bnielsen214's review against another edition
challenging
dark
informative
mysterious
tense
slow-paced
2.0
doloresofcourse's review against another edition
5.0
Edit: I read this book back in 2019 and just finished listening to the audiobook. I recommend actually reading this story. You need to take time to savor and re-read so many passages. It's so off-the-rails crazy that the audiobook version just doesn't do it justice.
This book is a true story about bootlegging, corruption and one crazy soap opera of a relationship which culminates in a murder trial. It needs to be a movie. I'm now searching for more books on George Remus and the bootleggers of the jazz age. I would also love to read some books about some of the side characters in this story.
The book is well-researched, well-written and the story flows nicely. Unlike some other true crime books I have read, it doesn't rely heavily on re-printing excerpts from court testimony. It's a rollicking good read.
This book is a true story about bootlegging, corruption and one crazy soap opera of a relationship which culminates in a murder trial. It needs to be a movie. I'm now searching for more books on George Remus and the bootleggers of the jazz age. I would also love to read some books about some of the side characters in this story.
The book is well-researched, well-written and the story flows nicely. Unlike some other true crime books I have read, it doesn't rely heavily on re-printing excerpts from court testimony. It's a rollicking good read.
plaidpladd's review against another edition
4.0
This was really interesting and read almost like a novel.
booksnooksandcooks's review against another edition
3.0
In an inadvertent act of sentimentality, I began my college career with a Karen Abbott book (Sin in the Second City) and I ended it with this. In the four years of classes and research I’ve done, I have had Abbott’s three nonfiction books with me.
Unfortunately, I have also become more shrewd in my historical readings and historiographies. I recognize things that I like and things I don’t based off what I’ve learned in my classes. It’s apparent to me, at least, that Abbott is a writer first and history enjoyer second. She is not a historian and it shows. The sourcing is muddled and writing more lyrical than factual. It’s a fun read, but it errs on the side of fanciful fiction rather than effective nonfiction.
Perhaps I’ll revisit Abbott if she continues to put out nonfictions. I appreciate her focus on women in American history. I think she’s a good author for those who enjoy historical nonfiction, but who aren’t too focused on the minute details and semantics that academia drills into an individual.
Unfortunately, I have also become more shrewd in my historical readings and historiographies. I recognize things that I like and things I don’t based off what I’ve learned in my classes. It’s apparent to me, at least, that Abbott is a writer first and history enjoyer second. She is not a historian and it shows. The sourcing is muddled and writing more lyrical than factual. It’s a fun read, but it errs on the side of fanciful fiction rather than effective nonfiction.
Perhaps I’ll revisit Abbott if she continues to put out nonfictions. I appreciate her focus on women in American history. I think she’s a good author for those who enjoy historical nonfiction, but who aren’t too focused on the minute details and semantics that academia drills into an individual.