The first looks at a murder in 1823, which caused press fascination and much interest from authors such as Charles Dickens, William Makepeace Thackeray and Robert Browning – who all followed the case closely. The murder involves gambling men and a body fished out from a brook; the public both appalled and secretly delighted as the facts were gradually unearthed. In 1836, we have the ‘Case of the Mutilated Corpse’ in which parts of a body were found in various parts of the country. In 1840 there is the murder of Lord William Russell, which caused disquiet even in Buckingham Palace. As the book moves, ‘Towards the Ripper,’ we read of the Ratcliffe Highway Murders and of Whitechapel in 1888.
This is an interesting look at the beginning of murder as entertainment, detouring from Thomas De Quincey, through the Gothic and Romantic period and looking at some influential murder cases. I enjoyed the earlier part of the book more as I knew virtually nothing about the earlier cases, but towards the end I was more familiar with the murders covered. This is certainly an evocative and fascinating read- the author cleverly recreates a time when you can imagine candlelight giving way to flickering gas lamps, when carriages clattered past, but where human frailties and crimes are just as relevant, sadly, as they are today.
There are four parts to this book. The first looks at a murder in 1823, which caused press fascination and much interest from authors such as Charles Dickens, William Makepeace Thackeray and Robert Browning – who all followed the case closely. The murder involves gambling men and a body fished out from a brook; the public both appalled and secretly delighted as the facts were gradually unearthed. In 1836, we have the ‘Case of the Mutilated Corpse’ in which parts of a body were found in various parts of the country. In 1840 there is the murder of Lord William Russell, which caused disquiet even in Buckingham Palace. As the book moves, ‘Towards the Ripper,’ we read of the Ratcliffe Highway Murders and of Whitechapel in 1888.
This is an interesting look at the beginning of murder as entertainment, detouring from Thomas De Quincey, through the Gothic and Romantic period and looking at some influential murder cases. I enjoyed the earlier part of the book more as I knew virtually nothing about the earlier cases, but towards the end I was more familiar with the murders covered. This is certainly an evocative and fascinating read- the author cleverly recreates a time when you can imagine candlelight giving way to flickering gas lamps, when carriages clattered past, but where human frailties and crimes are just as relevant, sadly, as they are today.
April 29, 2021
First the cover drive me in then I read the blurb. A non fiction about murder in victorian era just sounded like something I would like but unfortunately this was a dud. I thought the information about the different cases and such was barley touched on. Feelt like I would get more facts by somone running and screaming random facts outside my apartment that I could barley hear. It just wasn't delwed enough into topics for my liking. It wasn't eerie and atsmospheric as I had hoped. It was a very quick read though.
July 25, 2017
True Crime Commemoration # 19
Setting: Victorian England ( and the literature the crimes inspired)
RTC
Setting: Victorian England ( and the literature the crimes inspired)
RTC
June 11, 2015
Love the way Beran uses references to De Quincey the Opium Eater to explain how the romantics say the world. It makes me think about David Morrell at the end of Inspector of the Dead saying he read everything Quincey wrote to write the book. Its so insightful and in depth but easy to read that I didn't notice I stayed up all night reading the whole book.
July 1, 2018
So on the one hand this is a engaging and well-written discussion of (1) the murder of William Weare by John Thurtell, (2) the murder of Hannah Brown by James Greenacre, (3) the murder of Lord William Russell by Francois Courvoisier, and (4) the murders of the Marrs and the Williamsons by person or persons unknown.
On the other hand,
(1) The style is distinctly breezy, just barely this side of callous.
(2) Beran is possessed of a sort of more-recondite-than-thou hipsterism which I found intensely annoying.
(3) He is gratuitously disparaging of detective fiction, and when he swings his stick at Dorothy Sayers, is clearly completely unaware of the fact that she was a theologian.
(4) What he really wants to talk about is Thomas Carlyle and Thomas de Quincey.
(5) He quotes William Roughead's judgment of de Quincey, "that he resembled the character in Scott's The Antiquary, Sir Arthur Wardour, who disdained a 'pettifogging intimacy with dates, names, and trifling matters of fact," a 'tiresome and frivolous accuracy of memory'" (194), without seeming to be aware that it is also a judgment on himself.
So if you're interested in Carlyle and de Quincey and want what amounts to an extended--and, give credit where credit is due, entertaining--footnote on their works, this is by all means the book for you. If not, I think I would recommend other works on these same murders first: Judith Flanders, The Invention of Murder, James & Critchley, The Maul and the Pear Tree, Borowitz, The Thurtell-Hunt Murder Case.
