What do you think?
Rate this book
Murder in Plain English: From Manifestos to Memes—Looking at Murder through the Words of Killers
This is the first book to examine murder through the written word--not only the writings of the killers themselves, but also the story of murder as told in literary fiction and the crime dramas that are now a staple of film and television. The authors--a criminologist specializing in cold cases, written evidence, and forensic science, and an anthropologist who has dealt with the signs and ciphers of organized crime and street gangs in his previous work--are widely recognized experts in this emerging specialty field. Based on extensive research and interviews with convicted murderers, the book emphasizes the often-overlooked narrative impulse that drives killers, with the authors explaining how both mass and serial murderers perceive their crimes as stories and why a select few are compelled to commit these stories to writing whether before, during, or after their horrific acts.
The book also analyzes the written work of killers, using a combination of machine-based linguistic patterning, predictive modeling, and symbolic interpretation, to make sense of the screeds of everyone from the Son of Sam and the Zodiac Killer to the Columbine attackers, the Unabomber, and the recent spate of mass shooters using social media as their preferred narrative platform. They present a theoretical perspective of murder that is based on both the criminological evidence and written works. In addition, the authors examine famous literature that has dealt ingeniously with murder and its relationship with real crime, from the Greek tragedians to Truman Capote to modern-day productions such as Making a Murderer.
This unique approach offers a new means to penetrate the minds of murderers, revealing their motives as well as the wider social meanings of this age-old crime and our continuing fascination with it.
From the Hardcover edition.
The book also analyzes the written work of killers, using a combination of machine-based linguistic patterning, predictive modeling, and symbolic interpretation, to make sense of the screeds of everyone from the Son of Sam and the Zodiac Killer to the Columbine attackers, the Unabomber, and the recent spate of mass shooters using social media as their preferred narrative platform. They present a theoretical perspective of murder that is based on both the criminological evidence and written works. In addition, the authors examine famous literature that has dealt ingeniously with murder and its relationship with real crime, from the Greek tragedians to Truman Capote to modern-day productions such as Making a Murderer.
This unique approach offers a new means to penetrate the minds of murderers, revealing their motives as well as the wider social meanings of this age-old crime and our continuing fascination with it.
From the Hardcover edition.
338 pages, Kindle Edition
First published March 7, 2017
42 people are currently reading
300 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 - 29 of 29 reviews
August 29, 2019
When I found a book about “literary criminology,” I’d never felt more seen in my life. The reality, as reality often is, was so disappointing. I think this book could have been so much better with a stronger and more cohesive thesis and a good editor. The authors, no fewer than three times throughout the text, refer to the “Identification Discovery” Channel. Quotes are misattributed. The authors can’t keep facts about their own subjects straight—Armin Meiwes, the German cannibal, is discussed, and a scant few pages later he’s recalled as the victim of his own crime.
The book’s biggest crime, though, is omission. It purports to study the written words of killers, then mostly selectively quotes those words—quotes within sentences, not block quotes. Also, I don’t think you can call Charles Whitman a sociopath without mentioning that he had a brain tumor that may have contributed to his violent outburst leading to a mass shooting at UT Austin—-and that he even requested an autopsy to see if something were biologically wrong with him. Nor do I think you can discuss Gypsy Rose Blanchard as though she’s an ice-cold killer without talking about what her mother put her through. The dual authors do both, and here’s a direct quote: “Gypsy was as heartless as any street thug killing someone who is simply in his way.”
Nope, I lied. The book’s worst sin—I suppose it’s really the authors’ sin—is that it builds from a Freudian framework, so it’s like a bullshit house of bullshit mirrors.
The book’s biggest crime, though, is omission. It purports to study the written words of killers, then mostly selectively quotes those words—quotes within sentences, not block quotes. Also, I don’t think you can call Charles Whitman a sociopath without mentioning that he had a brain tumor that may have contributed to his violent outburst leading to a mass shooting at UT Austin—-and that he even requested an autopsy to see if something were biologically wrong with him. Nor do I think you can discuss Gypsy Rose Blanchard as though she’s an ice-cold killer without talking about what her mother put her through. The dual authors do both, and here’s a direct quote: “Gypsy was as heartless as any street thug killing someone who is simply in his way.”
