Scan barcode
ebc726's review against another edition
2.0
The way I felt about the way this one was written is similar to the way I felt about In Cold Blood. I just wasn’t into the way it tried to humanize the murderer so much. He doesn’t deserve that courtesy.
librarygurl's review
2.0
I only read this for my book club. It was an easy read, but lacking so much... I wanted to like this book. It's my thing! It's true crime and it's a look at the big picture of what Cullen did and how he was caught. It's a compelling story. I really, really, really wanted to like this. Alas, I didn't like it much at all.
I think Graeber wanted to approach this like Erik Larson or Marc Kurlansky. He is more a short piece writer and this is his first book. A bonus struggle is that constructing the story can be difficult, especially if you aren't use to doing it. Park of my struggle with the book may not have been Graeber either. It may have been the man who read the audiobook: Will Collyer. Not all of Collyer's reading choices worked... no, only one seemed to not work. He was solid otherwise. Here is the think with Larson and Kurlansky: they aren't doing modern topics. Larson looks at historical things that only allow him to use documents. He quotes those documents when he can though. Kurlansky is writing about objects and also looking historically. Thus, very few people have something to say.
So, what didn't work?
1- The first half of the book is essentially only exposition. Graeber only talk about what people were thinking and doing rather than letting them talk for themselves. I get people may not have given him interviews or giving him enough to work with in said interviews, but there was too much exposition. Graeber clearly talked to Cullen's ex-wife so why not quote her, for example!
2- The dialog in the second half was almost completely useless. Here is where I am not sure if it was Graeber or Collyer. It was forced, too long, and full of too many pauses and stutters.
3- Graeber introduces an issue, like Cullen's suicides, but doesn't go in depth until much later in the story. It ends up feeling out of place and confused me.
4- I often felt like I had missed some detail because details were glossed over or saved to (as I mentioned above) go into detail later.
5- Some details were never explained. Leave them out if they aren't going to help us understand Cullen better.
6- Did anyone else feel the resolution was anti-climatic. In the beginning Cullen seemed like he was, in some weird way, enjoying and in control of what was happening. By the end he just seemed broken and not even conscious of what he was doing. Neither angle was really explored. I get he was nothing like previous killers in hospitals. I want to understand the psychology of the man and what was going on in his head. If you don't have enough to explain it, then don't write the book.
I think Graeber wanted to approach this like Erik Larson or Marc Kurlansky. He is more a short piece writer and this is his first book. A bonus struggle is that constructing the story can be difficult, especially if you aren't use to doing it. Park of my struggle with the book may not have been Graeber either. It may have been the man who read the audiobook: Will Collyer. Not all of Collyer's reading choices worked... no, only one seemed to not work. He was solid otherwise. Here is the think with Larson and Kurlansky: they aren't doing modern topics. Larson looks at historical things that only allow him to use documents. He quotes those documents when he can though. Kurlansky is writing about objects and also looking historically. Thus, very few people have something to say.
So, what didn't work?
1- The first half of the book is essentially only exposition. Graeber only talk about what people were thinking and doing rather than letting them talk for themselves. I get people may not have given him interviews or giving him enough to work with in said interviews, but there was too much exposition. Graeber clearly talked to Cullen's ex-wife so why not quote her, for example!
2- The dialog in the second half was almost completely useless. Here is where I am not sure if it was Graeber or Collyer. It was forced, too long, and full of too many pauses and stutters.
3- Graeber introduces an issue, like Cullen's suicides, but doesn't go in depth until much later in the story. It ends up feeling out of place and confused me.
4- I often felt like I had missed some detail because details were glossed over or saved to (as I mentioned above) go into detail later.
5- Some details were never explained. Leave them out if they aren't going to help us understand Cullen better.
6- Did anyone else feel the resolution was anti-climatic. In the beginning Cullen seemed like he was, in some weird way, enjoying and in control of what was happening. By the end he just seemed broken and not even conscious of what he was doing. Neither angle was really explored. I get he was nothing like previous killers in hospitals. I want to understand the psychology of the man and what was going on in his head. If you don't have enough to explain it, then don't write the book.