On the other hand,
(1) The style is distinctly breezy, just barely this side of callous.
(2) Beran is possessed of a sort of more-recondite-than-thou hipsterism which I found intensely annoying.
(3) He is gratuitously disparaging of detective fiction, and when he swings his stick at Dorothy Sayers, is clearly completely unaware of the fact that she was a theologian.
(4) What he really wants to talk about is Thomas Carlyle and Thomas de Quincey.
(5) He quotes William Roughead's judgment of de Quincey, "that he resembled the character in Scott's The Antiquary, Sir Arthur Wardour, who disdained a 'pettifogging intimacy with dates, names, and trifling matters of fact," a 'tiresome and frivolous accuracy of memory'" (194), without seeming to be aware that it is also a judgment on himself.
So if you're interested in Carlyle and de Quincey and want what amounts to an extended--and, give credit where credit is due, entertaining--footnote on their works, this is by all means the book for you. If not, I think I would recommend other works on these same murders first: Judith Flanders, The Invention of Murder, James & Critchley, The Maul and the Pear Tree, Borowitz, The Thurtell-Hunt Murder Case.
October 21, 2016
Dry and occasionally boring. It wasn't awful and was a solid three stars until toward the end, when the author began insulting Mystery novels and their readers. I get it. You're an academic and your thoughts on murder during the 19th Century are intellectual and important. [/sarcasm] However, you are publishing a book on murder for the commercial market. Who the hell do you think your readers are going to be? Generally, they are going to have a lot of crossover with Mystery readers. Insulting them and their chosen genre maybe isn't the best idea.
April 2, 2020
2.5 stars
If you look at the cover, you’ll know the reason why I picked up this book. The synopsis pretty much sealed the deal – it promised to explain the history of why we’ve fallen in love with murder.
To That End, Murder by Candlelight focuses on not one but five murder cases:
1. The Radlett Murder
2. The Murder and Dismemberment of Hannah Brown
3. The Murder of Lord William Russel
4. Ratcliffe Highway Murders
5. Jack the Ripper
Each section gives an account of the murder, the trial, and how certain influential writers treated the case. Sadly, the last aspect was only touched on briefly for the first three sections and the book read more like a brief account of the various crimes. Since each of these murders could be the subject of the book, the impression that I got was that of three very rushed summaries of the murders, an impression that was not helped by the fact that the chapters were very short and made each case feel very brief.
I mentioned that the sections on how influential writers and thinkers treated the cases were very brief – normally a chapter or two after the recounting of the murder, but I disagree with the little the author does say. The book writes that in detective fiction:
And about ten pages further on:
It might be because I read The Golden Age of Murder not too long ago, but I disagree with this assessment of the murder mystery genre. Even in the Golden Age, authors were subverting the very rules that they created. Even if you want to charge Christie and Sayers with the image of being “tame” (which I don’t agree with), what about writers like G. K. Chesterton, whose Father Brown novels deal with the nature of the human soul? Surely that counts as looking at evil in the face?
Overall, I liked the cover of this book and being introduced to three new cases that I hadn’t heard of before. It’s a pity that the promising start did not carry through but if you’ve got a free afternoon and want to learn about murders in more detail than a news article (but shorter than a full-length book), this could be something to check out.
Original post and links to details about the various cases can be found at Eustea Reads
If you look at the cover, you’ll know the reason why I picked up this book. The synopsis pretty much sealed the deal – it promised to explain the history of why we’ve fallen in love with murder.
To That End, Murder by Candlelight focuses on not one but five murder cases:
1. The Radlett Murder
2. The Murder and Dismemberment of Hannah Brown
3. The Murder of Lord William Russel
4. Ratcliffe Highway Murders
5. Jack the Ripper
Each section gives an account of the murder, the trial, and how certain influential writers treated the case. Sadly, the last aspect was only touched on briefly for the first three sections and the book read more like a brief account of the various crimes. Since each of these murders could be the subject of the book, the impression that I got was that of three very rushed summaries of the murders, an impression that was not helped by the fact that the chapters were very short and made each case feel very brief.
I mentioned that the sections on how influential writers and thinkers treated the cases were very brief – normally a chapter or two after the recounting of the murder, but I disagree with the little the author does say. The book writes that in detective fiction:
“The element of palpable evil is all but absent in these books; in its place we find a drawing-room comedy of butlers, vicars, dowagers, and retired colonels, phrased in an ironic-genteel prose such as Jane Austen might have written had she been drawn to empty subjects.”
And about ten pages further on:
“Why do Agatha Christie and Dorothy Sayers never give their readers the courage to look real evil-doing in the face?”
