What do you think?
Rate this book
Savage Appetites: Four True Stories of Women, Crime, and Obsession
A “necessary and brilliant” (NPR) exploration of our cultural fascination with true crime told through four “enthralling” (The New York Times Book Review) narratives of obsession.In Savage Appetites, Rachel Monroe links four criminal roles—Detective, Victim, Defender, and Killer—to four true stories about women driven by obsession. From a frustrated and brilliant heiress crafting crime-scene dollhouses to a young woman who became part of a Manson victim’s family, from a landscape architect in love with a convicted murderer to a Columbine fangirl who planned her own mass shooting, these women are alternately mesmerizing, horrifying, and sympathetic. A revealing study of women’s complicated relationship with true crime and the fear and desire it can inspire, together these stories provide a window into why many women are drawn to crime narratives—even as they also recoil from them. Monroe uses these four cases to trace the history of American crime through the growth of forensic science, the evolving role of victims, the Satanic Panic, the rise of online detectives, and the long shadow of the Columbine shooting. Combining personal narrative, reportage, and a sociological examination of violence and media in the 20th and 21st centuries, Savage Appetites is a “corrective to the genre it interrogates” (The New Statesman), scrupulously exploring empathy, justice, and the persistent appeal of crime.
273 pages, Kindle Edition
First published August 20, 2019
520 people are currently reading
20631 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 932 reviews
February 17, 2021
2 "soupy, tepid, messy" stars !!
Most(est) Disappointing Read of 2020 Award
Despite my two stars I never wanted to abandon this book. I need to point out though that this read more like an amateur true crime podcast....kind of entertaining but not well done !
This book was a bit of a hodgepodge mess. The author took four characters (not truly archetypes) and told a true crime story about them. We have the Detective, Victim, Defender and Killer. The stories themselves were mostly interesting and included a 1940s wealthy woman who became obsessed with crime scene miniatures as a way to educate law enforcement, the Memphis Three and a woman who fell in love with Damien Echols, a woman who obsessed about Sharon Tate and infiltrated her sister's life and a young woman whose mass shooting plans were found out. In and of themselves these stories were told in a half-decent way.
What did not work for me (to various degrees) are
1. this was more of a too long opinion ed piece than any type of investigative journalism
2. her own tie ins to these stories and what they reminded her of were really not at all interesting to this reader
3. her feminist musings and interpretations seemed dated and mostly did not ring true
4. her attempts at psychobabble interpretations were very poorly done
This could have been a knockout of a book with several more reworkings, some more careful collaboration with true experts and a deletion of much of the personal content. Instead we are left with a young woman's own obsession with true crime told in a mostly dull way.
Picture of Damien Echols and his wife Lorri Davis
Most(est) Disappointing Read of 2020 Award
Despite my two stars I never wanted to abandon this book. I need to point out though that this read more like an amateur true crime podcast....kind of entertaining but not well done !
This book was a bit of a hodgepodge mess. The author took four characters (not truly archetypes) and told a true crime story about them. We have the Detective, Victim, Defender and Killer. The stories themselves were mostly interesting and included a 1940s wealthy woman who became obsessed with crime scene miniatures as a way to educate law enforcement, the Memphis Three and a woman who fell in love with Damien Echols, a woman who obsessed about Sharon Tate and infiltrated her sister's life and a young woman whose mass shooting plans were found out. In and of themselves these stories were told in a half-decent way.
What did not work for me (to various degrees) are
1. this was more of a too long opinion ed piece than any type of investigative journalism
2. her own tie ins to these stories and what they reminded her of were really not at all interesting to this reader
3. her feminist musings and interpretations seemed dated and mostly did not ring true
4. her attempts at psychobabble interpretations were very poorly done
This could have been a knockout of a book with several more reworkings, some more careful collaboration with true experts and a deletion of much of the personal content. Instead we are left with a young woman's own obsession with true crime told in a mostly dull way.
Picture of Damien Echols and his wife Lorri Davis
December 2, 2019
3.5 This book was chock filled with book coincidences, it was eerie, maybe fated that I picked it up. Monroe explains the attraction reading about crime holds for many, from internet sides full of amateur crime investigators working on cold cases, to those who are attracted to the criminals themselves. Columbine, whose followers have their own groups, people who admire those two young killers of many, calling themselves Columbiners. Starting with the Manson murders, the witchcraft scare, to a young woman, now spending her life in prison. These people sensationlize crime, and those who commit them.
I've always had an interest in people's motivations. What makes them do what they do? From cults to religious affiliations, to those who do what I wrote above. In the 1940s, a socialite also took a heady interest in crime and how they are solved. Why they are committed in the first place. Her name was France Lee and many call her the mother of forensics. She made, what are called nutshells, or dioramas of crime scenes, each on perfect down to the tiniest detail. Had never heard of her before, and this is where the first coincidence comes in. Was watching PBS, the day after I read about her and looked up to see her and her miniatures featured on Wild America. Strange, right?
https://americanart.si.edu/exhibition...
The next confidence is even more startling. The meds I was taking was making it difficult to sleep, so I though I'd listen to this audio and hopefully call asleep. It almost worked, until I was jarred awake, hearing the words, Geneva, Il. This town is only three miles from where I live. Seems a young woman, in her twenties, planned s mass execution with a guy she met on line. She traveled to Nova Scotia, which is where he lived, and thanks to a tip off was arrested at the airport. This happened only four years ago but I had never before heard this story. Her full story and strange relationships are good fully in this book.
So, strange and quite creepy, but well explained, this book was very interesting in many ways.
I've always had an interest in people's motivations. What makes them do what they do? From cults to religious affiliations, to those who do what I wrote above. In the 1940s, a socialite also took a heady interest in crime and how they are solved. Why they are committed in the first place. Her name was France Lee and many call her the mother of forensics. She made, what are called nutshells, or dioramas of crime scenes, each on perfect down to the tiniest detail. Had never heard of her before, and this is where the first coincidence comes in. Was watching PBS, the day after I read about her and looked up to see her and her miniatures featured on Wild America. Strange, right?
https://americanart.si.edu/exhibition...
The next confidence is even more startling. The meds I was taking was making it difficult to sleep, so I though I'd listen to this audio and hopefully call asleep. It almost worked, until I was jarred awake, hearing the words, Geneva, Il. This town is only three miles from where I live. Seems a young woman, in her twenties, planned s mass execution with a guy she met on line. She traveled to Nova Scotia, which is where he lived, and thanks to a tip off was arrested at the airport. This happened only four years ago but I had never before heard this story. Her full story and strange relationships are good fully in this book.
So, strange and quite creepy, but well explained, this book was very interesting in many ways.
April 16, 2019
Let's just start with all the ways in which I have specific, subjective opinions about this book. I hate the true crime trend. I specifically hate the fandoms that have grown up around true crime. For me, it is exploitative and disrespectful, it turns real problems and pain into entertainment, and it does little to take on the very real issues of violence, poverty, policing, and bias in our criminal justice system even though all of these things are central to the real world of crime and punishment. If that is also you, this book may look interesting to you the way it did to me. Because I think it's time for a real examination of why and how our culture is obsessed with true crime. But if you feel the way I do, it's very possible the book will hit you the way it hit me and not be what you wanted.
This is not really the book's fault. But I assumed that I would be a good audience for this book. It turns out I am not. This book is not for me. And that's fine! It did not make me actively angry the way a lot of true crime does, it is attempting to analyze the unhealthy obsessions people (women in particular) have with true crime. But for a reader like me it feels like it has started a journey only to get off a few stops in, leaving all the real juicy stuff just sitting there untouched.
I suspect that the audience for this book is the actual lovers of true crime who are ready to be more thoughtful about their obsessions. The book has stories of four women interspersed with some commentary and stories of Monroe herself and her obsessions. The main issue I have with this structure is the difference between Monroe and her subjects. The women in her stories go to extremes, like EXTREME extremes. It's too easy to separate the typical behaviors of Monroe and women like her from the women in these stories. The conclusions she wants to draw about why women become obsessed don't quite fit these other stories that are writ so large that it's easy to say, "Yeah but that person is obviously dealing with some real issues whereas I would never do that."
Still, Monroe does start to make some real criticism of the culture that has sprung up around true crime obsessives and why women in particular are drawn to it. She really has the right ideas and the right themes, she just lets the other women's stories dominate the narrative. And, if you're a reader like me, she doesn't seem willing to see it all through.
I realized near the end of the book that the only way this book would please me is if it were a full on indictment of this culture, and it clearly isn't ready to be that. It wants to map out the roots of these obsessions, the ways it can help women feel control in their lives, without condemning it. She seems to want her readers to consider their own feelings and see how they can be more critical without going any farther.
Structurally I think there's a start here but only a start. Still, I think this book will probably appeal to a lot of people. And the ideal book in my mind probably wouldn't appeal to very many people at all! Because I am a curmudgeon who is not reliable for objective reviews of anything true crime related and that's just how it is.
This is not really the book's fault. But I assumed that I would be a good audience for this book. It turns out I am not. This book is not for me. And that's fine! It did not make me actively angry the way a lot of true crime does, it is attempting to analyze the unhealthy obsessions people (women in particular) have with true crime. But for a reader like me it feels like it has started a journey only to get off a few stops in, leaving all the real juicy stuff just sitting there untouched.
I suspect that the audience for this book is the actual lovers of true crime who are ready to be more thoughtful about their obsessions. The book has stories of four women interspersed with some commentary and stories of Monroe herself and her obsessions. The main issue I have with this structure is the difference between Monroe and her subjects. The women in her stories go to extremes, like EXTREME extremes. It's too easy to separate the typical behaviors of Monroe and women like her from the women in these stories. The conclusions she wants to draw about why women become obsessed don't quite fit these other stories that are writ so large that it's easy to say, "Yeah but that person is obviously dealing with some real issues whereas I would never do that."
Still, Monroe does start to make some real criticism of the culture that has sprung up around true crime obsessives and why women in particular are drawn to it. She really has the right ideas and the right themes, she just lets the other women's stories dominate the narrative. And, if you're a reader like me, she doesn't seem willing to see it all through.
I realized near the end of the book that the only way this book would please me is if it were a full on indictment of this culture, and it clearly isn't ready to be that. It wants to map out the roots of these obsessions, the ways it can help women feel control in their lives, without condemning it. She seems to want her readers to consider their own feelings and see how they can be more critical without going any farther.
