What do you think?
Rate this book
Dead Men Talking: The World's Worst Killers in Their Own Words
Renowned crime expert Christopher Berry-Dee has gained the trust of some of the most infamous inmates from around the world, having corresponded with them and even entered their prison lairs to discuss their horrific crimes in detail. Subjects include John Edward Robinson, convicted in 2003 of the murders of several women in Kansas; "Ice Queen" Melanie McGuire of New Jersey, convicted in 2007 of the murder and dismemberment of her husband; Philip Carl Jablonski, convicted of killing five women in California and Utah between 1978 and 1991; 94-year-old Viva Leroy Nash, serving two consecutive life sentences in Utah for murder and robbery; Michael Bruce Ross, executed in 2005 by the state of Connecticut, and "The Happy Face Killer" Keith Hunter Jesperson, serving three consecutive life sentences at the Oregon State Penitentiary.
281 pages, Paperback
First published April 1, 2010
59 people are currently reading
436 people want to read
About the author
Christopher Berry-Dee
75 books346 followersChris was a former Royal Marine intelligence officer. He is now a criminologist who has interviewed over 30 serial killers.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 32 reviews
March 2, 2021
Red Flag #1
I consume quite a bit of true crime, and I've never heard of Christopher Berry Dee. So I was surprised he prefaced this book by thanking his "countless readers." He also states the FBI is "very grateful" to him for handing over his correspondence with convicted serial killer, Keith Jesperson. The whole tone of his introduction feels smug. So I hopped on the ol' world wide web to check this guy's credentials, and ...
Red Flag #2
... couldn't find any! Google search results spit out Dee's own website, places to purchase his books, and lots of suspiciously rave reviews. If his education and training are floating around somewhere, they're buried on the back pages. Aside from being full of himself, I know nothing about Christopher Berry Dee.
Red Flag # 3
But off we go to the first chapter. Dee tells the story of murderer, J.R. Robinson, using phrases like "as genuine as a hooker's smile." That's an odd turn of phrase. Many of his word choices seem off to me, for whatever reason.
I kept waiting for Robinson’s “own words” as advertised, assuming an interview took place between these two. Not exactly. There were letters exchanged in which Robinson requests, with increasing demand, money for his defense before he’ll talk. Hitting a wall, Dee enlists a female friend to write instead. Of course, Robinson responds to a woman much differently. With sexual propositions, obviously. None of this adds to the body of knowledge about Robinson. It just reinforces what we already know. Robinson wants money and sex.
I was not impressed with chapter one.
Red Flag #4
But the next section is on Melanie McGuire, a convicted murderer (NOT a serial killer) who fascinates me, so I trudged on. Dee immediately misspelled Melanie’s last name. Like this.
CHAPTER 2
MELANIE LYN MCGUIR
I shit you not. He then throws in a Steinbeck quote, misspelling "gnaws" with "knaws." As in "You are fed, but hunger knaws you."
Okay. I'm rolling my eyes at this point, but silly me, as interested as I am in the McGuirE with an E case, I continued reading. As far as I can tell, there is NO correspondence between McGuire and Dee. He reproduces an anonymous letter to police, likely penned by McGuire herself. I take it this letter is meant to reveal her intelligence and cunning personality. Yeah, we already knew that. Again, Dee adds nothing to the known equation.
And that's when I stopped reading. Am I missing something meaningful here? Will Christopher Dee's countless readers enlighten me? Is he a journalist or a psychologist or just some guy sending letters to murderers? I have no problem with him simply telling these tales, but it's misleading to imply he has anything different or surprising to reveal.
I consume quite a bit of true crime, and I've never heard of Christopher Berry Dee. So I was surprised he prefaced this book by thanking his "countless readers." He also states the FBI is "very grateful" to him for handing over his correspondence with convicted serial killer, Keith Jesperson. The whole tone of his introduction feels smug. So I hopped on the ol' world wide web to check this guy's credentials, and ...