It might be because I read The Golden Age of Murder not too long ago, but I disagree with this assessment of the murder mystery genre. Even in the Golden Age, authors were subverting the very rules that they created. Even if you want to charge Christie and Sayers with the image of being “tame” (which I don’t agree with), what about writers like G. K. Chesterton, whose Father Brown novels deal with the nature of the human soul? Surely that counts as looking at evil in the face?
Overall, I liked the cover of this book and being introduced to three new cases that I hadn’t heard of before. It’s a pity that the promising start did not carry through but if you’ve got a free afternoon and want to learn about murders in more detail than a news article (but shorter than a full-length book), this could be something to check out.
Original post and links to details about the various cases can be found at Eustea Reads
October 17, 2015
Normally I would not even rate I book I could not finish but I really wanted to warn anyone else who might be mislead as I was by the dust jacket explanation of this book. I am generally not a book basher--I love some books that are utter trash and I always think to myself that as I am not a writer myself, I at least admire the ability to focus and research long enough to actually complete a book. I take issue with this book as it is something of a bait and switch. The blurbs on the jacket indicate a fascinating and focused tale to be explained within. I found that to be the opposite of the truth. At first I thought "well, it's a bit scholarly for my taste but hey...nothing wrong with scholarly"...I soon began to feel that the book was not so much scholarly as muddled. It does not seem to know what it wants to be--and that makes it rather confusing. I am a pretty smart cookie but I found it confusing OFTEN. I would not recommend this to anyone--it seems like the author could not decide what type of book he wanted to write so he just decided to give up on coherency. Dull and unfocused.
September 21, 2015
Very disappointing. The author seemed to spend more time finding quotes to introduce the very short chapters than polishing the narrative. The unevenness of the writing reminded me of notes made for a term paper that were slapped down without a good edit. The background information had very little to do with the murders the book is supposedly about. I skipped many pages and finally gave up without finishing the book. For a better read with greater narrative impact, look to The Poisoner's Handbook by Deborah Blum.
June 20, 2016
I found this author's writing to be tiresome. I did appreciate how he wrote in a way that matched some of the phrases from Victorian England, however I also found that he jumped around quite a bit. I enjoyed a lot of the subject matter, and how each murder was broken down and treated similarly to how it would be presented in a gothic novel. Yet even still it was not the book the summary of it led me to believe.
March 12, 2017
Please give my review a helpful vote on Amazon - https://www.amazon.com/review/R2UUMEE...
Absolutely fascinating.
This book is essentially about English murder prior to 1850. The author examines several murders that qualified as the "Crime of the Century" when that concept was still new. The presentation of the story of the murders gives the reader insight into pre-Victorian society and culture.
The first murder involves a callous murder of a gambler by his fellow gamblers. The chief among the villains was a provincial gaming man who was embezzled his business's money, lost it in gambling, and fell into low company. The plot seemed like a hair-brained affair involving inviting the victim to the country for shooting and then killing him there. The murder was botched and the plot unravelled as quickly as it had been concocted.
What I noted in the first murders introduced was how naive the criminals were and how shallow their plots were. The murders that got the public attention generally involved scams for money. After the victim was killed, the problem of the disposing of the body came up, which usually involved chopping the body up and distributing it around London. Given the amount of moving corpses around, and the number of bodies that simply showed up every morning in London, and the difficulty of identifying bodies, it seems strange that an energetic villain simply didn't hire a horse and carriage and drive out the to country and drop it off somewhere.
Thomas de Quincy and Thomas Carlyle are central figures in this book. De Quincy has been described as the first "True Crime" writer in the English language. Carlyle also paid some attention to the celebrated murders. Both were part of the Romantic genre of writing and brought the sensibility of horror and the macabre to their descriptions of these cases.
De Quincy and Carlyle were no longer writing, when the fore-runners of Jack the Ripper appeared. Jack the Ripper was not the first sexually deviant serial killer in England. The author has a long passage describing the many, many other sexual murders of young women in London, perhaps some of them were part of the Ripper's series, of which only five are "canonical."
This is an interesting foray into a world that was like and unlike our own.
Absolutely fascinating.
This book is essentially about English murder prior to 1850. The author examines several murders that qualified as the "Crime of the Century" when that concept was still new. The presentation of the story of the murders gives the reader insight into pre-Victorian society and culture.
The first murder involves a callous murder of a gambler by his fellow gamblers. The chief among the villains was a provincial gaming man who was embezzled his business's money, lost it in gambling, and fell into low company. The plot seemed like a hair-brained affair involving inviting the victim to the country for shooting and then killing him there. The murder was botched and the plot unravelled as quickly as it had been concocted.