Structurally I think there's a start here but only a start. Still, I think this book will probably appeal to a lot of people. And the ideal book in my mind probably wouldn't appeal to very many people at all! Because I am a curmudgeon who is not reliable for objective reviews of anything true crime related and that's just how it is.
January 23, 2021
Check out my review/discussion video on Booktube...
and the below review first appeared on Open Letters Review:
In early 2017, the American cable television network Oxygen officially rebranded and started featuring almost exclusively true crime programming. The channel had always been directed toward women, but network executives noticed that the lifestyle shows they were airing weren't connecting with a viewership who was busy inhaling increasing amounts of crime stories through movies, podcasts, and books. Their ideal audience had caught the crime bug, and they figured it was time they got a piece of that action.
The choice to change lanes with their brand was clearly a financial one as they chased on the heels of the true crime trend, but they showed little interest in precisely why this type of content was resonating so deeply with today's women. That question may not have intrigued the Oxygen network, but it went on to inspire journalist Rachel Monroe to tackle the mystery of the appeal of mysteries in her new book Savage Appetites: Four True Stories of Women, Crime, and Obsession.
Monroe unfolds the true crime enigma like a map, which she divides into four quadrants. In each of these, she describes a female archetype connected to a crime: the detective digging into the details of a case, the victim's loved one yearning for resolution, a tireless advocate defending the wrongly accused, and salaciously, even the killer plotting their hateful crime. She uses a true story to embody each of these four roles, immediately scratching the reader's probable itch for crime drama, even when it's within a book that is itself a larger discussion of exactly these kinds of stories.
The women chosen to be under the spotlight in this book don't have any blood on their own hands, yet crime shapes a part of each of their identities. A crime scene miniaturist insists on being involved in improving a police force, although perfectionism gets under the skin of many, including the first FBI director J. Edgar Hoover. A former tenant of the guest house adjacent to the location of the Sharon Tate murders becomes so enraptured by the case that she elbows her way into a relationship with the Tate family. A documentary inspires a woman to believe unquestioningly in a convicted murderer's innocence, eventually establishing a written correspondence with him and falling deeply in love. And finally, a young misfit asserts her inherent superiority over others online, growing an admiration for the Columbine shooters and planning her own massacre with her Internet boyfriend.
At the heart of each of these stories is the powerful throbbing of obsession. It drives each of their actions, but to very different ends. This theme touches nearly every talking point, challenging readers to rethink their own mental image of fixation. Merely hearing the word “obsessed” within a crime story causes images of dark figures, swaying ominously outside artificially-lit rooms, to creep into vision. When really, the emotion wears drastically different masks and each of these women have their own style of it. While the reader may be able to be critical of some of the actions of these four, complete condemnation will be challenging. These ladies may have fallen down their own rabbit holes, but so have the crime obsessed media-bingers among us.
The author is far from a judgmental outsider. She doesn't attempt to pretend she's peering into the fishbowl: she's a crime junkie herself and, like many others, can't help but wonder if society is correct in thinking that ladies like herself, who find themselves absorbed by such dark material, must have something deeply corrupted inside. Interspersed throughout the book's compelling true stories are our author's descriptions of her own history with the genre and her connections to the same archetypes she's outlining. It allows a steadfast vein of relatability to run through the entire work, especially as Monroe describes her own bizarre experience at Oxygen Network's three-day crime dramatization spree, CrimeCon, during which she never seems to know if she is actually enjoying herself:
I wasn't sure how to feel about CrimeCon – or this so-called true crime boom. Being surrounded by other people who shared my most morbid interests should've made me feel at home. Instead, it made me uneasy for reasons I couldn't put my finger on.
It's this internal contradiction that fuels the central discussion. Slowly and quietly through this book, Monroe ruminates about what might motivate today's women to consume such a media diet. As an attempt to explain the fervor for the horror, a whole array of theories are spread out, buffet-style for the reader. Is it a woman's flair for the dramatic that draws her into a scandal? Does she get an emotional high off of the aching empathy she has for the victims? Is she trying to learn by example how best to avoid being the victim of such a crime? Perhaps the compulsion to consume these crime stories isn't any one of these things, but something unique for every individual. Could it be that, similar to the way that psychologists argue that adult romantic relationships are the arena in which we seek to resolve lingering traumas from childhood, crime stories are a way to help define our own roles within society?
Regardless of which explanation for these violent crime story obsessions will seem most plausible to the reader, the book thoroughly entertains. Monroe is the perfect guide through these well-researched stories, using personal experiences, psychological insights, and historical context to direct us. True crime fans, guilty pleasure and unapologetic readers alike will want to dive into this book to try to determine what inspires their own love of the genre. In an enormously satisfying way, this book has just the right recipe to become the crime fanatic's newest obsession.
and the below review first appeared on Open Letters Review:
In early 2017, the American cable television network Oxygen officially rebranded and started featuring almost exclusively true crime programming. The channel had always been directed toward women, but network executives noticed that the lifestyle shows they were airing weren't connecting with a viewership who was busy inhaling increasing amounts of crime stories through movies, podcasts, and books. Their ideal audience had caught the crime bug, and they figured it was time they got a piece of that action.
The choice to change lanes with their brand was clearly a financial one as they chased on the heels of the true crime trend, but they showed little interest in precisely why this type of content was resonating so deeply with today's women. That question may not have intrigued the Oxygen network, but it went on to inspire journalist Rachel Monroe to tackle the mystery of the appeal of mysteries in her new book Savage Appetites: Four True Stories of Women, Crime, and Obsession.
Monroe unfolds the true crime enigma like a map, which she divides into four quadrants. In each of these, she describes a female archetype connected to a crime: the detective digging into the details of a case, the victim's loved one yearning for resolution, a tireless advocate defending the wrongly accused, and salaciously, even the killer plotting their hateful crime. She uses a true story to embody each of these four roles, immediately scratching the reader's probable itch for crime drama, even when it's within a book that is itself a larger discussion of exactly these kinds of stories.
The women chosen to be under the spotlight in this book don't have any blood on their own hands, yet crime shapes a part of each of their identities. A crime scene miniaturist insists on being involved in improving a police force, although perfectionism gets under the skin of many, including the first FBI director J. Edgar Hoover. A former tenant of the guest house adjacent to the location of the Sharon Tate murders becomes so enraptured by the case that she elbows her way into a relationship with the Tate family. A documentary inspires a woman to believe unquestioningly in a convicted murderer's innocence, eventually establishing a written correspondence with him and falling deeply in love. And finally, a young misfit asserts her inherent superiority over others online, growing an admiration for the Columbine shooters and planning her own massacre with her Internet boyfriend.
At the heart of each of these stories is the powerful throbbing of obsession. It drives each of their actions, but to very different ends. This theme touches nearly every talking point, challenging readers to rethink their own mental image of fixation. Merely hearing the word “obsessed” within a crime story causes images of dark figures, swaying ominously outside artificially-lit rooms, to creep into vision. When really, the emotion wears drastically different masks and each of these women have their own style of it. While the reader may be able to be critical of some of the actions of these four, complete condemnation will be challenging. These ladies may have fallen down their own rabbit holes, but so have the crime obsessed media-bingers among us.
The author is far from a judgmental outsider. She doesn't attempt to pretend she's peering into the fishbowl: she's a crime junkie herself and, like many others, can't help but wonder if society is correct in thinking that ladies like herself, who find themselves absorbed by such dark material, must have something deeply corrupted inside. Interspersed throughout the book's compelling true stories are our author's descriptions of her own history with the genre and her connections to the same archetypes she's outlining. It allows a steadfast vein of relatability to run through the entire work, especially as Monroe describes her own bizarre experience at Oxygen Network's three-day crime dramatization spree, CrimeCon, during which she never seems to know if she is actually enjoying herself:
I wasn't sure how to feel about CrimeCon – or this so-called true crime boom. Being surrounded by other people who shared my most morbid interests should've made me feel at home. Instead, it made me uneasy for reasons I couldn't put my finger on.
It's this internal contradiction that fuels the central discussion. Slowly and quietly through this book, Monroe ruminates about what might motivate today's women to consume such a media diet. As an attempt to explain the fervor for the horror, a whole array of theories are spread out, buffet-style for the reader. Is it a woman's flair for the dramatic that draws her into a scandal? Does she get an emotional high off of the aching empathy she has for the victims? Is she trying to learn by example how best to avoid being the victim of such a crime? Perhaps the compulsion to consume these crime stories isn't any one of these things, but something unique for every individual. Could it be that, similar to the way that psychologists argue that adult romantic relationships are the arena in which we seek to resolve lingering traumas from childhood, crime stories are a way to help define our own roles within society?
Regardless of which explanation for these violent crime story obsessions will seem most plausible to the reader, the book thoroughly entertains. Monroe is the perfect guide through these well-researched stories, using personal experiences, psychological insights, and historical context to direct us. True crime fans, guilty pleasure and unapologetic readers alike will want to dive into this book to try to determine what inspires their own love of the genre. In an enormously satisfying way, this book has just the right recipe to become the crime fanatic's newest obsession.
August 3, 2019
My standard procedure is not to give star ratings to books I don't finish, but I'm so annoyed by this book that I'm doing it anyway. Savage Appetites is a convoluted mess of a "true crime" book. The synopsis of this book sounds amazing, which is what drew me to it.
However, the back of the book says that it's a combination of personal narrative, reportage, and a sociological examination of violence and media. What this really means is that this book is a combination of judgmental opinions that would be better off on Twitter, the true crime stories, and a grad school thesis someone decided should be published.
The beginning of the book opens at CrimeCon, and I personally attended the same one the author was at. Yeah, fine, we're weirdos, but the intro makes it sound like the author didn't even want to go since it made her uncomfortable. The author has to let everyone know that she didn't post on social media with the CrimeCon hashtag; I guess so they we'll know she's not like "other girls" 🙄. She continues on to talk about different people she met, and then the different options of activities she wasn't interested in. Maybe I took it too personally because I was there, but it just seems strange to use the introduction of your book to alienate the exact people who will probably be reading it.