Red Flag #2
... couldn't find any! Google search results spit out Dee's own website, places to purchase his books, and lots of suspiciously rave reviews. If his education and training are floating around somewhere, they're buried on the back pages. Aside from being full of himself, I know nothing about Christopher Berry Dee.
Red Flag # 3
But off we go to the first chapter. Dee tells the story of murderer, J.R. Robinson, using phrases like "as genuine as a hooker's smile." That's an odd turn of phrase. Many of his word choices seem off to me, for whatever reason.
I kept waiting for Robinson’s “own words” as advertised, assuming an interview took place between these two. Not exactly. There were letters exchanged in which Robinson requests, with increasing demand, money for his defense before he’ll talk. Hitting a wall, Dee enlists a female friend to write instead. Of course, Robinson responds to a woman much differently. With sexual propositions, obviously. None of this adds to the body of knowledge about Robinson. It just reinforces what we already know. Robinson wants money and sex.
I was not impressed with chapter one.
Red Flag #4
But the next section is on Melanie McGuire, a convicted murderer (NOT a serial killer) who fascinates me, so I trudged on. Dee immediately misspelled Melanie’s last name. Like this.
CHAPTER 2
MELANIE LYN MCGUIR
I shit you not. He then throws in a Steinbeck quote, misspelling "gnaws" with "knaws." As in "You are fed, but hunger knaws you."
Okay. I'm rolling my eyes at this point, but silly me, as interested as I am in the McGuirE with an E case, I continued reading. As far as I can tell, there is NO correspondence between McGuire and Dee. He reproduces an anonymous letter to police, likely penned by McGuire herself. I take it this letter is meant to reveal her intelligence and cunning personality. Yeah, we already knew that. Again, Dee adds nothing to the known equation.
And that's when I stopped reading. Am I missing something meaningful here? Will Christopher Dee's countless readers enlighten me? Is he a journalist or a psychologist or just some guy sending letters to murderers? I have no problem with him simply telling these tales, but it's misleading to imply he has anything different or surprising to reveal.
January 14, 2013
Awful. Self indulgent writer. Wouldn't bother!
January 16, 2013
To me, this book seemed to be trying to sensationalize and hype up little known criminals. There was not a lot to the whole "in their own words" bit. It was more of the authors interpretation of pieces of letters written to him by the criminals, that may or may not have been taken out of context because the majority of the letters are not published in the book. It was difficult to finish because it was not interesting and I felt like I was forcing myself to finish it.
March 4, 2013
The writing is confusing at times.
September 28, 2013
Very badly written. I had to force myself to read past the halfway point only to find it did not get better. Author has high opinion of himself, but not sure why.
July 10, 2020
Where do I even begin - this is the worst book I have had the misfortune of being gifted in a very long time.
First problem - 2 out of the 6 'serial killers' he interviews are not, in fact, serial killers. The definition of a serial killer is as follows:
'A person who commits a series of murders, often with no apparent motive and typically following a characteristic, predictable behaviour pattern.'
Well, Leroy Nash admitted to one murder, a botched robbery - NOT a serial killer as he killed one person during a robbery, not randomly with no motive. Then there's Melanie Lyn McGuire who was convicted for the slaying of her husband but maintains her innocence. Again, she supposedly killed one person but she was convicted under the assumption she was having an affair and wanted to get rid of her current spouse - thats not random or without motive. In fact, there was no DNA evidence linking her to the case or witnesses. It was all circumstantial and therefore built around the pre-requisite of a motive.
So, either the author doesn't know what a serial killer is or felt 4 was running a bit short for a book and so crammed some other random perps in to pad it out a bit.
Second problem - this is riddled with grammatical errors. This is a re-publish - can't you spell check?!