What I noted in the first murders introduced was how naive the criminals were and how shallow their plots were. The murders that got the public attention generally involved scams for money. After the victim was killed, the problem of the disposing of the body came up, which usually involved chopping the body up and distributing it around London. Given the amount of moving corpses around, and the number of bodies that simply showed up every morning in London, and the difficulty of identifying bodies, it seems strange that an energetic villain simply didn't hire a horse and carriage and drive out the to country and drop it off somewhere.
Thomas de Quincy and Thomas Carlyle are central figures in this book. De Quincy has been described as the first "True Crime" writer in the English language. Carlyle also paid some attention to the celebrated murders. Both were part of the Romantic genre of writing and brought the sensibility of horror and the macabre to their descriptions of these cases.
De Quincy and Carlyle were no longer writing, when the fore-runners of Jack the Ripper appeared. Jack the Ripper was not the first sexually deviant serial killer in England. The author has a long passage describing the many, many other sexual murders of young women in London, perhaps some of them were part of the Ripper's series, of which only five are "canonical."
This is an interesting foray into a world that was like and unlike our own.
June 19, 2021
An interesting and at times darkly comic look at how some writers, Conan Doyle, Thomas Quincey and others were inspired by some of the most gruesome murders of their time. All used some form of these murders in their books. Entertaining read.
March 17, 2024
An exciting study of true crime and 19th century fiction and how they interpenetrated.
February 6, 2017
This was a suprisingly quick read given the fact that much of the language dates back to the early 19th century. Very insightful as well.
If this proves one thing it is that violence is not necessarily multiplied by TV or the internet. It has always been there, we are just more aware of it. The cases that were picked highlighted this all the more since they often occured before the invention of the telegraph (not the newspaper in case anyone was wondering). Let alone telephones, radio, TV and computer. So they were very far removed from the digital age and yet the occured all the same.
So I agree with the conclusion of this book that it it is very difficult to tell what makes a person turn to crime as it is obviously not (just) living conditions. After all ordinary people find a way to deal with their problems without turning to murder.
This is also why I don't quite believe commiting murder is part of a normal mindset. There are often situations in which the average person kills someone (self defence/extreme anger after an injustice/etc) but when it comes to many of these cases where in things could have been more easily resolved without any killing then chosing to kill anyway is not the conclusion the average person would come to. Especially when they involve cutting people up.
What did surprise me was just how many similar murders had occured in the time leading up to Jack the Ripper. I used to think he was a unique case for his time. Sadly not and what is even more worrying is how little or any of them got solved.
So all in all a good read and so very well researched, that makes any book better in my opinion.
If this proves one thing it is that violence is not necessarily multiplied by TV or the internet. It has always been there, we are just more aware of it. The cases that were picked highlighted this all the more since they often occured before the invention of the telegraph (not the newspaper in case anyone was wondering). Let alone telephones, radio, TV and computer. So they were very far removed from the digital age and yet the occured all the same.
So I agree with the conclusion of this book that it it is very difficult to tell what makes a person turn to crime as it is obviously not (just) living conditions. After all ordinary people find a way to deal with their problems without turning to murder.
This is also why I don't quite believe commiting murder is part of a normal mindset. There are often situations in which the average person kills someone (self defence/extreme anger after an injustice/etc) but when it comes to many of these cases where in things could have been more easily resolved without any killing then chosing to kill anyway is not the conclusion the average person would come to. Especially when they involve cutting people up.
What did surprise me was just how many similar murders had occured in the time leading up to Jack the Ripper. I used to think he was a unique case for his time. Sadly not and what is even more worrying is how little or any of them got solved.
So all in all a good read and so very well researched, that makes any book better in my opinion.
November 25, 2016
Unlike
, this is an author who does NOT enjoy a good Golden Age mystery. If *you* do, prepare to have your taste and your favorites insulted.
On the historical murders, however, he provides a fascinating examination of events.
You'll also learn stuff - like Ripper-esque murders were actually not uncommon but, because the whole serial killer concept/psychology wasn't identified yet, and the crimes weren't linked in the police and public minds, and the perpetrators were never identified let alone caught (and the implications of that too frightening to dwell on), and the victims were prostitutes (not the moneyed class who could do something about it if they were threatened), the crimes were allowed to fade away from common memory. (Jack the Ripper is remembered basically because he linked his crimes himself and ran his own publicity campaign, writing newspapers and taunting the police.)