Then we go into the first (and my final) story in which the author gives her unsolicited negative opinions the women she's telling the story about. The women spend their time making morbid dioramas / dollhouses. She talks about their lack of ambition, lack of control, etc. Maybe these judgments are true, but I don't really feel like I need to be told that by a "true crime" book. There's also some judgment about how these women spend their money, and they're put in juxtaposition to women who are becoming cops. Just stop. Women can do different things. The author also lets us know that she used to want to be a cop, so once again we learn that the author is not like "other girls". I don't read true crime to hear someone's shitty opinion. I read true crime to hear a story and learn something, and Savage Appetites does not provide that.
However, the back of the book says that it's a combination of personal narrative, reportage, and a sociological examination of violence and media. What this really means is that this book is a combination of judgmental opinions that would be better off on Twitter, the true crime stories, and a grad school thesis someone decided should be published.
The beginning of the book opens at CrimeCon, and I personally attended the same one the author was at. Yeah, fine, we're weirdos, but the intro makes it sound like the author didn't even want to go since it made her uncomfortable. The author has to let everyone know that she didn't post on social media with the CrimeCon hashtag; I guess so they we'll know she's not like "other girls" 🙄. She continues on to talk about different people she met, and then the different options of activities she wasn't interested in. Maybe I took it too personally because I was there, but it just seems strange to use the introduction of your book to alienate the exact people who will probably be reading it.
Then we go into the first (and my final) story in which the author gives her unsolicited negative opinions the women she's telling the story about. The women spend their time making morbid dioramas / dollhouses. She talks about their lack of ambition, lack of control, etc. Maybe these judgments are true, but I don't really feel like I need to be told that by a "true crime" book. There's also some judgment about how these women spend their money, and they're put in juxtaposition to women who are becoming cops. Just stop. Women can do different things. The author also lets us know that she used to want to be a cop, so once again we learn that the author is not like "other girls". I don't read true crime to hear someone's shitty opinion. I read true crime to hear a story and learn something, and Savage Appetites does not provide that.
July 6, 2021
I thought this was fantastic. More of a “why do women love true crime so much?” and four stories of women and their obsession, as opposed to a straight up true crime book. Unique!
October 11, 2021
4.5 stars - I've found myself thinking about this book days after I finished it, so I've bumped this from 4 stars to 4.5. I really like the case study approach this author takes to trying to explore the question of women's fascination with true crime. She explores four different women in roles of the detective, the victim, the defender, and the killer, and ultimately allows the reader to draw a lot of their own conclusions from the different stories that she wove together. All in all, very thought provoking and a nice relief from the sort of hand wringing we often get on this topic
August 25, 2019
This book is predicated on lies and a complete failure of any moral compass.
The *true* story behind Alisa Statman's relationship with Patti Tate was never told in Monroe's book. They were domestic partners. Not roommates, not friends, not acquaintances. Statman did not 'entwine' herself or 'worm her way' into the Tate family. She fell in love with Patti and Patti fell in love with her. End of file. There was no ulterior motive, no 'obsession' with the murders, no untoward reasons for their relationship whatsoever. It was a love story, nothing more. Why Monroe fails to acknowledge this fact is a question that should be pondered by all readers.
Monroe asserts that Alisa and Patti's relationship was forged solely on an obsession with the murder of Sharon Tate. This despicable assertion translates into the idea that Patti Tate, Doris Tate, PJ Tate and Patti's children must have been incredibly daft to accept and love Alisa as part of their family, which they did. Think about that. This family, who endured the shattering of their private lives in a public forum, a man who spent his life as a military intelligence officer, a woman, who through her tenacity and unending work forged new laws in the arena of victim's rights, a sister who took that helm in the wake of her mother's death--all of them somehow fell for a ruse? If you believe that, I have a bridge to sell you. Not only is that conclusion disgusting, it is indefensible by Doris, Patti and PJ since they are no longer with us and have no voice to push back. So, I'm doing it for all of them.
Second, Monroe lumps all of the women from true crime events into one broad-brush category of obsessives instead of realizing that the vast majority of them are valuable resources with different eyes who may see something that we detectives (yes, I am one) might have missed. Armchair detectives such as these attendees view crimes with an open mind and might reveal new evidence through their clear lenses. We appreciate their work and will listen to their ideas, unlike Monroe, who doesn't have the gumption to follow her own "dream" of actually becoming a detective and doing the work it entails. Instead, she finds satisfaction in slamming people whom she deems 'obsessive' without shining that same spotlight on herself and in her words, her own "comfort food" - the Manson case. Ask yourself why Monroe fails to delve into her own world of true crime obsession and drops the ball over and over again without giving readers the full view. It's because she is a coward, but that would have been a book worth reading.
Third, and full disclosure: I am Alisa Statman's wife. I was never interviewed for Monroe's book, even though the option was offered since Monroe alleged that she was writing about forensic science- my profession for nearly two decades. None of Alisa's friends or family were interviewed, either. I was present when Monroe's ruse of an "off-the-record interview" took place. Alisa graciously accepted, but Monroe lied about the subject, stating it would be about Doris and Patti Tate and their work in the victim's rights arena. Instead, Monroe made herself a nosy parker and only asked questions about how Alisa and Patti met and then asked questions about Patti's sister Debra. After ten minutes and numerous requests by Alisa to talk about the original, alleged subject of victim's rights that went unheard and unaddressed ("Yeah, yeah, we'll get to that in a minute," Monroe said), Alisa hung up on her. Take that to the bank.
It has since been discovered that Monroe has been stalking Statman on several blog sites since 2012, and has attempted to get people to divulge information about her from outside sources that do not know Statman or her story. Journalism? No. A journalist would have contacted those who know the subjects best to find the truth, but Monroe doesn't care about facts. She just trolled the internet for false information to back up her preconceived notions. There were plenty of friends and family that Monroe could have contacted about Alisa and Patti to tell the true story, but none were ever called. I wonder why? Why didn't Monroe contact Patti's children? There's an unbiased source for you. Think about it.
Just remember that Monroe has zero experience in the arena of true crime. As a retired detective with over 20,000 cases and 500 death investigations under my belt (and a 99% clearance rate, by the way), I am appalled that this book was ever published, and at the subjectivity with which it is presented. True crime is not based on opinion and a vendetta, but that's what you're getting here. If you want to know about true crime, ask me, but I hope you've got a hell of a lot of time on your hands.
The *true* story behind Alisa Statman's relationship with Patti Tate was never told in Monroe's book. They were domestic partners. Not roommates, not friends, not acquaintances. Statman did not 'entwine' herself or 'worm her way' into the Tate family. She fell in love with Patti and Patti fell in love with her. End of file. There was no ulterior motive, no 'obsession' with the murders, no untoward reasons for their relationship whatsoever. It was a love story, nothing more. Why Monroe fails to acknowledge this fact is a question that should be pondered by all readers.
Monroe asserts that Alisa and Patti's relationship was forged solely on an obsession with the murder of Sharon Tate. This despicable assertion translates into the idea that Patti Tate, Doris Tate, PJ Tate and Patti's children must have been incredibly daft to accept and love Alisa as part of their family, which they did. Think about that. This family, who endured the shattering of their private lives in a public forum, a man who spent his life as a military intelligence officer, a woman, who through her tenacity and unending work forged new laws in the arena of victim's rights, a sister who took that helm in the wake of her mother's death--all of them somehow fell for a ruse? If you believe that, I have a bridge to sell you. Not only is that conclusion disgusting, it is indefensible by Doris, Patti and PJ since they are no longer with us and have no voice to push back. So, I'm doing it for all of them.
Second, Monroe lumps all of the women from true crime events into one broad-brush category of obsessives instead of realizing that the vast majority of them are valuable resources with different eyes who may see something that we detectives (yes, I am one) might have missed. Armchair detectives such as these attendees view crimes with an open mind and might reveal new evidence through their clear lenses. We appreciate their work and will listen to their ideas, unlike Monroe, who doesn't have the gumption to follow her own "dream" of actually becoming a detective and doing the work it entails. Instead, she finds satisfaction in slamming people whom she deems 'obsessive' without shining that same spotlight on herself and in her words, her own "comfort food" - the Manson case. Ask yourself why Monroe fails to delve into her own world of true crime obsession and drops the ball over and over again without giving readers the full view. It's because she is a coward, but that would have been a book worth reading.
Third, and full disclosure: I am Alisa Statman's wife. I was never interviewed for Monroe's book, even though the option was offered since Monroe alleged that she was writing about forensic science- my profession for nearly two decades. None of Alisa's friends or family were interviewed, either. I was present when Monroe's ruse of an "off-the-record interview" took place. Alisa graciously accepted, but Monroe lied about the subject, stating it would be about Doris and Patti Tate and their work in the victim's rights arena. Instead, Monroe made herself a nosy parker and only asked questions about how Alisa and Patti met and then asked questions about Patti's sister Debra. After ten minutes and numerous requests by Alisa to talk about the original, alleged subject of victim's rights that went unheard and unaddressed ("Yeah, yeah, we'll get to that in a minute," Monroe said), Alisa hung up on her. Take that to the bank.
It has since been discovered that Monroe has been stalking Statman on several blog sites since 2012, and has attempted to get people to divulge information about her from outside sources that do not know Statman or her story. Journalism? No. A journalist would have contacted those who know the subjects best to find the truth, but Monroe doesn't care about facts. She just trolled the internet for false information to back up her preconceived notions. There were plenty of friends and family that Monroe could have contacted about Alisa and Patti to tell the true story, but none were ever called. I wonder why? Why didn't Monroe contact Patti's children? There's an unbiased source for you. Think about it.
Just remember that Monroe has zero experience in the arena of true crime. As a retired detective with over 20,000 cases and 500 death investigations under my belt (and a 99% clearance rate, by the way), I am appalled that this book was ever published, and at the subjectivity with which it is presented. True crime is not based on opinion and a vendetta, but that's what you're getting here. If you want to know about true crime, ask me, but I hope you've got a hell of a lot of time on your hands.
July 6, 2019
Rachel Monroe’s book delves into the issue of women and their obsession with true crime. As if that’s always a bad thing. This is basically divided into four sections relating four different cases the author examines as separate cases to consider as studies. I was already familiar with the one of the heiress in the 1940’s who came up with and then crafted a dozen miniaturized crime scenes called nutshells that were used for teaching what later became known as forensics. The second chapter is on a woman who years later, moved into the house where Sharon Tate and others were murdered. She has a thing for the murders and the Tate family in particular and spends her time trying to get to know everything there is to know about both. I remember reading the book she wrote after she eventually managed to get close to remaining family members after mother Doris Tate passed away. The third chapter is about a New York woman who becomes enmeshed with one of the West Memphis Three after seeing a video on it. After falling for one of them by mail, she devotes her life to trying to get him released from death row. And finally, the fourth chapter is about a young female who becomes infatuated with the Columbine school killers after reading all about their exploits online, and begins planning a shooting of her own.