Third problem - this author, when describing women, comes across as a lecherous misogynist who is incapable of describing women as anything other than 'drop dead gorgeous' or of 'indescriminate gender'. I don't know if Melanie Lyn McGuire killed her husband - the story the author puts together is less than convicing - but either way I feel she deserved more than being repeatedly called a 'femme fatale'. The author seemed geuinely bamboozled that a woman he describes as 'undeniably attractive' could kill someone. Because beautiful women don't do those sorts of things - why would they need to? They are beautiful and that is everything and murder is ugly and only commited by ugly people. The fact this guy is an 'investigator' and managed to get anyone to confess their crimes to him is astonishing. He's an idiot who would be better off writing cheap paperback detective novels set in the 50s & 60s.
Fourth problem - his writing stye. He is so egotistical that the arrogance of his own sense of self-worth bleeds through every page. He thinks he is making clever, funny and insightful remarks but this is poorly written drivel that would be laughed out of most publishing houses if it was sent in anonymously. He really would be better off writing straight to paperback crime novels.
Fifth problem - the claim on the cover is that he gets these killers to share their stories in 'their own words' but the first profile study, John Edward Robinson, wouldn't talk to him! He even admits this and says he will tell you the guy's story himself. HELLO. THE POINT OF THIS BOOK IS THAT THE KILLERS TELL THE STORIES THEMSELVES.
Sixth - the disparging way he talks about mental health. The author is incredibly flippant when bandying around terms like 'crazy' and 'insane'. I got no sense that he even takes mental health seriously and probably just assumes its a load of old guff used as an excuse by people not to be executed.
Seventh - and this is linked to the point above. He finishes his summary talking about women seeking out relationships with serial killers. He includes a long-winded letter from a clearly mentally unwell woman explaining her bizarre sexual quirks around death, decay and murder. Around this he pops in what I premuse he thinks are insightful exerpts from killers' letters but are just random paragraphs that have no impact on whatever statement he is trying to make which seems to be simply 'you have to be crazy to want to date a guy who would kill you if he could'. OHH VERY INSIGHTFUL. Thank goodness I read this book, what an indepth exploration you made to try and undertsand this drive some women have to seek out compaionship with those who are incarcerated for some of the most heinous of crimes.
This book was lazy - he says this was all collected from years of correspondence. I can barely see any myself. Its poorly written and offensive. The title, subtitle and blurb are utterly misleading and inaccurate. All in all I would never pick up another book by this man.
First problem - 2 out of the 6 'serial killers' he interviews are not, in fact, serial killers. The definition of a serial killer is as follows:
'A person who commits a series of murders, often with no apparent motive and typically following a characteristic, predictable behaviour pattern.'
Well, Leroy Nash admitted to one murder, a botched robbery - NOT a serial killer as he killed one person during a robbery, not randomly with no motive. Then there's Melanie Lyn McGuire who was convicted for the slaying of her husband but maintains her innocence. Again, she supposedly killed one person but she was convicted under the assumption she was having an affair and wanted to get rid of her current spouse - thats not random or without motive. In fact, there was no DNA evidence linking her to the case or witnesses. It was all circumstantial and therefore built around the pre-requisite of a motive.
So, either the author doesn't know what a serial killer is or felt 4 was running a bit short for a book and so crammed some other random perps in to pad it out a bit.
Second problem - this is riddled with grammatical errors. This is a re-publish - can't you spell check?!
Third problem - this author, when describing women, comes across as a lecherous misogynist who is incapable of describing women as anything other than 'drop dead gorgeous' or of 'indescriminate gender'. I don't know if Melanie Lyn McGuire killed her husband - the story the author puts together is less than convicing - but either way I feel she deserved more than being repeatedly called a 'femme fatale'. The author seemed geuinely bamboozled that a woman he describes as 'undeniably attractive' could kill someone. Because beautiful women don't do those sorts of things - why would they need to? They are beautiful and that is everything and murder is ugly and only commited by ugly people. The fact this guy is an 'investigator' and managed to get anyone to confess their crimes to him is astonishing. He's an idiot who would be better off writing cheap paperback detective novels set in the 50s & 60s.