Nope, I lied. The book’s worst sin—I suppose it’s really the authors’ sin—is that it builds from a Freudian framework, so it’s like a bullshit house of bullshit mirrors.
November 28, 2018
Pretty good. A look at murder through the proposed theory of literary criminology. Fairly engrossing. In some facets perhaps a little too academic (where the impetus revolves more around categorization and “putting pegs into holes”, if you will, rather than about solving crimes through analysis), and the part I found most fascinating, a section on the analysis of unsolved crimes through graffiti and ransom letters was far too short. But certainly I never came close to setting it aside because it was boring. It also clashes with an FBI profiling book I’m reading, which essentially belittles profiling as near prophecy, although what’s a bit odd in that pigeonholing suspects into categories is largely what this book is about. Interesting stuff nonetheless and perhaps both books are basically guesswork in the long run.
March 23, 2017
I wanted to enjoy this book, but I had a hard time getting into it. The authors at times went from being extremely professional and clinical to calling the murderers "real creeps," and the change in tone was jarring. I think I expected there to be more actual analysis of the writings in it, as opposed to vague mentions here and there. I gave it three stars mainly because yes, I did learn a few things, and I generally call that a win.
December 31, 2020
This is not a very good book, which is disappointing, because the idea---that murderers (by which they mostly mean serial killers and mass murderers) have particular stories they tell about themselves and that those stories can be analyzed to tell us more about how murderers think---is great. (I love close readings.) Unfortunately, Arntfield & Danesi aren't very nuanced readers, and they never really get in there and close read a text the way I was longing for them to do. I think the points they make about the possibilities of literary forensics are intriguing, although there's a creepy Philip K. Dick/Minority Report vibe to their idea that murderers can be detected by their writing BEFORE they commit murder. To be fair to Arntfield & Danesi, I think what they mean is that people (mostly male) likely to become serial killers or mass murderers can be detected in adolescence (by teachers who magically have the time and training to close read their students' work for signs of schizoid or other personality disorders) and (magically) successfully intervened with by social workers or psychiatrists, not that they should be pre-emptively incarcerated.
In the last chapter they try to prove that literary forensics is useful in cold cases, but in none of the cases they look at (O.J. Simpson, Jon-Benet Ramsey, and April Tinsley) does their analysis of the writing involved get us any closer to justice. Their close reading of Simpson is sort of nice as corroborative evidence, but it's nothing new or surprising. They point sort of vaguely at Patsy Ramsey as being involved somehow in the ransom letter, but it's very vague and of course she's dead. And their not-very-close close reading of April Tinsley's murderer accomplishes nothing.* (Interestingly, in that case, the only case where they have made any effort to get involved in actually SOLVING a crime, the information they give the Fort Wayne police---to which the Fort Wayne police do not respond---is geographical profiling, which they do not talk about at all in the entire rest of the book, not literary analysis. So they're severely undercutting their own argument.)
In summation, this feels like a case of academic scholars trying to join the bandwagon of unlikely specialties that turn out be forensically useful and trying to prove that they have special skills that are uniquely suited to solving---or preventing---crimes. On the one hand, people have been close reading the writings of murderers for decades, even if they don't call it that, so there's nothing really new here, and on the other, their argument for the unique suitability of trained literary scholars to fight crime is unconvincing.
---
*In 2018 a man named John Miller was successfully prosecuted for April Tinsley's murder, but he was caught by genetic genealogy and DNA profiling, not by literary analysis of his writing.
In the last chapter they try to prove that literary forensics is useful in cold cases, but in none of the cases they look at (O.J. Simpson, Jon-Benet Ramsey, and April Tinsley) does their analysis of the writing involved get us any closer to justice. Their close reading of Simpson is sort of nice as corroborative evidence, but it's nothing new or surprising. They point sort of vaguely at Patsy Ramsey as being involved somehow in the ransom letter, but it's very vague and of course she's dead. And their not-very-close close reading of April Tinsley's murderer accomplishes nothing.* (Interestingly, in that case, the only case where they have made any effort to get involved in actually SOLVING a crime, the information they give the Fort Wayne police---to which the Fort Wayne police do not respond---is geographical profiling, which they do not talk about at all in the entire rest of the book, not literary analysis. So they're severely undercutting their own argument.)
