Scan barcode
mrsgrievous's review against another edition
1.0
Uses a lot of Family and '60s slang to describe things, which felt awkward. 30 pages in the author describes My Lai as a "creepy-crawl". It was at that point that I decided not to finish.
samantha_shain's review against another edition
4.0
3.5 stars rounded up to 4
Part meta-investigative journalism, part participant observation(ish), part voyeurism, this book goes into obsessive detail about Charles Manson's Family cult phenomenon. It was at times a bit hokey with 60s slang and could have been organized and edited better, but I think Sanders was going for a particular writing style and feel, which he achieved even if it was a bit annoying at times. I found some sections repetitive, but ultimately appreciated the last 100 pages or so where much more about his research style was revealed.
Part meta-investigative journalism, part participant observation(ish), part voyeurism, this book goes into obsessive detail about Charles Manson's Family cult phenomenon. It was at times a bit hokey with 60s slang and could have been organized and edited better, but I think Sanders was going for a particular writing style and feel, which he achieved even if it was a bit annoying at times. I found some sections repetitive, but ultimately appreciated the last 100 pages or so where much more about his research style was revealed.
donnakaye64's review against another edition
2.0
Although this book had a lot of information it seemed to have been written by more than 1 person. The writing style was uneven and at times boring. In my opinion, taking a little extra time to edit and create a smoother flow to the material would have turned this book into a good read instead of ok.
becki_rjd's review against another edition
4.0
This is the 1971 first edition so includes the chapter on the Process church, as I understand it this chapter was excluded from subsequent editions.
I found this informative & interesting, though at times the writing style had me laughing out loud (& not in a good way). For example, Susan Atkins was made pregnant by a human! Erm..... Ok!
Overall I'd recommend this as it is a good read, though as always with these kind of books the lack of collaborative evidence or even the names of sources means that intelligence must be applied when evaluating the value of the information.
I found this informative & interesting, though at times the writing style had me laughing out loud (& not in a good way). For example, Susan Atkins was made pregnant by a human! Erm..... Ok!
Overall I'd recommend this as it is a good read, though as always with these kind of books the lack of collaborative evidence or even the names of sources means that intelligence must be applied when evaluating the value of the information.
ladywren890's review
4.0
I was very satisfied with his reading on giving me some insight on the actions and social climate of the family. I personally was reading this as a reference for independent research and felt this was a good starting point
markfeltskog's review against another edition
I always understood that journalists should never insert themselves into the stories they cover. Ed Sanders commits that sin as a matter of course in this history of the Manson family. In defense of Mr. Sanders, who better than himself, by any measure a paragon of human decency as well as a one-man iconographic history of the counterculture during much of the last fifty years in the United States, to relate this story subjectively?
Unfortunately, the book is rife with lapses in style, repetitions, and indulgence in dubious and unsubstantiated conspiracy theories, which compromise its credibility. This is mostly due, I expect, to lazy editing. But don’t authors read galleys? I think that was a step passed over here.
For the record, Mr. Sanders may count me among his ardent fans: I loved “Tales of Beatnik Glory” and still listen to The Fugs.
Unfortunately, the book is rife with lapses in style, repetitions, and indulgence in dubious and unsubstantiated conspiracy theories, which compromise its credibility. This is mostly due, I expect, to lazy editing. But don’t authors read galleys? I think that was a step passed over here.
For the record, Mr. Sanders may count me among his ardent fans: I loved “Tales of Beatnik Glory” and still listen to The Fugs.
martinis's review against another edition
1.0
Troppo lungo, dispersivo e scritto male, non trovo aggettivo migliore.
Se riesci ad annoiare quando scrivi un libro su un argomento simile, c'è decisamente qualcosa che non va.
Se riesci ad annoiare quando scrivi un libro su un argomento simile, c'è decisamente qualcosa che non va.