Fourth problem - his writing stye. He is so egotistical that the arrogance of his own sense of self-worth bleeds through every page. He thinks he is making clever, funny and insightful remarks but this is poorly written drivel that would be laughed out of most publishing houses if it was sent in anonymously. He really would be better off writing straight to paperback crime novels.
Fifth problem - the claim on the cover is that he gets these killers to share their stories in 'their own words' but the first profile study, John Edward Robinson, wouldn't talk to him! He even admits this and says he will tell you the guy's story himself. HELLO. THE POINT OF THIS BOOK IS THAT THE KILLERS TELL THE STORIES THEMSELVES.
Sixth - the disparging way he talks about mental health. The author is incredibly flippant when bandying around terms like 'crazy' and 'insane'. I got no sense that he even takes mental health seriously and probably just assumes its a load of old guff used as an excuse by people not to be executed.
Seventh - and this is linked to the point above. He finishes his summary talking about women seeking out relationships with serial killers. He includes a long-winded letter from a clearly mentally unwell woman explaining her bizarre sexual quirks around death, decay and murder. Around this he pops in what I premuse he thinks are insightful exerpts from killers' letters but are just random paragraphs that have no impact on whatever statement he is trying to make which seems to be simply 'you have to be crazy to want to date a guy who would kill you if he could'. OHH VERY INSIGHTFUL. Thank goodness I read this book, what an indepth exploration you made to try and undertsand this drive some women have to seek out compaionship with those who are incarcerated for some of the most heinous of crimes.
This book was lazy - he says this was all collected from years of correspondence. I can barely see any myself. Its poorly written and offensive. The title, subtitle and blurb are utterly misleading and inaccurate. All in all I would never pick up another book by this man.
September 28, 2017
I thought perhaps this book would provide insight into why these specific serial killers - plus one female who killed only one person and is included in the book for no clear reason - did what they did and how their minds differ from the rest of society. Instead this book proved to be a regurgitation of detail regarding the crimes committed, sometimes in the words of the killers but mostly related by the author. It was poorly edited, as the author was allowed to continually bring himself into the book along with his own side comments directed at the reader. I found this to be distracting and annoying, nearly as much as the numerous glitches of typographical error with missing words, transposed words etc.
I suppose I was hoping for a more disciplined scholarly work but what we have here is essentially an exercise in voyeurism from which there is nothing to be gained except on the part of the publisher and author each time a copy of this book is purchased. For those looking for insight and explanation into serial killers and their actions which might perhaps go beyond what is already commonly known, you won't find it here.
I suppose I was hoping for a more disciplined scholarly work but what we have here is essentially an exercise in voyeurism from which there is nothing to be gained except on the part of the publisher and author each time a copy of this book is purchased. For those looking for insight and explanation into serial killers and their actions which might perhaps go beyond what is already commonly known, you won't find it here.
September 2, 2017
When I started this book I was concerned at the authors clear bias towards those he interviewed. As the book went on I got used to his voice and greatly enjoyed the chapters. It is clear he is an author who is clear about his opinion on these criminals both negative and positive. The authors voice may not be for everyone but I greatly enjoyed the read and will be seeking more out from this author.
March 13, 2014
I can't finish it the style it's written in is hard to tell who's talking and about what. The first chapter I had to look up the guy he was talking about and I hate not finishing a book but I couldn't force myself to read it. Great book idea but the wording made it boring.
April 24, 2012
Awful!!! This subject area is one of my favorites, but this book was so bad that I couldn't even finish. I probably only read 70 pages
January 14, 2013
Avid true crime and enjoy going behind the minds of serial killers. This book was horrible! Could not even finish reading!
March 7, 2015
Not a fan of the writing style at all.
February 22, 2025
YIKES.