So anyway, this was an informative and entertaining read.
, this is an author who does NOT enjoy a good Golden Age mystery. If *you* do, prepare to have your taste and your favorites insulted. On the historical murders, however, he provides a fascinating examination of events.
You'll also learn stuff - like Ripper-esque murders were actually not uncommon but, because the whole serial killer concept/psychology wasn't identified yet, and the crimes weren't linked in the police and public minds, and the perpetrators were never identified let alone caught (and the implications of that too frightening to dwell on), and the victims were prostitutes (not the moneyed class who could do something about it if they were threatened), the crimes were allowed to fade away from common memory. (Jack the Ripper is remembered basically because he linked his crimes himself and ran his own publicity campaign, writing newspapers and taunting the police.)
So anyway, this was an informative and entertaining read.
January 25, 2016
I rarely give out 1 star ratings in genres I tend to enjoy, but this was just an all-around bad book. The use of quotes within the text was some of the worst I've seen since high-school book reports where they are trying desperately to fluff the word count to get 3 pages. It was disconcerting and jarring. The narration when it came to quotes was also atrocious.
Actually, the whole narration was nearly as bad as the book. They were the perfect couple I suppose. I do believe the narrator might be able to pull of a better written book, but I'm not forgiving enough to want to seek them out.
The book overall was not well written or ordered.
Actually, the whole narration was nearly as bad as the book. They were the perfect couple I suppose. I do believe the narrator might be able to pull of a better written book, but I'm not forgiving enough to want to seek them out.
The book overall was not well written or ordered.
October 19, 2016
*received for free through Goodreads First Reads
Though I was interested and intrigued by the authors writing style, I found the inconsistent narrative distracting and I had a hard time determining if I was reading a story or a commentary on an era.
Though I was interested and intrigued by the authors writing style, I found the inconsistent narrative distracting and I had a hard time determining if I was reading a story or a commentary on an era.
January 21, 2016
You have to pay attention when reading this, or you will lose the thread and have no idea what's happening.
May 3, 2021
The author wanted to write a book on crime of the Romantic Age as addressed in the writings of De Quincey, Carlyle, Walter Scott, and a few other writers. This much is obvious. Also obvious is that the Pegasus Crime imprint only agreed to publish this if specific True Crimes were spoken about, as the author has constantly detoured writing about these events to talk about what De Quincey, et. al., would have written about the various cases IF they had written about them, based off the author's conclusions from what De Quincey wrote when he DID write about the Wapping Murders of 1811. This makes the book both jarring (chopping up historical descriptions with speculative philosophical asides) AND tedious (the writer decided for some reason to write his non-fiction work often with the tone and phrasing of a Gothic novelist) at the same time.
Besides all of this, the last section of the book becomes even more nonsensical, as he goes off on a screed that (1) criticizes Governments for trying to lessen murder by adopting social policies that uplift the lower classes; he states that doing this does not lessen murder rates, which is COMPLETELY FALSE (crime and murder rates have been on a steady downturn since the 1970s, due in large part to various forms of the social safety net); then (2) criticizes detective fiction as either overlooking "true evil" or not taking it seriously enough; this seems to go hand in hand with a criticism of crime fiction as a Godless whitewashing of Evil with a Capital E.
I give this book two stars (instead of only one) because it is so amazingly bizarre; so immensely wrongheaded in its construction; so shortsighted in its conclusions; and, so seemingly (in the end) distasteful of itself as a representation of a work of True Crime, such that the author philosophically thumbs his nose at his publisher, the design of the jacket, and the title of the book itself. It, literally, needs to be at least skimmed through to be believed. It took me FOREVER to get myself through this thing in pieces and parts with HUGE breaks in between, but in the end I'm glad I forced myself to finish it, because I think I've never completed a book which allowed me in the end to "celebrate" with such an immensely large facepalm at what I'd just read.
Besides all of this, the last section of the book becomes even more nonsensical, as he goes off on a screed that (1) criticizes Governments for trying to lessen murder by adopting social policies that uplift the lower classes; he states that doing this does not lessen murder rates, which is COMPLETELY FALSE (crime and murder rates have been on a steady downturn since the 1970s, due in large part to various forms of the social safety net); then (2) criticizes detective fiction as either overlooking "true evil" or not taking it seriously enough; this seems to go hand in hand with a criticism of crime fiction as a Godless whitewashing of Evil with a Capital E.