This isn’t a typical true crime book, there is some discussion of the large number of women who are hooked on true crime vs. the small number of men. Then these four different kinds of examples and what they might mean. But it’s still all very interesting if you like the subject. I certainly had no complaints with it and was interested very much. Advance electronic review copy was provided by NetGalley, author Rachel Monroe, and the publisher.
My BookZone blog:
https://wordpress.com/post/bookblog20...
This isn’t a typical true crime book, there is some discussion of the large number of women who are hooked on true crime vs. the small number of men. Then these four different kinds of examples and what they might mean. But it’s still all very interesting if you like the subject. I certainly had no complaints with it and was interested very much. Advance electronic review copy was provided by NetGalley, author Rachel Monroe, and the publisher.
My BookZone blog:
https://wordpress.com/post/bookblog20...
August 7, 2019
This is one hot mess of a book.
The introduction reads like a bad article someone with an interest in true crime might dig up on the internet, read a little bit of, click elsewhere, and then forget entirely. By the time I made it to the last page (heaven help me, somehow I made it) it was more than eminently clear that whatever fascination the author might have originally held for true crime had soured. And with it, went whatever interesting magic this book might have held.
Here’s a thought: maybe don’t judge and alienate the people who will be interested in reading your book? I am all for a critical look at whatever the hell you want, and people are more than entitled to their own opinions (as I sit here and type mine out), but the descriptions of the people attending CrimeCon in the first and last section of this book felt savagely judgmental to me. The author’s ire is also focused mainly at women (problematic to say the least!) and she doesn’t really explore the reasons behind the fascination with crime. That’s the book I want to read.
Look. Is there an issue with romanticizing serial killers and exploiting real people’s trauma and loss for the sake of entertainment? Yes, I think there definitely is. And it’s definitely something to keep in mind before you buy that shirt with Gacy’s face on it. But I also think it’s OK to be interested, to want to explore the details, to want to know why. It’s part of the human condition to face death, and to do it head-on is kind of badass. If we can just know what happened to JonBenet or see what makes someone like Dahmer tick, then maybe, just maybe . . . everything else that’s exploding around us won’t seem so out of control. Who knows. Isn’t it worth a try?
The book goes on to explore four different perspectives(?) of crime by looking at a few high-profile cases and crime related personalities. I am definitely well-versed in crime, but I have to say that all of the stories chosen for the book have been covered so extensively that I felt the author didn’t really have anything interesting or new to add. In each chapter, there were also some random memoir-y stuff that felt extremely out of place.
This structure just felt so hodge-podge to me. None of the ideas from chapter to chapter strung together. The book felt like it needed a strong developmental edit. I would have been more interested if it have focused on one of the four chapters more fully, or incorporated a bunch of vignettes on each chapter instead of just one.
The book also ends on such a sour note, it just put me off the whole thing. Even if it had some interesting ideas here and there, it comes down so negatively on the whole idea, the whole field of true crime, that I’m left wondering why the author even wrote the book at all. Doesn’t she know who the book is going to be marketed to?
My thanks to Scribner Books for my copy of this one to read and review.
The introduction reads like a bad article someone with an interest in true crime might dig up on the internet, read a little bit of, click elsewhere, and then forget entirely. By the time I made it to the last page (heaven help me, somehow I made it) it was more than eminently clear that whatever fascination the author might have originally held for true crime had soured. And with it, went whatever interesting magic this book might have held.
Here’s a thought: maybe don’t judge and alienate the people who will be interested in reading your book? I am all for a critical look at whatever the hell you want, and people are more than entitled to their own opinions (as I sit here and type mine out), but the descriptions of the people attending CrimeCon in the first and last section of this book felt savagely judgmental to me. The author’s ire is also focused mainly at women (problematic to say the least!) and she doesn’t really explore the reasons behind the fascination with crime. That’s the book I want to read.
Look. Is there an issue with romanticizing serial killers and exploiting real people’s trauma and loss for the sake of entertainment? Yes, I think there definitely is. And it’s definitely something to keep in mind before you buy that shirt with Gacy’s face on it. But I also think it’s OK to be interested, to want to explore the details, to want to know why. It’s part of the human condition to face death, and to do it head-on is kind of badass. If we can just know what happened to JonBenet or see what makes someone like Dahmer tick, then maybe, just maybe . . . everything else that’s exploding around us won’t seem so out of control. Who knows. Isn’t it worth a try?
The book goes on to explore four different perspectives(?) of crime by looking at a few high-profile cases and crime related personalities. I am definitely well-versed in crime, but I have to say that all of the stories chosen for the book have been covered so extensively that I felt the author didn’t really have anything interesting or new to add. In each chapter, there were also some random memoir-y stuff that felt extremely out of place.
This structure just felt so hodge-podge to me. None of the ideas from chapter to chapter strung together. The book felt like it needed a strong developmental edit. I would have been more interested if it have focused on one of the four chapters more fully, or incorporated a bunch of vignettes on each chapter instead of just one.
The book also ends on such a sour note, it just put me off the whole thing. Even if it had some interesting ideas here and there, it comes down so negatively on the whole idea, the whole field of true crime, that I’m left wondering why the author even wrote the book at all. Doesn’t she know who the book is going to be marketed to?
My thanks to Scribner Books for my copy of this one to read and review.
July 15, 2019
3.5 stars
Our society has become obsessed with true crime. Podcasts, books, TV shows, websites, and TV channels devote hours to discussing crimes. Statistically speaking, it's women who are fueling this obsession. The overwhelming majority of true crime readers and true crime podcast listeners are female. According to Monroe, forensic science is one of the fastest growing college majors and seven in ten of those students are female.
Rachel Monroe has chosen four stories to discuss the history of forensics and the true-crime obsessed while also analyzing her own fascination with the genre and its effect on her life.
"The four women in this book were encouraged to lead small lives or to keep parts of themselves hidden; becoming entwined with a famous crime enlarged their worlds and allowed them to express thing they couldn't otherwise voice." *
Savage Appetites divides four stories into chapters, including: The Detective, The Victim, The Defender, and The Killer.
The Detective tells readers the story of Frances Glessner Lee, a wealthy heiress who used her time and money to create Nutshells---painstakingly detailed miniatures of crime scenes that were used as training tools for law enforcement. Lee was an unlikely detective whose obsession with crime was tolerated because of her wealth.
The Victim follows the bizarre story of life for actress Sharon Tate's family after her death at the hands of the Manson Family. Tate's younger sister Patti eventually became the family spokesperson after her mother's death with the support of Alisa Statman.
In 1990, Statman moved into the Beverly Hills guesthouse on the property where Sharon Tate and her friends were murdered. Statman claims she only became interested in the history of Sharon Tate after she moved in and helped writer Bill Nelson with some research. Either way, she eventually became close with Patti and continued to raise Patti's children and speak for the family after her death.
The Defender explores the relationship between Lorri Davis and death row inmate Damien Echols, one of the "West Memphis Three" accused of murdering three eight-year-old boys in Arkansas. Lorri and Damien became acquainted through letters after Lorri watched a documentary about the murders and believed Damien to be innocent. She quickly became fixated on the case and began a romantic relationship with him. Lorri left a successful life in NYC to move closer to Damien. The couple married and Lorri devoted all of her time to the case.
The West Memphis Three gained the support of several celebrities who funded further investigation that could lead to new evidence that would allow for a new trial and all three men were eventually released from prison.
The Killer details the progression of an online chat between Lindsay Souvannarath and her friend James who both shared an obsession with Columbine shooters Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold. The pair eventually begin planning to open fire at a mall in Nova Scotia but an anonymous tip prevents them from carrying out their plan. Many people believe their discussion was mostly bravado and the young couple would never have actually opened fire but there was certainly intent since Lindsay boarded the plane to Nova Scotia to meet James.
I found all four of these stories to be fascinating and enjoyed the discussion and structure of the book. All four women are vastly different and that's why the stories work so well together.
"The more time I spent with their stories, the more I realized that there wasn't a simple, universal answer to why women were fascinated by true crime---because "woman" is not a simple, universal catergory. Obsession was a recurring theme in their lives, but that obsession wasn't monolithic. It stemmed from different motivations, had different objects and different implications." *
Savage Appetites is four true crime stories that explore obsession and motivation in relation to women who gravitate to the subject.
I recommend it for readers who enjoy true crime and sociology.
Thanks to Scribner and NetGalley for providing me with an ARC in exchange for my honest review. Savage Appetites: Four True Stories of Women, Crime, and Obsession is scheduled for release on August 20, 2019.
*Quotes included are from a digital advanced reader's copy and are subject to change upon final publication.
For more reviews, visit www.rootsandreads.wordpress.com
Our society has become obsessed with true crime. Podcasts, books, TV shows, websites, and TV channels devote hours to discussing crimes. Statistically speaking, it's women who are fueling this obsession. The overwhelming majority of true crime readers and true crime podcast listeners are female. According to Monroe, forensic science is one of the fastest growing college majors and seven in ten of those students are female.
Rachel Monroe has chosen four stories to discuss the history of forensics and the true-crime obsessed while also analyzing her own fascination with the genre and its effect on her life.
"The four women in this book were encouraged to lead small lives or to keep parts of themselves hidden; becoming entwined with a famous crime enlarged their worlds and allowed them to express thing they couldn't otherwise voice." *
Savage Appetites divides four stories into chapters, including: The Detective, The Victim, The Defender, and The Killer.
The Detective tells readers the story of Frances Glessner Lee, a wealthy heiress who used her time and money to create Nutshells---painstakingly detailed miniatures of crime scenes that were used as training tools for law enforcement. Lee was an unlikely detective whose obsession with crime was tolerated because of her wealth.
The Victim follows the bizarre story of life for actress Sharon Tate's family after her death at the hands of the Manson Family. Tate's younger sister Patti eventually became the family spokesperson after her mother's death with the support of Alisa Statman.
In 1990, Statman moved into the Beverly Hills guesthouse on the property where Sharon Tate and her friends were murdered. Statman claims she only became interested in the history of Sharon Tate after she moved in and helped writer Bill Nelson with some research. Either way, she eventually became close with Patti and continued to raise Patti's children and speak for the family after her death.