I'm very interested in criminology and true crime as a whole but that was one of the worst book I ever read. Several reviews here said it in better terms, but I'll try to point out why this book is as despicable as we say:
1) The author is so arrogant, obnoxious, so full of himself, so sure he's hilarious and yet his writing is poor, his comparisons appalling and he cannot stop with the constant judging. Yes, we get it, those killers are horrible people, we know, you don't have to find every damn synonym to picture them or to constantly compare them to moronic devils. WE GET IT. I hated every single sentence he wrote. He's a bloody clown, constantly referencing his own work as if he was an award winner writer or something, but I had never heard of him. I mean I don't know everyone on earth, but be humble for f sake. I don't know you AND I DONT WANT TO KNOW YOU.
2) The title is "talking with serial killers: dead men talking, death row's worst killers in their own words". Tell my why then several of them don't fit the premise?
° John Robinson refused to talk to him. So, it's not HIS own words, rather a complete spiralling interpretation of Berry-Dee who selflessly refers to himself as "the author".
° Melanie McGuire is not a man. She's not a serial killer neither. Does he not know what his own title means?...
° Most of the stories aren't really the killers' thoughts or their own words. The author is just constantly off tracks, which lead to my next problem.
3) I know sex is one of the top reasons for killing among serial killers. But not every damn killer kills for sex. Yet, it seems the author thoroughly enjoyed displaying everything sexually related in the murders, rather than having a real analysis of the past, the reasoning behind the crimes. Victims are accessories, they aren't the main interests, not to mention that women are constantly described as sexually attractive, even 16 years old! You're really either very beautiful or a femme fatale: that's how he describes Melanie McGuire. I fail to see how she is one, but again, why would I be surprised that this author uses words he doesn't understand?
It goes on. I can understand that after exchanging for so long with any human being, even the most perverse one, you could start feeling some empathy for them. But how can you claim that you start liking someone who killed and raped so many women after torturing them just because you understood they just pissed him off?! That is SO inappropriate. You can also understand that a troubled past led to a life of criminality, but to say "oh he's not too bad, some have done worse" is not a bloody argument. Neither does the fact that a criminal can be smart.
4) I already said it was poorly written and all the author does is brag about himself, but it's also badly spelt. I'm not a native speaker, I do make mistakes, but you pretend to be some top notch bestselling author and creator of TV series, can you at least proof read your work?...
I lost my time. If you love true crime, don't read it.
I'm very interested in criminology and true crime as a whole but that was one of the worst book I ever read. Several reviews here said it in better terms, but I'll try to point out why this book is as despicable as we say:
1) The author is so arrogant, obnoxious, so full of himself, so sure he's hilarious and yet his writing is poor, his comparisons appalling and he cannot stop with the constant judging. Yes, we get it, those killers are horrible people, we know, you don't have to find every damn synonym to picture them or to constantly compare them to moronic devils. WE GET IT. I hated every single sentence he wrote. He's a bloody clown, constantly referencing his own work as if he was an award winner writer or something, but I had never heard of him. I mean I don't know everyone on earth, but be humble for f sake. I don't know you AND I DONT WANT TO KNOW YOU.
2) The title is "talking with serial killers: dead men talking, death row's worst killers in their own words". Tell my why then several of them don't fit the premise?
° John Robinson refused to talk to him. So, it's not HIS own words, rather a complete spiralling interpretation of Berry-Dee who selflessly refers to himself as "the author".
° Melanie McGuire is not a man. She's not a serial killer neither. Does he not know what his own title means?...
° Most of the stories aren't really the killers' thoughts or their own words. The author is just constantly off tracks, which lead to my next problem.
3) I know sex is one of the top reasons for killing among serial killers. But not every damn killer kills for sex. Yet, it seems the author thoroughly enjoyed displaying everything sexually related in the murders, rather than having a real analysis of the past, the reasoning behind the crimes. Victims are accessories, they aren't the main interests, not to mention that women are constantly described as sexually attractive, even 16 years old! You're really either very beautiful or a femme fatale: that's how he describes Melanie McGuire. I fail to see how she is one, but again, why would I be surprised that this author uses words he doesn't understand?