In summation, this feels like a case of academic scholars trying to join the bandwagon of unlikely specialties that turn out be forensically useful and trying to prove that they have special skills that are uniquely suited to solving---or preventing---crimes. On the one hand, people have been close reading the writings of murderers for decades, even if they don't call it that, so there's nothing really new here, and on the other, their argument for the unique suitability of trained literary scholars to fight crime is unconvincing.
---
*In 2018 a man named John Miller was successfully prosecuted for April Tinsley's murder, but he was caught by genetic genealogy and DNA profiling, not by literary analysis of his writing.
October 12, 2018
Surprisingly tedious for long stretches, intermixed with flashes of interesting excerpts.
I'll admit, I'm confused as to the audience/purpose of this book. At times, the prose style is 'crappy Freshman Comp paper', basically listing the points of other people's research without really contextualizing or doing anything with that research. So, like OK here are ten types of psychopaths this other guy identified: he literally lists all ten types. And then doesn't really do much with that info, like it's just there to make the book longer.
At other times, it seems to want to be 'lurid true crime narrative'.
At no point does it deliver on the real promise of its premise--that we will apply any sort of psychological or linguistic or psycholinguistic framework, in any depth. Most disappointing is the bit about the JonBenet Ramsey letter--gosh, dude, do you think you could at least advance your own theory? Nah? Nope, just going to stick with the Freshman Comp thing of keeping yourself safely outta this hot mess.
Maybe he just needs a remotely competent editor? At any rate, I do hope a book comes out eventually that does fulfill the promise of this book's idea. This ain't it, though
I'll admit, I'm confused as to the audience/purpose of this book. At times, the prose style is 'crappy Freshman Comp paper', basically listing the points of other people's research without really contextualizing or doing anything with that research. So, like OK here are ten types of psychopaths this other guy identified: he literally lists all ten types. And then doesn't really do much with that info, like it's just there to make the book longer.
At other times, it seems to want to be 'lurid true crime narrative'.
At no point does it deliver on the real promise of its premise--that we will apply any sort of psychological or linguistic or psycholinguistic framework, in any depth. Most disappointing is the bit about the JonBenet Ramsey letter--gosh, dude, do you think you could at least advance your own theory? Nah? Nope, just going to stick with the Freshman Comp thing of keeping yourself safely outta this hot mess.
Maybe he just needs a remotely competent editor? At any rate, I do hope a book comes out eventually that does fulfill the promise of this book's idea. This ain't it, though
February 17, 2020
It’s fairly dense but I was enjoying it until I got to the end of the first chapter. Their misinterpretation and minimization of the Gypsy Rose Blanchard case, while only a small passing example, ruined the book for me. The authors lost all credibility by acting as if Gypsy Rose came up with her mother’s scam and wasn’t a victim of an abusive mother with Munchausen’ any proxy. I can’t trust a writer that doesn’t understand the basic psychology at play there.
March 31, 2017
I was intrigued by the idea of a study of the writings of murderers (ransom letters, manifestos, and the like) but got a bit more on the history and relation of crimes than I bargained for. On the other hand I was impressed that the authors went into memes and internet territory - also since I didn't realise just how new this book was when I put it on hold. It was an easy read, in that the writing is easy to follow not that the subject matter is.
August 11, 2025
For a book based on how language is a tool to understand murder, they sure did not keep it objective and layered every chapter with pejorative language to a point that it genuinely made me uncomfortable. Of course, I inherently disagree with murder, I don't think the language used was at all acceptable for a critical reflection in an academic subject (literary criminology)
November 2, 2025
Interesting topic, but the execution felt more like an academic paper with personal opinion inserted throughout. It’s difficult to maintain the credibility of an academic analysis with so much personal bias throughout, regardless of it the bias is morally correct. I wish the author had leaned more fully into a detached scientific perspective, or a more opinionated casual take.
My largest issue with the book is the inclusion of a picture of a murder victim in the killer’s custody, hours from the murder. This was unnecessary and disrespectful to the victim.
Additionally, the section acting as the explanation of memes felt incredibly dated for a book released in 2017. Perhaps my 2025 reading has colored this.