I give this book two stars (instead of only one) because it is so amazingly bizarre; so immensely wrongheaded in its construction; so shortsighted in its conclusions; and, so seemingly (in the end) distasteful of itself as a representation of a work of True Crime, such that the author philosophically thumbs his nose at his publisher, the design of the jacket, and the title of the book itself. It, literally, needs to be at least skimmed through to be believed. It took me FOREVER to get myself through this thing in pieces and parts with HUGE breaks in between, but in the end I'm glad I forced myself to finish it, because I think I've never completed a book which allowed me in the end to "celebrate" with such an immensely large facepalm at what I'd just read.
February 11, 2025
What did I like about this reading?
I like the language and pace of this reading so far. As I read on, however, I did not always enjoy the goings on at Greenacre; well, I have misspoken because Greenacre is not a place but a person by the name of Greenacre who fancied himself quite the bloke, yet steadfast in not incriminating others.
With the book title we have this for thought; or I chose to interpret the reading as such: like a diamond, a murder shows best by candlelight; discretion not gore; death stalks best in a castle is more the style than the blood goring’s of the city’s stalker, Ripper.
The ghastly gothic and peculiar English quality of an age in which candlelight gave way to gaslight and the mail coach to railways—an age of chop-houses and hackney coaches, when watchmen called “Charlie’s” cried the hours of the night and young harlots cursed like sailors in streets daubed with the soot of hell.
Enlightenment era refused descending into the Gothic crypt as they were to contemplate the Gothic skull beneath the skin…What lies beneath in thoughts perhaps. By contrast the Romantic Age took delight in the clotted gore of the seventeenth-century dramatists; yet where are we going with all this?
Men like Sir Walter Scott, Thomas De Quincey, and Thomas Carlyle knew a good deal about the horror that moves the soul. They envisions the strangeness in death; discovering dreadfulness in the homicidal act as we in this age can say that the homicidal act has been antiseptically reduced to a problem of social science and the work of a skillful detective.
In all; the rage for being frightened to death began in the middle of the eighteen century laying their tales in the Gothic castle; specifically in the donjon. Readers ate it up; instinctively associating the castle with the more blood-curdling varieties of vice and licentious deviancy; leading to castle pride and with castle perversity.
Today we have the modern detective novel; the murder mystery has become a weariness of the flesh and the ‘intelligent detective’ a ‘drug in the market’ as they’ve become common; as common as ale.
I like the language and pace of this reading so far. As I read on, however, I did not always enjoy the goings on at Greenacre; well, I have misspoken because Greenacre is not a place but a person by the name of Greenacre who fancied himself quite the bloke, yet steadfast in not incriminating others.
With the book title we have this for thought; or I chose to interpret the reading as such: like a diamond, a murder shows best by candlelight; discretion not gore; death stalks best in a castle is more the style than the blood goring’s of the city’s stalker, Ripper.
The ghastly gothic and peculiar English quality of an age in which candlelight gave way to gaslight and the mail coach to railways—an age of chop-houses and hackney coaches, when watchmen called “Charlie’s” cried the hours of the night and young harlots cursed like sailors in streets daubed with the soot of hell.
Enlightenment era refused descending into the Gothic crypt as they were to contemplate the Gothic skull beneath the skin…What lies beneath in thoughts perhaps. By contrast the Romantic Age took delight in the clotted gore of the seventeenth-century dramatists; yet where are we going with all this?
Men like Sir Walter Scott, Thomas De Quincey, and Thomas Carlyle knew a good deal about the horror that moves the soul. They envisions the strangeness in death; discovering dreadfulness in the homicidal act as we in this age can say that the homicidal act has been antiseptically reduced to a problem of social science and the work of a skillful detective.
In all; the rage for being frightened to death began in the middle of the eighteen century laying their tales in the Gothic castle; specifically in the donjon. Readers ate it up; instinctively associating the castle with the more blood-curdling varieties of vice and licentious deviancy; leading to castle pride and with castle perversity.
Today we have the modern detective novel; the murder mystery has become a weariness of the flesh and the ‘intelligent detective’ a ‘drug in the market’ as they’ve become common; as common as ale.
December 3, 2025
I wish I could give this a 2.5, but since I can’t, I’ll settle for three.
First, this is not a casual book for the average reader. This is an academic book, in the sense that you need to have a working knowledge of Gothic and Romantic literature, writers, and thinkers to really understand what the author is getting at. I have a limited knowledge of Gothic literature and writers and it was a struggle to keep track of what he was talking about and the connections being made.
Second, the book has no real thesis to guide it, and I mean that in two ways:
First, the connections and transitions between discussing the murders and the writers were very unclear. It was like I was reading two separate books kind of stuck together every couple of pages rather than a seamless whole. It feels like the author couldn’t decide if he was writing about the “classic” Victorian age murders or the reaction of the literary world to the murders, so the book failed to tell a cohesive story of either.
