Okay, so I'm not going to lie. This book took me MUCH longer to get through than most books do because I just could NOT get into the writer's style, and that's putting it nicely. To put it not so nicely, I HATED his style. It was awful.
The book itself contained a lot of great information that was worth reading. I'm a serial killer buff. I read/watch/research everything I can get my hands on concerning serial killers, and even so, there was one individual in here whom I'd never heard of before, and that is SUPER shocking to me.
So yes, there was definitely some great info to be found in this book, but his writing style is absolutely NOT for me. I really hated it. He made far too many jokes - most of them super corny and not worth reading - and he inserted himself into the book WAAAAAAYYYYY too often. I know there are some authors that do that, and while I never love it, it doesn't ALWAYS bug me so badly, but this time, it REALLY did.
Let me give you a few examples:
"At this point in Haarmann's narrative, I begin to smell a rat and that rat is, of course, young Fritz"
Okay, so this is mildly irritating, but it doesn't bother me so much, and if he had kept his self-insertions along this scale, it would have been fine. He didn't do that, however. Here's another example:
"Well, we humans are all descended from apes - my late mother-in-law certainly was."
Seriously? First of all, ew. Secondly, this totally takes away from the flow of the narrative.
This one was the one that probably bothered me the most. It wasn't just that he inserted himself into the story; it was also the awful stereotypical ridiculousness of what he did here. His claim was that "this sort of stuff goes on every day in courtrooms throughout the US of A with Mr (no period here) Attorney waving his arms around and smiling sympathetically to the jury:"
Then he goes on to present an "invented scenario" (his words). The scenario he "invented" to describe American courtrooms was absolutely, disgustingly ridiculous. Here goes (and I'm only going to quote part of it because it is LONG!):
"'Ya'll hear now, ya good folk when I tell ya'll that Willien Bean here is accused of multiple murders. An' guess what folks? He says he done 'em all. Yes, folks he dun raped an' he dun kilt twenty-six of your neighbourly young gals. An' as God is my witness, Willie is a hardworking man. [.......] But he dun never kilt anyone until he was overtaken by what we call, 'them sudden bouts of temporary insanity'. (Reaching for a Holy Bible and holding it aloft) Willie is a churchgoer. He loves Our Lord. An' ya'll hear that immediately prior to each of his killings he was nice and neighbourly... [......] He raped and bludgeoned Miss Phillips to death with a tyre iron, dug a shallow grave, changed the number plates on his veehickle an' he just dun drove home and cleaned up his yard, burned his clothes and shoes, an' then he, um, read the Bible to his wife in bed.'"
Seriously? I almost stopped reading right there. In fact, if I hadn't agreed to read this and review it for Netgalley, I would have deleted it off my Kindle immediately.
He also had this bad habit of quoting himself, and he would actually point out that he was doing so: (Also note the lack of proper grammar/capitalization/punctuation here)
"But to quote from the cover of Talking with Psychopaths and Savages: A journey into the evil mind, one of my other international bestsellers: '...the author had the chance to interview his subjects' psychiatrists and, in doing so, uncovered a terrible truth: a monster can be hidden behind a friendly face.'
Why did he have to say all that? He didn't. He could have made his point without all that fluff.
That kind of stuff really bothered me.
Furthermore, this book could have seriously benefited from some SERIOUS editing/proofreading/copywriting. It was RIDDLED with errors - punctuation, grammatical, etc. I'm assuming the spelling errors I noticed were simply a matter of UK English versus US English, so those didn't bother me, but the serious lack of commas and overflowing wealth of run-on sentences in this book drove me to want to pull out my hair!
I stopped making note of these errors pretty early on, but suffice it to say, it was BAD.
Finally, not all of his "factual" information was factual, and some of it didn't even make sense.
For example, he claimed that Black Lives Matter started in 2020 after the death of George Floyd. Anyone who knows anything about BLM knows that it started MUCH earlier than that and had nothing to do with George Floyd. Yes, BLM did organize numerous protests and rallies after his death, but they'd been an organization for years before that.
Anyway, I think that's enough to prove my point.
While the information in this book was interesting to read (although I have to wonder how factual it is after seeing so many errors) the style was awful.
I will NOT be checking out anything else by this author again. I'm sorry, but it just was NOT my cup of tea.