My largest issue with the book is the inclusion of a picture of a murder victim in the killer’s custody, hours from the murder. This was unnecessary and disrespectful to the victim.
Additionally, the section acting as the explanation of memes felt incredibly dated for a book released in 2017. Perhaps my 2025 reading has colored this.
March 2, 2020
"Some serial killers take their disordered and inflated sense of superiority and complusion to create myths about themselves a step further, into a deliberate barbaric quest for celebrity status. This is arguably the characteristic that most separates serial killers from other offenders who kill under different circumstances or for different motives (discussed in the previous chapter.) The serial killer's reflexivity of action, or his autobiographical self-awareness as an ersatz public figure, suggest that fame and celebrity are two of the chief driving forces in his cliche-laden mind... The serial killer' sense of self-importance fits in with this bizarre demimonde created by cyberspace." - page 109
Imagine 325 pages of this.
It's amateurish and scattershot.
Imagine 325 pages of this.
It's amateurish and scattershot.
June 11, 2017
A fascinating work of literary criminology. Asks some fundamental questions such as, does art create the offender, or do offender actions create art? Or both? What is the nexus where these two worlds meet. A brisk and gripping read through the offender landscape from the Old Testament to OJ.
September 9, 2019
Factually incorrect self-citing trash. Look, I don't know what is says about me that I could easily spot the misinformation about SEVERAL cases discussed in this, but it does not bode well for the authors. A simple Google search could have saved so much face for them.
January 4, 2025
Nope, no! Great premise, awful execution, I rarely actually give up on books, but this was awful. The 90ish pages I read came off more as name dropping for murderers than any actual examination of writing. Way too many times a case was briefly mentioned to be followed by “we’ll talk more about this later”. I also didn’t need to read repetitive explanations of different kind of murders, and most people who would be interested in and pick up this book probably also wouldn’t need to.
The explanations about metaphors was also an odd inclusion, especially since the authors don’t seem to understand what a metaphor is themselves. They mention that calling an offender a “sexual predator” was an “apt metaphor”….only it’s not a metaphor. It’s a descriptive noun, not a comparative figure of speech. I mean, a murderous rapist IS a sexual predator, he isn’t “like” one or similar to one.
The references to the “Identification Discovery” channel (for those unaware, it’s Investigation Discovery) shows were laughable - there is a lot of good true crime content available to watch, it’s probably wise not to use widely known as trash shows for your research.
They also weirdly allude to a bunch of women faking their own kidnappings as a response to the Laci Peterson case and the extreme amount of attention she received. Yes, there have been cases of kidnapping hoaxes, but none of those women have ever stated they were in any way influenced in any way because of the Laci Peterson case. What a weird, false narrative to include.
The final straw for me, as mentioned by others, is their characterization of Gypsy Rose Blanchard. Did they seriously somehow research the case and still walk away with that takeaway? That she lied about her age and faked her illness for profit? That she was as “heartless as any street thug killing someone who was simply in his way” (never mind the other issues with that statement). Not even a mention of Munchausen by Proxy, and the fact that they murdered her mother because she’d been forcing her to lie, to remain in a wheelchair she did not need and undergo unnecessary medical care since she was a small child? That her mother had been the one that lied to her about her own age? Really? Reference to her and her boyfriend as the “ersatz Bonnie and Clyde duo” proving even more that they don’t understand metaphor, as this is very unapt comparison.
The explanations about metaphors was also an odd inclusion, especially since the authors don’t seem to understand what a metaphor is themselves. They mention that calling an offender a “sexual predator” was an “apt metaphor”….only it’s not a metaphor. It’s a descriptive noun, not a comparative figure of speech. I mean, a murderous rapist IS a sexual predator, he isn’t “like” one or similar to one.
The references to the “Identification Discovery” channel (for those unaware, it’s Investigation Discovery) shows were laughable - there is a lot of good true crime content available to watch, it’s probably wise not to use widely known as trash shows for your research.
They also weirdly allude to a bunch of women faking their own kidnappings as a response to the Laci Peterson case and the extreme amount of attention she received. Yes, there have been cases of kidnapping hoaxes, but none of those women have ever stated they were in any way influenced in any way because of the Laci Peterson case. What a weird, false narrative to include.