Second, most of the points he was trying to make about gothic literature are only made truly clear in the epilogue.any points are made along the way but there is nothing really to connect them until the last few pages, leaving us to wander aimlessly through the previous two hundred and some pages. If the points had been better laid out at the start, or more clearly introduced along the way, it would have been a much more enjoyable read.
My third issue is the language. I understand the author was likely trying to get into the spirit of things by emulating the writing style of the era he was discussing, but he took it a bit too far. I’m not saying write in plain, modern vernacular, but find a happy medium.
With all that in mind, this is likely a very enjoyable read for the correct audience, that audience just likely isn’t the everyday reader. I found myself thoroughly engrossed in the actual murder stories, as they were written very well! I think I would enjoy a gothic novel by this author with slightly less philosophizing.
First, this is not a casual book for the average reader. This is an academic book, in the sense that you need to have a working knowledge of Gothic and Romantic literature, writers, and thinkers to really understand what the author is getting at. I have a limited knowledge of Gothic literature and writers and it was a struggle to keep track of what he was talking about and the connections being made.
Second, the book has no real thesis to guide it, and I mean that in two ways:
First, the connections and transitions between discussing the murders and the writers were very unclear. It was like I was reading two separate books kind of stuck together every couple of pages rather than a seamless whole. It feels like the author couldn’t decide if he was writing about the “classic” Victorian age murders or the reaction of the literary world to the murders, so the book failed to tell a cohesive story of either.
Second, most of the points he was trying to make about gothic literature are only made truly clear in the epilogue.any points are made along the way but there is nothing really to connect them until the last few pages, leaving us to wander aimlessly through the previous two hundred and some pages. If the points had been better laid out at the start, or more clearly introduced along the way, it would have been a much more enjoyable read.
My third issue is the language. I understand the author was likely trying to get into the spirit of things by emulating the writing style of the era he was discussing, but he took it a bit too far. I’m not saying write in plain, modern vernacular, but find a happy medium.
With all that in mind, this is likely a very enjoyable read for the correct audience, that audience just likely isn’t the everyday reader. I found myself thoroughly engrossed in the actual murder stories, as they were written very well! I think I would enjoy a gothic novel by this author with slightly less philosophizing.
November 17, 2025
The writing is good, as in easy to follow and crafting the numerous quotes, particularly from the Victorian vocabulary, was done well. The idea of connecting real murders, perhaps oft overlooked murders from an era slightly before murder became almost sensationalized, with the literary giants of the time is a great concept. But...was the execution done well enough? A lot of the time, the jumps from the murder accounts to the lives and writings of the authors of that time didn't feel melded well--it felt like we were pausing one story entirely to talk on characters that weren't that involved. And, maybe if we'd argued more about how these murders meant something, to if not the authors themselves than to the public, because after being desensitized from today's obsession with the big hitters, the notorious murders and serial killers, these initial three murders were....mundane. That's morbid to say, but what set these apart from numerous other murders? That very argument is kind of made against this book's early recounting with the talk of the Ripper murders and other numerous, similarly gruesome violent acts upon women. Like, the last few chapters just become "Here's the author listing gruesome murders--that's it." This book is just...a solid three stars. Fine for someone like me who does not often delve into true crime, but I imagine the die-hardest of fans of that genre might find this book lacking. There's good takes throughout, but its just...not committing enough, I fear.
May 11, 2019
I kept spacing out while listening to this. I guess analyzing literature means you are venturing into a more academic realm. I cannot even say the language is flowery; there is just a lot of overly complicated sentences in here.
I was expecting crimes and the stories they inspired separated to be in separate sections. I am not sure that happened. There were a lot of names, overlapping stories, introduction of 19th cent. gothic writing, a condensed version of 19th cent London society, and crime. It was just too much all at once. I understand that there was a lot of cogs at play to tell a complete story, but it became muddled fast.
I only recommend this book if you have a baseline knowledge of gothic horror writers, 19th century English culture, and/or 19th century major English crimes. I was listening to this and thought more than once, "I don't care about this author," or "I don't care about their opium parties/ opium induced creative writing sessions." You need to care about those gothic authors to care about this book. Proceed with caution.
I was expecting crimes and the stories they inspired separated to be in separate sections. I am not sure that happened. There were a lot of names, overlapping stories, introduction of 19th cent. gothic writing, a condensed version of 19th cent London society, and crime. It was just too much all at once. I understand that there was a lot of cogs at play to tell a complete story, but it became muddled fast.