The Defender explores the relationship between Lorri Davis and death row inmate Damien Echols, one of the "West Memphis Three" accused of murdering three eight-year-old boys in Arkansas. Lorri and Damien became acquainted through letters after Lorri watched a documentary about the murders and believed Damien to be innocent. She quickly became fixated on the case and began a romantic relationship with him. Lorri left a successful life in NYC to move closer to Damien. The couple married and Lorri devoted all of her time to the case.
The West Memphis Three gained the support of several celebrities who funded further investigation that could lead to new evidence that would allow for a new trial and all three men were eventually released from prison.
The Killer details the progression of an online chat between Lindsay Souvannarath and her friend James who both shared an obsession with Columbine shooters Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold. The pair eventually begin planning to open fire at a mall in Nova Scotia but an anonymous tip prevents them from carrying out their plan. Many people believe their discussion was mostly bravado and the young couple would never have actually opened fire but there was certainly intent since Lindsay boarded the plane to Nova Scotia to meet James.
I found all four of these stories to be fascinating and enjoyed the discussion and structure of the book. All four women are vastly different and that's why the stories work so well together.
"The more time I spent with their stories, the more I realized that there wasn't a simple, universal answer to why women were fascinated by true crime---because "woman" is not a simple, universal catergory. Obsession was a recurring theme in their lives, but that obsession wasn't monolithic. It stemmed from different motivations, had different objects and different implications." *
Savage Appetites is four true crime stories that explore obsession and motivation in relation to women who gravitate to the subject.
I recommend it for readers who enjoy true crime and sociology.
Thanks to Scribner and NetGalley for providing me with an ARC in exchange for my honest review. Savage Appetites: Four True Stories of Women, Crime, and Obsession is scheduled for release on August 20, 2019.
*Quotes included are from a digital advanced reader's copy and are subject to change upon final publication.
For more reviews, visit www.rootsandreads.wordpress.com
January 31, 2021
Rachel Monroe writes so wonderfully and fluidly; I sat down to read a bit of this on my lunch hour and had made my way through a full third of the book before I knew it. Savage Appetites is composed of, as the subtitle says, ‘true stories of women, crime, and obsession’ – it’s not a true crime book per se, though naturally it often strays into that territory. The four main chapters study ‘women who were drawn in by crimes... that didn’t impact them directly, but to which they nevertheless felt a deep connection’, each of whom represent an ‘archetypal crime figure’.
The first, ‘The Detective’, is a short biography of Frances Glessner Lee, who from the 1940s onwards significantly influenced the field of forensic science with her ‘Nutshells’, intricately crafted dioramas depicting crime scenes. ‘The Victim’ follows Alisa Statman, who moved into 10050 Cielo Drive – the site of the most notorious Manson Family murders – and later become closely involved with Sharon Tate’s family. ‘The Defender’ is about Lorri Davis, who corresponded with, eventually married, and helped exonerate Damien Echols, one of the West Memphis Three. ‘The Killer’ profiles Lindsay Souvannarath, a lonely teenage girl who idolised the Columbine shooters and, along with her online boyfriend, planned a copycat crime.
Certainly, some of the stories are more compelling than others. (The weakest is ‘The Victim’, as the story surrounding Statman seems a bit murky, with a lot of competing theories from those involved.) What kept me turning the pages was Monroe’s style. At every level, her writing is masterful. She knows exactly when to switch topics or drop in a bit of personal history. She is great not just on crime, or on her subjects’ obsessions, but on anything that comes up as part of these stories, for example when discussing the power and meaning of teenage infatuations: ‘a crush is a way to take up space, and to make something about yourself known to the world.’
At one point, Monroe writes of her annoyance at people’s assumptions about her book: ‘this was always what they thought I meant: serial killer groupies, prison weddings, Manson penpals. It got on my nerves.’ I felt a bit guilty: this was, in fact, exactly what had made me want to read it; in particular, I find serial killer fandoms absolutely fascinating. It’s a credit to Monroe’s skill that I found the story of Glessner Lee just as engaging as that of Souvannarath. I came away from Savage Appetites thinking, I will read anything this person puts her name to. I was disappointed to find, on eagerly looking it up, that this is her only book so far – though there are lots of articles to get stuck into.
TinyLetter | Linktree
The first, ‘The Detective’, is a short biography of Frances Glessner Lee, who from the 1940s onwards significantly influenced the field of forensic science with her ‘Nutshells’, intricately crafted dioramas depicting crime scenes. ‘The Victim’ follows Alisa Statman, who moved into 10050 Cielo Drive – the site of the most notorious Manson Family murders – and later become closely involved with Sharon Tate’s family. ‘The Defender’ is about Lorri Davis, who corresponded with, eventually married, and helped exonerate Damien Echols, one of the West Memphis Three. ‘The Killer’ profiles Lindsay Souvannarath, a lonely teenage girl who idolised the Columbine shooters and, along with her online boyfriend, planned a copycat crime.
Certainly, some of the stories are more compelling than others. (The weakest is ‘The Victim’, as the story surrounding Statman seems a bit murky, with a lot of competing theories from those involved.) What kept me turning the pages was Monroe’s style. At every level, her writing is masterful. She knows exactly when to switch topics or drop in a bit of personal history. She is great not just on crime, or on her subjects’ obsessions, but on anything that comes up as part of these stories, for example when discussing the power and meaning of teenage infatuations: ‘a crush is a way to take up space, and to make something about yourself known to the world.’
At one point, Monroe writes of her annoyance at people’s assumptions about her book: ‘this was always what they thought I meant: serial killer groupies, prison weddings, Manson penpals. It got on my nerves.’ I felt a bit guilty: this was, in fact, exactly what had made me want to read it; in particular, I find serial killer fandoms absolutely fascinating. It’s a credit to Monroe’s skill that I found the story of Glessner Lee just as engaging as that of Souvannarath. I came away from Savage Appetites thinking, I will read anything this person puts her name to. I was disappointed to find, on eagerly looking it up, that this is her only book so far – though there are lots of articles to get stuck into.
TinyLetter | Linktree
April 3, 2019
If I could give this book 6 stars, I would--it is the book I have been waiting to read all my life <3
Monroe asks the questions about gender, sex, power, violence, and technology that I have long been asking and gives the most satisfying answers I've yet read. Her prose is stylish and urgent and I flew through this in a night and a morning. It is not trying to be a true crime book but rather meta true crime, more analytic than narrative. For those looking for such a text you won't be disappointed
Monroe asks the questions about gender, sex, power, violence, and technology that I have long been asking and gives the most satisfying answers I've yet read. Her prose is stylish and urgent and I flew through this in a night and a morning. It is not trying to be a true crime book but rather meta true crime, more analytic than narrative. For those looking for such a text you won't be disappointed
February 6, 2020
I was surprised by how much I liked this book. It’s not what I thought. The author smartly uses known true crime to share a commentary on women, crime, and obsession. So much to talk about here.
August 31, 2019
If you slug through the meandering structurelessness of this book you will find some interesting stories. However, they are so coated in the author’s meaningless personal anecdotes, over exposition of well know cultural events and judgment of the audience she is writing about (which includes herself) - that they are hard to find. Additionally, most of the interesting nuggets in here have already been covered many times over by reporters more talented than her.
I think this author was a lover of true crime who set out to write a true crime book then got a little sick to her stomach about the glamorization of serial killers so tried to make some sort of anti-true crime thing. She did not succeed. The book says nothing. It feels like a book that any one of the true crime loving women in my life could write better.
Why are people interested in crime? Why are women very interested in crime? Is it damaging to society to be interested in crime? These are all questions the book pretends it’s trying to answer.
And while she inserts SO much of herself into the book, none of it was vulnerable or unique or important in any way. It was so impersonal. This must be how she is as an interviewer too because apparently she only interviewed two out of the three living subjects and I couldn’t tell which was which because her writing contained nothing I couldn’t look up myself. It felt like she condensed a few nights of frantic Wikipedia-ing into a book. Which wasn’t utterly terrible to read, it just wasn’t important either.
I think this author was a lover of true crime who set out to write a true crime book then got a little sick to her stomach about the glamorization of serial killers so tried to make some sort of anti-true crime thing. She did not succeed. The book says nothing. It feels like a book that any one of the true crime loving women in my life could write better.
Why are people interested in crime? Why are women very interested in crime? Is it damaging to society to be interested in crime? These are all questions the book pretends it’s trying to answer.
And while she inserts SO much of herself into the book, none of it was vulnerable or unique or important in any way. It was so impersonal. This must be how she is as an interviewer too because apparently she only interviewed two out of the three living subjects and I couldn’t tell which was which because her writing contained nothing I couldn’t look up myself. It felt like she condensed a few nights of frantic Wikipedia-ing into a book. Which wasn’t utterly terrible to read, it just wasn’t important either.
September 15, 2021
"Parts of ourselves long for these shadowy places, we'll discover things there we cant learn anywhere else.."
This book left me with alot to unpack, as far as how I feel about it.. It touches a bit on the darker side of when interest in true crime crosses that somewhat tenuous line into obsession. The last case titled, The Killer, was a particularly unsettling section to read. I do feel Munroe caught something here worth exploring, it's fascinating and at times disturbing.
This book left me with alot to unpack, as far as how I feel about it.. It touches a bit on the darker side of when interest in true crime crosses that somewhat tenuous line into obsession. The last case titled, The Killer, was a particularly unsettling section to read. I do feel Munroe caught something here worth exploring, it's fascinating and at times disturbing.
![Profile Image for laurel [the suspected bibliophile].](/_next/image?url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.gr-assets.com%2Fimages%2FS%2Fcompressed.photo.goodreads.com%2Fusers%2F1645808644i%2F7494844._UX200_CR0%2C6%2C200%2C200_.jpg&w=128&q=75)
December 20, 2022
The deep fascination for true crime has always been one that just skipped me. And I generally avoided true crime aficionados because it wasn't a topic that interested me?
Until I had a supervisor who was obsessed with true crime, which, okay, cool, you have a hobby. I knew that analyzing and consuming true crime media was what helped her make sense and feel safe in the world, but it was the combination of condescension (both to me and to the victims) and hyper-vigilance (she had never lived/worked in a city larger than 50k, and would tell me how dangerous the cities I had lived in were while discounting my lived experience) that had my spidey senses tingling.