The final straw for me, as mentioned by others, is their characterization of Gypsy Rose Blanchard. Did they seriously somehow research the case and still walk away with that takeaway? That she lied about her age and faked her illness for profit? That she was as “heartless as any street thug killing someone who was simply in his way” (never mind the other issues with that statement). Not even a mention of Munchausen by Proxy, and the fact that they murdered her mother because she’d been forcing her to lie, to remain in a wheelchair she did not need and undergo unnecessary medical care since she was a small child? That her mother had been the one that lied to her about her own age? Really? Reference to her and her boyfriend as the “ersatz Bonnie and Clyde duo” proving even more that they don’t understand metaphor, as this is very unapt comparison.
June 17, 2021
I really enjoyed the concept of this book- using literary forensics to look at the written journals/letters of murderers, but the execution of it falls short. The entire book reads like a dissertation in need of serious editing.
The authors insert their opinions like facts, and throw major shade at profilers... even though the work they are doing is very similar. They get several crime details wrong, and they skip all over the place, rarely going into any real depth on any of the works they look at.
I almost DNFed this book a dozen times, but this has been on my TBR since it was an arc, and I was determined to finish it. This could have been a better book if it were given a stronger editor, one who would have reigned the authors in for a tighter narrative and focus. Instead, any time a murderer was mentioned that I was unfamiliar with, I simply googled them so I could get the correct background. It made for a slow read.
I'm not sure I can recommend this one. I gave it two stars simply because I did manage to finish it, and again, the concept is solid. But if the subject matter intrigues you, just be prepared to be frustrated.
The authors insert their opinions like facts, and throw major shade at profilers... even though the work they are doing is very similar. They get several crime details wrong, and they skip all over the place, rarely going into any real depth on any of the works they look at.
I almost DNFed this book a dozen times, but this has been on my TBR since it was an arc, and I was determined to finish it. This could have been a better book if it were given a stronger editor, one who would have reigned the authors in for a tighter narrative and focus. Instead, any time a murderer was mentioned that I was unfamiliar with, I simply googled them so I could get the correct background. It made for a slow read.
I'm not sure I can recommend this one. I gave it two stars simply because I did manage to finish it, and again, the concept is solid. But if the subject matter intrigues you, just be prepared to be frustrated.
February 3, 2018
The authors of this book, a criminologist and an anthropologist, examine murder both through the writings of killers themselves and through stories of murder in books and popular media.as told in literary fiction and the crime dramas that are now a staple of film and television. They examine the narrative impulse that drives killers analyzing their writings to see the stories they tell themselves to explain their crimes. Interesting but not always very clear in explaining their final thesis.
March 22, 2017
I received an ARC of this book from the publisher in exchange for an honest review. This did not affect my opinion of the book, or my review itself.
Arntfield and Danesi look at true crime and the culture surrounding it through the lens of literary analysis.
As a former English major (in college), and someone who reads a lot of true crime, this book seemed tailor made for me, and it did not disappoint. This is a unique, well-researched take on a subject that has already had a lot written about it.
I did feel the book occasionally got off track and meandered a bit, but this happened pretty infrequently.
I would definitely recommend this book for anyone interested in true crime, and/or literary analysis, and who is looking for a fresh take on the subject.
Arntfield and Danesi look at true crime and the culture surrounding it through the lens of literary analysis.
As a former English major (in college), and someone who reads a lot of true crime, this book seemed tailor made for me, and it did not disappoint. This is a unique, well-researched take on a subject that has already had a lot written about it.
I did feel the book occasionally got off track and meandered a bit, but this happened pretty infrequently.
I would definitely recommend this book for anyone interested in true crime, and/or literary analysis, and who is looking for a fresh take on the subject.
May 9, 2017
I found this book to be extremely fascinating. At times I didn't quite follow the direction and felt it could perhaps have been delivered in a more linear fashion. I learned a lot from this read and it has definitely altered my perspective on the relationship between murder and the written word, especially in the ever growing and often dangerously anonymous online social media universe. Very intriguing.
August 20, 2020
I was really excited to start this book. My excitement quickly turned to disappointment and annoyance. As others have mentioned the book was in desperate need of better editors. The writers pushed their own theories which at times came off as literary tangents. Then there were cases they didn't accurately portray which others have mentioned as well. I'm hoping more books on literary criminology are written and are more engaging than this one.