I only recommend this book if you have a baseline knowledge of gothic horror writers, 19th century English culture, and/or 19th century major English crimes. I was listening to this and thought more than once, "I don't care about this author," or "I don't care about their opium parties/ opium induced creative writing sessions." You need to care about those gothic authors to care about this book. Proceed with caution.
September 16, 2020
3.5 really. I liked the concept of this book a lot—framing high-profile Victorian crimes in the context of writers and thinkers of the era who became fascinated by them and the darkness of humanity. The execution was a bit frustrating to me, though...partially because it zigzagged from crime to writer to general meditations on Victorian culture to the author's occasional personal observation and back again, not necessarily in the most fluid of progressions. The other reason: I think Beran may have been writing in a style meant to carry flickers of Victorian style. Or maybe that's just his personal style. Either way, the sentences could be a little overworked, and a little overloaded with 50-cent words. It was kind of distracting, like he was looking to score points with an academic. Not the end of the world, just noticeable.
Anyway, all of that DID have the effect of setting a mood, which I appreciated, and I hadn't read about the crimes themselves before. A few of those overworked sentences did gift me with some stand-out, poetic descriptions of ghoulishness, as well.
Anyway, all of that DID have the effect of setting a mood, which I appreciated, and I hadn't read about the crimes themselves before. A few of those overworked sentences did gift me with some stand-out, poetic descriptions of ghoulishness, as well.
June 26, 2025
Drawn in by the evocative cover and my love of true crime, I picked up Michael Knox Beran’s Murder by Candlelight expecting a gripping exploration of the macabre crimes that haunted the Romantic era. The book delivers fascinating historical detail and intriguing connections between notorious murders and the literature of the time.
Unfortunately, Beran’s grandiloquent prose quickly became a barrier. His overuse of elaborate vocabulary and dense, intellectual sentences often turned the narrative into an exercise in deciphering wordy passages rather than enjoying a compelling true crime story. While some readers may appreciate the literary flourishes, I found the style distracting and struggled to stay engaged.
In the end, Murder by Candlelight is best suited for those who enjoy dense, literary non-fiction and don’t mind wading through a thicket of grand language. For me, the promise of chilling true crime was lost in a maze of intellectual word salad
Unfortunately, Beran’s grandiloquent prose quickly became a barrier. His overuse of elaborate vocabulary and dense, intellectual sentences often turned the narrative into an exercise in deciphering wordy passages rather than enjoying a compelling true crime story. While some readers may appreciate the literary flourishes, I found the style distracting and struggled to stay engaged.
In the end, Murder by Candlelight is best suited for those who enjoy dense, literary non-fiction and don’t mind wading through a thicket of grand language. For me, the promise of chilling true crime was lost in a maze of intellectual word salad
Read
July 11, 2021No, I didn't forget. I'm giving this college thesis, which Beran tries to pass off as true crime a rating, all right. NEGATIVE 15 stars. Using a mere 71,700 words to describe events that could've been adequately covered with FAR fewer than a thousand words, he manages to acknowledge sources who died LONG before Britain was discovered, use words NEVER seen in American or British literature, and EVEN manages the seemingly impossible : to make the crimes of Jack the Ripper as dry and boring as dust. To worsen matters, he dismisses the ENTIRE genre of detective fiction as vacuous and meaningless. Avoid this author. He'll waste your time and give NOTHING in return. Certainly avoid this book. The trees should've stayed upright for this one, and the ink would've been better spent on reprinting old Li'l Abner comic strips in book form.
January 17, 2018
Best nonfiction work I've read yet!
The writing style was easy to follow while his points were enticing enough to keep me reading. I couldn't put it down. As an aficionado of the Gothic, I found Beran's study quite fascinating. As he states: "It is less the quality of the crimes than the attitude of the age which determines the gruesomeness of its murders. . . . A history of the murders of an age will in its own way reveal as much of human nature." While the crimes themselves are interesting to behold, it truly is the reaction of society and the fascination of which they obsess over the deeds that makes this a cultural study.
The writing style was easy to follow while his points were enticing enough to keep me reading. I couldn't put it down. As an aficionado of the Gothic, I found Beran's study quite fascinating. As he states: "It is less the quality of the crimes than the attitude of the age which determines the gruesomeness of its murders. . . . A history of the murders of an age will in its own way reveal as much of human nature." While the crimes themselves are interesting to behold, it truly is the reaction of society and the fascination of which they obsess over the deeds that makes this a cultural study.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 93 reviews