It goes on. I can understand that after exchanging for so long with any human being, even the most perverse one, you could start feeling some empathy for them. But how can you claim that you start liking someone who killed and raped so many women after torturing them just because you understood they just pissed him off?! That is SO inappropriate. You can also understand that a troubled past led to a life of criminality, but to say "oh he's not too bad, some have done worse" is not a bloody argument. Neither does the fact that a criminal can be smart.
4) I already said it was poorly written and all the author does is brag about himself, but it's also badly spelt. I'm not a native speaker, I do make mistakes, but you pretend to be some top notch bestselling author and creator of TV series, can you at least proof read your work?...
I lost my time. If you love true crime, don't read it.
April 20, 2020
Dnf pg. 80. I fail to see where any of this is "in their own words" as most of the book is written in schlocky prose of the author's choosing with very little written correspondence to back up his narrative.
The author's own ego shines far brighter than his ability to write as within the introduction to the first killer, he gloats that when the man reads his story, he foresees him blowing up because the manipulator had been manipulated.
Berry-Dee may be a "renowned crime expert" but leave this one alone. There is much better written true crime to be found in the world. Life is too short to read bad books.
The author's own ego shines far brighter than his ability to write as within the introduction to the first killer, he gloats that when the man reads his story, he foresees him blowing up because the manipulator had been manipulated.
Berry-Dee may be a "renowned crime expert" but leave this one alone. There is much better written true crime to be found in the world. Life is too short to read bad books.
April 23, 2012
This was a very interesting read! As a true crime lover, I enjoyed reading the correspondence between author and killer. It was a refreshing difference to read correspondence letters as opposed to strict court-room transcript. Great, enjoyable read for any true crime fan out there!
November 27, 2020
Interesting book but was let down by frequent spelling and grammatical errors. During the second chapter, the victim's name bounced from Bill to Jim, to Bill, to Jim repeatedly, then randomly was John once before going back to Bill or Jim.
November 12, 2014
I binned it.
March 21, 2021
At the start of this book I found it quite refreshing to read that the author was condemning these killers and not beating around a the bush about it. Whilst it isn’t ‘hip’ to talk whataboutery when it comes to serial killers, you often find writers like to take a more factual journalistic approach, which isn’t wrong, however it was hilarious to read that at times Chris was playing these master manipulators at their own game. That isn’t something that happens throughout the book however, at times he refers to some of the killers in a way you’d refer to a friend or close acquaintance; something that really isn’t an endearing as Chris might think it is. As someone who does enjoy True Crime I did like reading about these cases, most of which I hadn’t heard of before, and I did think the element of including letters from the killers was different, as it really outlined just how manipulative these types of people can be. To solve a murder case is also no mean feat so I absolutely credit Chris for that. Lastly, the typos. For fans of true crime but not casually.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
March 30, 2024
I like a serial killer true crime audiobook on a chilled weekend; what can I say? Exactly what you would expect from a Christopher Berry-Dee book. He's a little egotistical at times, but you get used to him. There are plenty of interesting stories, and great to hear from these criminals first-hand. I think the audiobook versions of these books are much better than the physical, as well.
June 6, 2020
The choice of murderers covered in the book was good, very varied. However the book felt a little jumpy in parts and to me did not flow very well. Overall very interesting look into the minds of killers and their groupies!
June 29, 2020
Enjoyable book for those into criminology and true crime. The serial killers contained within its pages are quite an interesting bunch.
The author has a specific writing style which could come across as arrogant to some.
The author has a specific writing style which could come across as arrogant to some.
September 1, 2020
The author of this book is pretty insufferable. He has an incredibly high opinion of himself and likes to list his ‘achievements’ regularly. Also, confusingly he gets names mixed up quite often which makes it hard to follow.