May 15, 2017
Written by a criminiologist and an anthropoligist, this works delves into the history of murder and how it is portrayed in popular, historic, art , and literary culture. Also included are the writings of convicted killers and interestingly enough their use of metaphor, simile and symbolism.
May 21, 2024
I found this book to be a quick and easy read, but I can't give it more than 2 stars. I was expecting a more in-depth analysis of manifestos, memes, and the writings of killers based on the book's advertising, but it didn't deliver the depth I was hoping for.
August 23, 2017
It was too much like reading a textbook. Parts were interesting.
August 1, 2019
So badly written that, despite my interesting in the subject, I couldn't continue reading it.
August 18, 2021
I dnf'd this book. It just wasn't that interesting, and I found myself really not wanting to read it.
December 17, 2023
4.5. As a crime nerd, I found this intensely fascinating.
September 3, 2025
I quit this book about halfway through. I'd been hoping for some real linguistic analysis, but instead this book mostly rehashes well-known summaries of killers and crimes.
October 4, 2023
This is a really fascinating book! The discussion of how word plays a part in murder and how a murderer writes are a fascinating topic. There were a few things I didn't necessarily agree (such as calling Gypsy Blanchard an ice cold killer, when a)she didn't actually murder her mother, and b) she was put through abusive hell) with but overall this book was really interesting.
January 1, 2021
I was very interested in the concept of the book. Unfortunately too much of it went over my head and the book as a whole fell short of my expectations.
April 20, 2017
Docked one star for the author's not knowing what a meme is.
July 19, 2017
Based on the synopsis of "Murder In Plain English" I thought, WOW - I'm gonna love this! Sadly, that was not the case.
WARNING this book is not suitable for children. It contains explicit details of horrendous acts.
The authors call the study of crimes through language literary criminology. If that's what they are explaining in this book, I call it a literary mess. There's a little bit of information about a lot of killers and cases. From Jack the Ripper and Zodiac to OJ and JonBenet and lots of others in between. There are just too many cases in this short 274-page book to give each the time necessary to explain the literary connection. There are a lot of lists. I don't mind lists IF there's more to it than reading definitions. Photos of some of the writings are included, as well as, pictures of offenders.
To me, it seems the professors are trying to give literary weight to the ramblings of madmen. Poe was a literary genius. Even those who do not personally like his work can acknowledge the genius in his writings. The professors seem unable to see semiotic forensics through the eyes of others. Most authors make an effort to hide or at least minimize their bias. Not the professors. I expected to read the "writing," followed by an analysis that dissected the writing, followed by an understandable wrap-up connecting all the dots...Instead Murder in Plain English is littered with run-on sentences, frustratingly disjointed academic narrative told from a strongly biased perspective. It was a difficult read and hard to finish. The few writings I found interesting were not worth the effort. I am sorry to say I would not recommend this book.
WARNING this book is not suitable for children. It contains explicit details of horrendous acts.
The authors call the study of crimes through language literary criminology. If that's what they are explaining in this book, I call it a literary mess. There's a little bit of information about a lot of killers and cases. From Jack the Ripper and Zodiac to OJ and JonBenet and lots of others in between. There are just too many cases in this short 274-page book to give each the time necessary to explain the literary connection. There are a lot of lists. I don't mind lists IF there's more to it than reading definitions. Photos of some of the writings are included, as well as, pictures of offenders.
To me, it seems the professors are trying to give literary weight to the ramblings of madmen. Poe was a literary genius. Even those who do not personally like his work can acknowledge the genius in his writings. The professors seem unable to see semiotic forensics through the eyes of others. Most authors make an effort to hide or at least minimize their bias. Not the professors. I expected to read the "writing," followed by an analysis that dissected the writing, followed by an understandable wrap-up connecting all the dots...Instead Murder in Plain English is littered with run-on sentences, frustratingly disjointed academic narrative told from a strongly biased perspective. It was a difficult read and hard to finish. The few writings I found interesting were not worth the effort. I am sorry to say I would not recommend this book.
Displaying 1 - 29 of 29 reviews