Okay, so chalk it up to an asshole supervisor, but true crime was already on my shit list. But there was so much media featuring horrific murders, all obsessed over by white women. And the victims were predominantly white women. There's My Favorite Murder, make-up artist and true crime afficionado Bailey Sarian, and countless other true crime media being consumed and remade fresh and new by pairing murder with innocuous femininity.
Their fascination was fascinating to me.
Why were these white women so drawn to poring over and trying to solve the murders of other white women? Why dive so deep into the murder of white women, and shove away from the murders of marginalized peoples (which are more prominent and less publicized)? It it because of a shared identity of whiteness and womanhood, and the way we were raised with the constant message that we are always one step away from becoming a victim? It is a sense of voyeurism, a fascination with the grotesque and horrific that's produced in a such a way to become appropriately consumable? Is it a sense of noble sacrifice, of hunting for years to solve an unsolvable murder, making note of each tiny detail?
The obvious answer—if I know the mistakes the victim made then I myself won't become a victim—isn't so cut and dry, as Monroe makes clear. Also, that mindset is troubling, and, very wrong.
Anywho, to the book itself.
I read it because Monroe was a guest on my absolute favorite podcast, You're Wrong About, and I really liked how she discussed true crime and the way it's become a consumable product (as Sarah Marshall would say: it was capitalism all along!) marketed toward a specific set of the population (an interesting shift in the past few decades, as before it had been a market geared toward white men).
I felt that Monroe made a lot of very insightful notes and remarks. The writing is captivating, the overall chapter layout intriguing, although occasionally the chapters themselves got lost in the revolving plots and subplots (I want to know if anything ever happened to Detective Driver, the man who stalked a gothy teenager and who's obsessive fear of the satanic panic sent that kid and two others to jail for 18 years for murders they did not commit—although, I highly doubt anything ever did), it was good. I think I wanted more definitive this is why this is, but also, the world is not a monolith, and neither are the people who consume true crime media.
So I think my fascination with the people fascinated by true crime is the way of how true crime as a hobby/passion/interest has become commercialized and main-streamed. The same women who mocked me for drawing guns (tbf, the guns and swords and weapons were part of a story arc of my OCs that I doodled in the margins of my notes, always complete with the OCs and never alone, but still considered weird) and being a little off in middle/high school now flock to these podcasts and shows. Where once loving true crime and being fascinated with horrific death was taboo, it is normal. Acceptable, even.
But despite the normality and commercialization, true crime as a media is still incredibly filled with gate-keeping. The preponderance of murders being analyzed have white women as the victims, with white women as the consumers of said murder.
I don't know where I'm going with this review.
My thoughts remain all over the place, and while I still remain a little disturbed by the fact that the true crime genre exists in the way that it does, I am so fascinated by the women obsessed with it.
Until I had a supervisor who was obsessed with true crime, which, okay, cool, you have a hobby. I knew that analyzing and consuming true crime media was what helped her make sense and feel safe in the world, but it was the combination of condescension (both to me and to the victims) and hyper-vigilance (she had never lived/worked in a city larger than 50k, and would tell me how dangerous the cities I had lived in were while discounting my lived experience) that had my spidey senses tingling.
Okay, so chalk it up to an asshole supervisor, but true crime was already on my shit list. But there was so much media featuring horrific murders, all obsessed over by white women. And the victims were predominantly white women. There's My Favorite Murder, make-up artist and true crime afficionado Bailey Sarian, and countless other true crime media being consumed and remade fresh and new by pairing murder with innocuous femininity.
Their fascination was fascinating to me.
Why were these white women so drawn to poring over and trying to solve the murders of other white women? Why dive so deep into the murder of white women, and shove away from the murders of marginalized peoples (which are more prominent and less publicized)? It it because of a shared identity of whiteness and womanhood, and the way we were raised with the constant message that we are always one step away from becoming a victim? It is a sense of voyeurism, a fascination with the grotesque and horrific that's produced in a such a way to become appropriately consumable? Is it a sense of noble sacrifice, of hunting for years to solve an unsolvable murder, making note of each tiny detail?
The obvious answer—if I know the mistakes the victim made then I myself won't become a victim—isn't so cut and dry, as Monroe makes clear. Also, that mindset is troubling, and, very wrong.
Anywho, to the book itself.
I read it because Monroe was a guest on my absolute favorite podcast, You're Wrong About, and I really liked how she discussed true crime and the way it's become a consumable product (as Sarah Marshall would say: it was capitalism all along!) marketed toward a specific set of the population (an interesting shift in the past few decades, as before it had been a market geared toward white men).
I felt that Monroe made a lot of very insightful notes and remarks. The writing is captivating, the overall chapter layout intriguing, although occasionally the chapters themselves got lost in the revolving plots and subplots (I want to know if anything ever happened to Detective Driver, the man who stalked a gothy teenager and who's obsessive fear of the satanic panic sent that kid and two others to jail for 18 years for murders they did not commit—although, I highly doubt anything ever did), it was good. I think I wanted more definitive this is why this is, but also, the world is not a monolith, and neither are the people who consume true crime media.
So I think my fascination with the people fascinated by true crime is the way of how true crime as a hobby/passion/interest has become commercialized and main-streamed. The same women who mocked me for drawing guns (tbf, the guns and swords and weapons were part of a story arc of my OCs that I doodled in the margins of my notes, always complete with the OCs and never alone, but still considered weird) and being a little off in middle/high school now flock to these podcasts and shows. Where once loving true crime and being fascinated with horrific death was taboo, it is normal. Acceptable, even.
But despite the normality and commercialization, true crime as a media is still incredibly filled with gate-keeping. The preponderance of murders being analyzed have white women as the victims, with white women as the consumers of said murder.
I don't know where I'm going with this review.
My thoughts remain all over the place, and while I still remain a little disturbed by the fact that the true crime genre exists in the way that it does, I am so fascinated by the women obsessed with it.
August 25, 2019
This book is not what I thought it was going to be. I thought I’d get the stories of four different women and their different levels of crime obsession. What I got was something that read like a college essay with snarky tweets interspersed throughout. I think the initial question the books poses, why are women so crazy about true crime, really is something to ask yourself. But I found the authors voice to be very critical of those who love true crime even though she herself likes it.
This is not a typical true crime book and I think it’s being wrongly marketed as such. I think there’s a very certain type of person who would love this book, I’m just not one of them. I don’t mind hearing your opinion and I’ll respect it, but please don’t shove it down my throat. This book somehow managed to both not be about true crime and also disrespected other beliefs and opinions.
Overall would not recommend, this is an opinion piece disguised as a true crime book.
This is not a typical true crime book and I think it’s being wrongly marketed as such. I think there’s a very certain type of person who would love this book, I’m just not one of them. I don’t mind hearing your opinion and I’ll respect it, but please don’t shove it down my throat. This book somehow managed to both not be about true crime and also disrespected other beliefs and opinions.
Overall would not recommend, this is an opinion piece disguised as a true crime book.
July 16, 2019
While definitely interesting, this wasn’t what I expected when I went into it. This reads as a part-memoir, part-biography of women who obsessed over crime. This will appeal to the niche of true crime lovers who are fascinated by those who take their devotion a step further.
I received an advanced copy through Netgalley in return for an honest review.
I received an advanced copy through Netgalley in return for an honest review.
November 18, 2022
so so good. really entertaining while still being insightful and informative. it's actually refreshing to read nonfiction that isn't memoir about women that isn't patronizing or artificially lionizing. the book uses stories of specific women and their relationships to crime to interrogate cultural myths about gender, fear, and fascination with death. if you read some amount of news about the criminal justice system, many of her points (i.e. forensic evidence is not very accurate, actually) will not be new but the writing is fresh and her perspective is interesting.
September 9, 2023
not the best true crime I've ever read/listened to by any means, but it had good commentary overall on being a female victim & there were a handful of brutal moments that made me wince. it's definitely nottt the writing style that makes the stories stick though.
July 19, 2023
”The murder stories we tell, and the ways they tell them, have a political and social impact and are worth taking seriously. Lessons are embedded within their gory details. When read closely, they can reveal the anxieties of the moment, tell us who’s allowed to be a victim, and teach us what our monsters are supposed to look like.”
Do you remember the first true crime case that got you hooked? I do.
I was eight years old, and two cases were happening simultaneously that caught the attention of people nationwide and internationally. The first was the case of Laci Peterson, a woman who disappeared on Christmas Eve while walking her dog. She was eight months pregnant with a baby boy. Her body and the body of her unborn son were later found in the San Francisco Bay area, and her husband, Scott, was eventually tried and convicted of their murders. He was sentenced to death. The second was the case of Vincent Brothers, a highly respected principal of an elementary school who murdered his wife, their three children, and mother-in-law. He, like Scott Peterson, was also sentenced to death.
One within the state I live in; one locally. These two cases happened around the same time, and I remember every day for about six months straight whenever my family turned on the 5:00 news, those were the first two stories that popped up. And with those two stories came the breathless reporting and the endless news reel of images that I can still very clearly see to this day. The yellow tarps surrounding the home of Vincent Brothers, a glaring bright spot in a sea of brown and beige houses. The blue body bag being pulled from the San Francisco Bay that contained poor Laci Peterson. We were bombarded with that same news reel for six months and intermittently after that when their subsequent trials got started. We breathlessly read the paper. We watched the news. I was even there at the courthouse the day Vincent Brothers got sentenced to death.
Those two cases helped spark my love of true crime, and it’s never gone away. When I started at my current job (in the legal and criminal profession, because… what else was I supposed to expect?) I actually thought my love of true crime would fade away since I was exposed to it so much. If anything, though, it only increased.
My favorite way to relax after a long day at work? Put on a true crime documentary. Need some background noise while working? Binge some Forensic Files. When I need a little light reading before bed? Pull out that true crime book. And with Rachel Monroe’s Savage Appetites, I can further indulge in my true crime obsession.
I’m not alone in my obsession with true crime. It’s become a whole media empire unto itself. From documentaries to podcasts to films to books, we can’t get enough. And the prevailing audience who consumes it? Women. But why?
In her fascinating and insightful book, Rachel Monroe tries to answer that question, and I think she mostly succeeds. By looking at four different women who seemingly embodied four distinct roles in the true crime world (detective, victim, defender, and killer), she opens the readers eyes and tries to answer the question of why, when violent crime is something women fear the most, is it so intoxicating to us?