May 14, 2024
The number of spelling and grammatical errors in this book are really concerning. The language is equally childish. How can a reader trust the research skills of an author who can’t even bother to proofread his own book. I gave up after the first chapter.
June 2, 2020
The writer is distractingly self indulgent which made reading less enjoyable. Also there are so many spelling/grammar errors
October 23, 2020
Gave up on it. Needs editing and the first two were cases I was already familiar with.
April 14, 2021
Have read countless true crime books over the years. This is not a very good one. Won't be reading any of his other books.
August 1, 2021
Author has a very high opinion of himself and he lets us know it. Writing is very bad. He calls people dimwitted hillbillies and subhumans etc.
January 30, 2024
Like a crime documentary but in a book. Interesting read.
May 31, 2024
I expected so much more from this book. Also, the time the author spent with the killers might have had some serious effect on him.
June 20, 2015
As someone who felt like she knows enough about sociopaths, both from my psychology major education and my special interest in the fiction world about them, this book does give me more insight of what and who the sociopaths are. All these times, sociopaths has been romanticize by the media. Makes people get interested with them but not in an appropriate way. They ARE fascinating human beings, but not one you would actually like to know personally. Admit it, of all those stories in TV, books or movies there is a part of you that wonder how does it feel to talk with one. Well, this book does give you one perspective of one author that did all that.
To be perfectly honest when I found this book in a used books bin, I was ecstatic. It was cheap and with topic that I'm very interested in. I did check Goodreads ratings (without reading the comments) and 3 stars seems like it's an okay book to read. But soon after I was reading the first few pages, I already found how he called these sociopaths names put me off a bit. I agree that these people are quite disgusting and have done a lot of terrible things, but professionalism in writing a book is still very important. I brushed it off because I do want to keep reading and I excused my annoyance to being used to reading scientific journals instead of popular books with these subjects. I thought I'm just not used to writers putting their own subjective thoughts to the people they're interviewing.
But soon I found out more things that I don't like from the writer. Especially the way he put together the story and subtle self indulgence praising here and there for being able to make these sociopaths talk. Yea, okay, it needs skill sometimes but sociopaths are basically braggers and as the writer mention it himself, he couldn't really get the truths from some of them and I guess everyone can get them talking.
Other than these annoyance of the writer's writing style, the book is good enough if anyone new to the sociopath world wants to read a biography (be it actually probably filled with lies) of several killers and how they do the killing. It does have several shock values and the reason of my insight of how actually terrible these people are. In short, shit got real.
I wouldn't particularly recommend this book because I'm afraid there are better books (author) out there with these topic and theme.
To be perfectly honest when I found this book in a used books bin, I was ecstatic. It was cheap and with topic that I'm very interested in. I did check Goodreads ratings (without reading the comments) and 3 stars seems like it's an okay book to read. But soon after I was reading the first few pages, I already found how he called these sociopaths names put me off a bit. I agree that these people are quite disgusting and have done a lot of terrible things, but professionalism in writing a book is still very important. I brushed it off because I do want to keep reading and I excused my annoyance to being used to reading scientific journals instead of popular books with these subjects. I thought I'm just not used to writers putting their own subjective thoughts to the people they're interviewing.
But soon I found out more things that I don't like from the writer. Especially the way he put together the story and subtle self indulgence praising here and there for being able to make these sociopaths talk. Yea, okay, it needs skill sometimes but sociopaths are basically braggers and as the writer mention it himself, he couldn't really get the truths from some of them and I guess everyone can get them talking.
Other than these annoyance of the writer's writing style, the book is good enough if anyone new to the sociopath world wants to read a biography (be it actually probably filled with lies) of several killers and how they do the killing. It does have several shock values and the reason of my insight of how actually terrible these people are. In short, shit got real.
I wouldn't particularly recommend this book because I'm afraid there are better books (author) out there with these topic and theme.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 32 reviews