Based on some of the reviews I read, people took offense to the way that the author portrayed fans of the true crime community, as if somehow she was making fun of them. I never got the sense that the author was. I think, like any good journalist, she was using her curiosity and instincts to try and understand something she didn’t quite fully understand, even as a self-confessed true crime lover herself. As a true crime fan myself, I didn’t take offense to anything she wrote about when describing lovers of the genre. I did get offended by one quote (more on that later), but that’s about it.
From the 1950s heiress who created dollhouse dioramas to help detectives better understand how to look at a crime scene to the woman so obsessed with the Manson murders she infiltrated the Tate family to the women who fell in love with Damien Echols and worked for decades to get him released to the woman who was planning a Columbine 2.0, Monroe tells each of these stories with insight, care, and thorough precision. She had me hooked from the introduction and I couldn’t stop reading.
Monroe took famous cases I had heard over and over again and gave them a fresh perspective, something that’s refreshing and a feat in of itself especially when it comes to the Manson murders. And yet she made me reexamine all the different roles crime can play. She examines what it means to be a detective and why we like to solve things for ourselves.
My personal favorite sections were Frances Glessner and Lorri Davis. Even though they were on opposing sides of the law, they both were passionate about making things better, making the system better, making how we look at crimes and defend the voiceless. From nutshells to magick, these women fascinated me. But all four of these women- Frances Glessner, Alisa Statman, Lorri David, and Lindsay Souvannarath- had something to say and add to the true crime obsession.
The one section that had me the most puzzled was Alisa Statman. Yes, I know she became obsessed with Sharon Tate, but I never really knew what her true motivations were. She was the most morally gray of the bunch, and that was the hardest chapter for me to connect with.
I think also some of my own personal biases infiltrated into my enjoyment of the book. Working in the criminal profession where I see all four roles of detective, victim, defender, and killer played out every single day, I see the darker and most realistic sides of things. It’s not all black and white: it really is shades of gray. There’s no necessarily right or wrong answer, and for those who choose to see it only in black and white, it will destroy them eventually. Some of the viewpoints the people in the book expressed were to me unrealistic and even hypocritical.
Not so much a celebration of true crime as is a careful examination of a nationwide and international obsession, this addicting and informative read taught me of four women who despite differing backgrounds and time periods, had one thing in common: crime. How they performed within the world of crime is different and their roles differed greatly, but each part they played is important. Rachel carefully pulls back the curtain on people’s obsession with the morbid and the dangerous and opening our eyes to the changes that need to be made and exposing us to our darkest thoughts. I couldn’t put this book down, and it’s one that will probably stick with me for a while.
Now if you’ll excuse me, it’s time to start my yearly binge of Forensic Files.
Morbid Fun Fact: It seems I was predestined to live a life that was always related to crime. I work at a courthouse, and The Fiancé (an upgrade!) also loves true crime as well. Whenever we watch it, he goes into detective mode and gives his thoughts and opinions about the case (of which he’s usually right.)
Shortly after we started dating, he was driving me around town showing me the places where he grew up. We passed by his old elementary school, and as we were passing by, he shared with me that at the time he was attending that school, the principal was none other than… Vincent Brothers. Yes. The Vincent Brothers I told you about at the beginning of this review. At first I thought it was a joke, but nope. Vincent Brothers was well and truly the principal during the time The Fiancé went there. He remembers him as being really nice, having secret high fives and handshakes for the students and remembering them all, being endlessly polite with the parents. Just an all around good guy.
However, there were some darker sides. Vincent Brothers’ wife, Jonie Harper, worked in the front office of the school as kind of a secretary. Her office was right next to Mr. Brothers’. Often my mother-in-law would come to the office to drop off some paperwork or pick up The Fiancé. She said he was nothing but nice when interacting with her, but whenever he interacted with Jonie he was cruel and degrading. She witnessed him yelling at her multiple times and once almost hitting her. The Fiancé later transferred to another school, but those incidents always stuck with her. She got the feeling something bad might happen to her.
Little did she realize she was right.
Do you remember the first true crime case that got you hooked? I do.
I was eight years old, and two cases were happening simultaneously that caught the attention of people nationwide and internationally. The first was the case of Laci Peterson, a woman who disappeared on Christmas Eve while walking her dog. She was eight months pregnant with a baby boy. Her body and the body of her unborn son were later found in the San Francisco Bay area, and her husband, Scott, was eventually tried and convicted of their murders. He was sentenced to death. The second was the case of Vincent Brothers, a highly respected principal of an elementary school who murdered his wife, their three children, and mother-in-law. He, like Scott Peterson, was also sentenced to death.
One within the state I live in; one locally. These two cases happened around the same time, and I remember every day for about six months straight whenever my family turned on the 5:00 news, those were the first two stories that popped up. And with those two stories came the breathless reporting and the endless news reel of images that I can still very clearly see to this day. The yellow tarps surrounding the home of Vincent Brothers, a glaring bright spot in a sea of brown and beige houses. The blue body bag being pulled from the San Francisco Bay that contained poor Laci Peterson. We were bombarded with that same news reel for six months and intermittently after that when their subsequent trials got started. We breathlessly read the paper. We watched the news. I was even there at the courthouse the day Vincent Brothers got sentenced to death.
Those two cases helped spark my love of true crime, and it’s never gone away. When I started at my current job (in the legal and criminal profession, because… what else was I supposed to expect?) I actually thought my love of true crime would fade away since I was exposed to it so much. If anything, though, it only increased.
My favorite way to relax after a long day at work? Put on a true crime documentary. Need some background noise while working? Binge some Forensic Files. When I need a little light reading before bed? Pull out that true crime book. And with Rachel Monroe’s Savage Appetites, I can further indulge in my true crime obsession.
I’m not alone in my obsession with true crime. It’s become a whole media empire unto itself. From documentaries to podcasts to films to books, we can’t get enough. And the prevailing audience who consumes it? Women. But why?
In her fascinating and insightful book, Rachel Monroe tries to answer that question, and I think she mostly succeeds. By looking at four different women who seemingly embodied four distinct roles in the true crime world (detective, victim, defender, and killer), she opens the readers eyes and tries to answer the question of why, when violent crime is something women fear the most, is it so intoxicating to us?
Based on some of the reviews I read, people took offense to the way that the author portrayed fans of the true crime community, as if somehow she was making fun of them. I never got the sense that the author was. I think, like any good journalist, she was using her curiosity and instincts to try and understand something she didn’t quite fully understand, even as a self-confessed true crime lover herself. As a true crime fan myself, I didn’t take offense to anything she wrote about when describing lovers of the genre. I did get offended by one quote (more on that later), but that’s about it.
From the 1950s heiress who created dollhouse dioramas to help detectives better understand how to look at a crime scene to the woman so obsessed with the Manson murders she infiltrated the Tate family to the women who fell in love with Damien Echols and worked for decades to get him released to the woman who was planning a Columbine 2.0, Monroe tells each of these stories with insight, care, and thorough precision. She had me hooked from the introduction and I couldn’t stop reading.
Monroe took famous cases I had heard over and over again and gave them a fresh perspective, something that’s refreshing and a feat in of itself especially when it comes to the Manson murders. And yet she made me reexamine all the different roles crime can play. She examines what it means to be a detective and why we like to solve things for ourselves.
”To convict the guilty, clear the innocent, and find the truth in a nutshell.”She analyzes what it means to be a victim and how, despite the loud cries for justice, the role of victimhood is only reserved for the privileged few who fit the right boxes.
”Because she’s dead, the victim can become whatever people want her to be. Because she’s dead, we can say anything we want about her, and she can’t talk back.”She dives deep into means to be a defender and how quickly it could turn into vigilantism, how it can drain everything you have.
”This is one of the risks of taking on the role of the defender: if the dream is to lose yourself in the cause, you might wake up one day and realize that you’ve succeeded, and that there’s hardly anything left of you. Women, who are socially conditioned to be selfless, can be particularly susceptible to a version of heroism that sucks them dry.”And she goes into the furthest corners of darkness and shows us what it means to be a killer, when your obsession with the dark and the deadly gets taken too far.
”’Why be in love with them when I can be them?’”
My personal favorite sections were Frances Glessner and Lorri Davis. Even though they were on opposing sides of the law, they both were passionate about making things better, making the system better, making how we look at crimes and defend the voiceless. From nutshells to magick, these women fascinated me. But all four of these women- Frances Glessner, Alisa Statman, Lorri David, and Lindsay Souvannarath- had something to say and add to the true crime obsession.
The one section that had me the most puzzled was Alisa Statman. Yes, I know she became obsessed with Sharon Tate, but I never really knew what her true motivations were. She was the most morally gray of the bunch, and that was the hardest chapter for me to connect with.
I think also some of my own personal biases infiltrated into my enjoyment of the book. Working in the criminal profession where I see all four roles of detective, victim, defender, and killer played out every single day, I see the darker and most realistic sides of things. It’s not all black and white: it really is shades of gray. There’s no necessarily right or wrong answer, and for those who choose to see it only in black and white, it will destroy them eventually. Some of the viewpoints the people in the book expressed were to me unrealistic and even hypocritical.
Not so much a celebration of true crime as is a careful examination of a nationwide and international obsession, this addicting and informative read taught me of four women who despite differing backgrounds and time periods, had one thing in common: crime. How they performed within the world of crime is different and their roles differed greatly, but each part they played is important. Rachel carefully pulls back the curtain on people’s obsession with the morbid and the dangerous and opening our eyes to the changes that need to be made and exposing us to our darkest thoughts. I couldn’t put this book down, and it’s one that will probably stick with me for a while.
Now if you’ll excuse me, it’s time to start my yearly binge of Forensic Files.
Morbid Fun Fact: It seems I was predestined to live a life that was always related to crime. I work at a courthouse, and The Fiancé (an upgrade!) also loves true crime as well. Whenever we watch it, he goes into detective mode and gives his thoughts and opinions about the case (of which he’s usually right.)
Shortly after we started dating, he was driving me around town showing me the places where he grew up. We passed by his old elementary school, and as we were passing by, he shared with me that at the time he was attending that school, the principal was none other than… Vincent Brothers. Yes. The Vincent Brothers I told you about at the beginning of this review. At first I thought it was a joke, but nope. Vincent Brothers was well and truly the principal during the time The Fiancé went there. He remembers him as being really nice, having secret high fives and handshakes for the students and remembering them all, being endlessly polite with the parents. Just an all around good guy.
However, there were some darker sides. Vincent Brothers’ wife, Jonie Harper, worked in the front office of the school as kind of a secretary. Her office was right next to Mr. Brothers’. Often my mother-in-law would come to the office to drop off some paperwork or pick up The Fiancé. She said he was nothing but nice when interacting with her, but whenever he interacted with Jonie he was cruel and degrading. She witnessed him yelling at her multiple times and once almost hitting her. The Fiancé later transferred to another school, but those incidents always stuck with her. She got the feeling something bad might happen to her.
Little did she realize she was right.
January 22, 2022
4.5/5
What an interesting read!
I read this via audio, and really enjoyed the narrator. It is not narrated by the author as I initially thought, but it was very well done.
This nonfiction follows the true-life stories of 4 women in history who were all connected to true-crime in different ways. She uses 4 different archetypes to categorize them, and in doing so seeks to find why so many women are interested in true crime. It was well organized and thought out. While she explores many different reasons, we will never truly have a concrete answer to this question, but it was fun brainstorming and incredibly fascinating.
The author also interweaves parts of her own story throughout, and you get a sense of her character along the way, and what led her down this path in the first place. I feel like I've gained a friend through reading it.
I also discovered a new role model along the way! In the first story we learn about Frances Glessner Lee, whom I had never heard of, and am now obsessed with! She was a debutant who grew up in Chicago at the turn of the century. She wasn't able to attend college, though she wanted to, and instead was pushed into marrying young, as so many women were back then. But she was bored. So she started a project that became a part of history. This woman spent hours and HOURS making tiny miniature diorama re-enactments of crime scenes, meticulously to scale, in an effort to help police dissect unsolved crimes. I mean..... WHAT??? How cool is that?! Once she discovered her passion she went on to donate millions to Harvard with the very specific goal of creating a study of (what we now call) FORENSIC SCIENCE. She was instrumental in building an entire area of study which is one of the fastest growing fields for women today. And she spent her entire life in this pursuit. Talk about a strong woman!
Anyway, it was great. Definitely recommend this book.
What an interesting read!
I read this via audio, and really enjoyed the narrator. It is not narrated by the author as I initially thought, but it was very well done.
This nonfiction follows the true-life stories of 4 women in history who were all connected to true-crime in different ways. She uses 4 different archetypes to categorize them, and in doing so seeks to find why so many women are interested in true crime. It was well organized and thought out. While she explores many different reasons, we will never truly have a concrete answer to this question, but it was fun brainstorming and incredibly fascinating.
The author also interweaves parts of her own story throughout, and you get a sense of her character along the way, and what led her down this path in the first place. I feel like I've gained a friend through reading it.
I also discovered a new role model along the way! In the first story we learn about Frances Glessner Lee, whom I had never heard of, and am now obsessed with! She was a debutant who grew up in Chicago at the turn of the century. She wasn't able to attend college, though she wanted to, and instead was pushed into marrying young, as so many women were back then. But she was bored. So she started a project that became a part of history. This woman spent hours and HOURS making tiny miniature diorama re-enactments of crime scenes, meticulously to scale, in an effort to help police dissect unsolved crimes. I mean..... WHAT??? How cool is that?! Once she discovered her passion she went on to donate millions to Harvard with the very specific goal of creating a study of (what we now call) FORENSIC SCIENCE. She was instrumental in building an entire area of study which is one of the fastest growing fields for women today. And she spent her entire life in this pursuit. Talk about a strong woman!
Anyway, it was great. Definitely recommend this book.
August 22, 2019
Psychological archetypes and crime fiction are melded in the true crime tales presented in Savage Appetites.
The four tales here describe the mother of forensic science, who did not have a formal scientific background. Another tale describes a person fascinated by the Manson cult’s murder of Sharon Tate. The third tale focuses on the love between a woman and a convicted killer. The final tale shows how online crime websites may encourage fans to kill others.
Fixation is the link between the stories in this book demonstrating the archetypes of detective, victim, attorney, and killer. However, for me the best part was the book’s excellent beginning. It describes the author’s trip to CrimeCon, a convention for true crime addicts. I thought the Con sounded wonderful. As a minor true crime addict (just watching documentaries—not committing actual crimes), it sounded like fun. However, as I kept reading the book, the author’s point-of-view began to change. It piled all true crime addicts in one crazy boiling-over pot. I truly do not think that every person that views Making of a Murderer on Netflix will go as far as obsession and even murder. I also didn’t like the author inserting her feeling about the people in the book. An author should make her case by showing the facts—not by shoving the point down the reader’s throat.
Overall, Savage Appetites is a miss for me and will probably feel the same for most true crime fans. If you are thinking of emulating a true crime documentary, this might be a good choice. 2 stars.
Thanks to Scribner Books and NetGalley for a copy in exchange for my honest review.
The four tales here describe the mother of forensic science, who did not have a formal scientific background. Another tale describes a person fascinated by the Manson cult’s murder of Sharon Tate. The third tale focuses on the love between a woman and a convicted killer. The final tale shows how online crime websites may encourage fans to kill others.
Fixation is the link between the stories in this book demonstrating the archetypes of detective, victim, attorney, and killer. However, for me the best part was the book’s excellent beginning. It describes the author’s trip to CrimeCon, a convention for true crime addicts. I thought the Con sounded wonderful. As a minor true crime addict (just watching documentaries—not committing actual crimes), it sounded like fun. However, as I kept reading the book, the author’s point-of-view began to change. It piled all true crime addicts in one crazy boiling-over pot. I truly do not think that every person that views Making of a Murderer on Netflix will go as far as obsession and even murder. I also didn’t like the author inserting her feeling about the people in the book. An author should make her case by showing the facts—not by shoving the point down the reader’s throat.
Overall, Savage Appetites is a miss for me and will probably feel the same for most true crime fans. If you are thinking of emulating a true crime documentary, this might be a good choice. 2 stars.
Thanks to Scribner Books and NetGalley for a copy in exchange for my honest review.
November 30, 2021
Monroe takes four criminal roles —Detective, Victim, Defender, and Killer — through four true stories about women driven by obsession. From a frustrated and brilliant heiress crafting crime-scene dollhouses to a young woman who became part of a Manson victim’s family, from a landscape architect in love with a convicted murderer to a Columbine fangirl who planned her own mass shooting, these women are alternately mesmerizing, horrifying, and sympathetic.
I’ve been exploring non-fiction topics that fascinate me and finding non-fiction books that delve into these topics has been eye opening.
Savage Appetites looked at people who are fascinated with true crime, what happens when obsession takes over, and really got into the gritty details. Reading about The Nutshell Dollhouses and Frances Glessner Lee’s life was both incredible and profoundly sad. Uncovering the story behind Manson’s victims took me down a dark hole. And a further investigation into Columbine and it’s after effects shook me up.
I really liked how this book was broken up and how the author connected their own journey with true crime. Definitely recommend if you’re a fan of true crime, 3.5✨.
I’ve been exploring non-fiction topics that fascinate me and finding non-fiction books that delve into these topics has been eye opening.
Savage Appetites looked at people who are fascinated with true crime, what happens when obsession takes over, and really got into the gritty details. Reading about The Nutshell Dollhouses and Frances Glessner Lee’s life was both incredible and profoundly sad. Uncovering the story behind Manson’s victims took me down a dark hole. And a further investigation into Columbine and it’s after effects shook me up.
I really liked how this book was broken up and how the author connected their own journey with true crime. Definitely recommend if you’re a fan of true crime, 3.5✨.
November 10, 2019
I thought this was going to be a true crime book focusing on four women criminals, which would have been interesting in its own way. But it's actually a book about four women who were obsessed with true crime itself. Monroe puts them into four categories based on whom they identify with in the crime scenario: the detective, the victim, the defender, or the killer. It's an interesting perspective in light of the fact that violent crimes in America are way down in recent years, but most people believe that the crime rate has become worse–an phenomenon known as "mean world syndrome." That misperception leads to the kinds of stories we've all read about mostly white women calling the police because someone near them was guilty of being black, someone making them "feel unsafe." So even though our society is statistically safer, we act as if it's less so, in part because of the culture's focus on the violent criminals as celebrities. What a messed up cycle we've made for ourselves through social media.
June 26, 2020
I liked this book more than I thought I would as the title to me suggested it to be about some weird sexual obsession of women with killers and I’m so glad it wasn’t. The book is structured into mainly four sections and shows the different ways in how woman can become obsessed with different aspects of true crime: detective, victim, defender, killer. This book is less about the crimes itself but more like a criticism on how North American society approaches true crime. It’s tough to say what a single book is supposed to do but I wish she would’ve explored the following ideas more instead of maybe inserting the sections about her personal touches with true crime: the motivations behind creating a fear-based mentality within society, the performative aspect of the criminal justice system, the way the media reports on true crime, the history of the criminal justice system, and the motivations behind some of the legislations mentioned. Most of not all of these center whiteness within society. Some of those aspects are mentioned but could have taken up more space within the book.
September 12, 2019
This book was disturbing for me to read at times - particularly the last story which gave me the heebie-jeebies. I really enjoyed the author's writing: it's analytical and thoughtful and sentimental in a way. The detective and defender stories probably most resembled my interest in true crime, but every story was about something I didn't know too much about (even the West Memphis 3 and the Tate-LaBianca murders are not rabbit holes I've ever truly fallen down so each story felt new and intriguing to me). I especially liked how the author used it all as a discussion of the archetypes found in the whole true crime community. Still... watch for the last story which I read before bed and I truly had a nightmare because of it.
December 5, 2019
a quick read that wonders (but not too hard) about why people, especially & overwhelmingly women, are drawn to true crime/forensics. it's full of interesting facts & slowly builds a history of forensic science & shies away from a lot of the violence of the crimes that are mentioned which is good for me, somebody who's pretty soft & was drawn to the book because i don't quite understand true crime fandom. this really is a great book about obsession, i think, & all of its strange channels & it's driven by that same chaotic love of information, so a little messy. i've seen some comments about monroe seeking to vilify or condemn the women in this book, but really i think she's just trying to understand & it didn't come off as anything more than that to me... the book maybe suffers from its desire to take stances that tugs at its desire 2 entertain. anyway great beach read.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 932 reviews