A review by ksd1441
Deranged by Harold Schechter
1.0
I do not mind true crime. I enjoy watching Criminal Minds. I understand why it's a popular genre. Many have a certain curiosity for the macabre; and delving into the deranged minds of criminals gives us a glimpse of how humanity can go to hell in a hand basket in no time flat. My issue with this book was not the content, not exactly. Sure, Albert Fish was a particularly disturbed individual and he did some horrible things. If he lived in a more current time, perhaps he would have been able to receive the help he so obviously needed. As a "story", it was interesting enough. But as an overall piece of work, I cannot agree with it. I can divide my grievances into two categories.
Gripe #1: The Writing Style
Oddly enough, if you read the acknowledgements at the end, he dedicated this book to his editor for doing such a fantastic job ("as always"). I'd like to have a serious talk with this editor and how much work she actually completed with Schechter. Not only were there typos and grammatical problems, but the sentence structure and overall layout of the book provided a very choppy picture. At times, it was difficult to read, dipping into the realms of high school history reports. The run-on sentences could have been easily fixed with some added punctuation. Or, even better, cutting whole sections out entirely. I think Schechter could have made the same, if not a better, impact with 100 fewer pages. There were paragraphs that did not even relate to the current content. There were entire chapters I honestly skipped after I realized he decided to go on a field trip tangent about some other event. There are good and bad ways to incorporate related ideas. With Deranged, it felt like the author could not keep his focus. And this led to repetition and over-the-top, long-winded "theories." I think he took a lesson from the Dempsey lawyer; because it also took Schechter 15,000 words and 45 typed pages to get out one statement.
Gripe #2: WHERE ARE YOUR SOURCES?!?
I cannot, in my right mind, give a nonfiction title greater than 1 star if there is no bibliography, index, footnotes, or any recognition from the author that he used outside sources to compile his book. Any researcher, librarian, or freakin' high school student, knows that a source is not credible if they do not cite resources. I'm not asking for much, just some proof that what Schechter presented was factual. He did quote some newspapers, which was nice. However, I still wanted those newspapers to be listed in a bibliography, or at least a note of which database he used to find the prints. Without it, I have to say that Schechter painted a fictional portrait of a serial killer. The accounts in this book are way too specific to be real. It reads like fiction most likely because a lot of it is. The dialogue has no basis, and plenty of it would not have been recorded in any form. So how did Schechter know who said what and when? It was conjecture. And I'm fine with conjecture, as long as the author makes a note of it! Erik Larson--author of Devil in the White City, among others--at least gives us that. He adds a forward to his books that lets us know that some conversations were fabricated to help with the facts. Any nonfiction writer worth his salt should know this. I. Do. Not. Trust. Schechter. And his lack of refinement in this category really irked me to no end. Sure, I could do my own research to back up his information, but that's not the point of reading nonfiction. I should not have to double-check the author's work. Nonfiction should not come with homework (unless you are writing a paper and using it as a source, hah!). For all I know, Schechter wrote this book by looking through blogs and Wikipedia. So, no. Just no.
Gripe #1: The Writing Style
Oddly enough, if you read the acknowledgements at the end, he dedicated this book to his editor for doing such a fantastic job ("as always"). I'd like to have a serious talk with this editor and how much work she actually completed with Schechter. Not only were there typos and grammatical problems, but the sentence structure and overall layout of the book provided a very choppy picture. At times, it was difficult to read, dipping into the realms of high school history reports. The run-on sentences could have been easily fixed with some added punctuation. Or, even better, cutting whole sections out entirely. I think Schechter could have made the same, if not a better, impact with 100 fewer pages. There were paragraphs that did not even relate to the current content. There were entire chapters I honestly skipped after I realized he decided to go on a field trip tangent about some other event. There are good and bad ways to incorporate related ideas. With Deranged, it felt like the author could not keep his focus. And this led to repetition and over-the-top, long-winded "theories." I think he took a lesson from the Dempsey lawyer; because it also took Schechter 15,000 words and 45 typed pages to get out one statement.
Gripe #2: WHERE ARE YOUR SOURCES?!?
I cannot, in my right mind, give a nonfiction title greater than 1 star if there is no bibliography, index, footnotes, or any recognition from the author that he used outside sources to compile his book. Any researcher, librarian, or freakin' high school student, knows that a source is not credible if they do not cite resources. I'm not asking for much, just some proof that what Schechter presented was factual. He did quote some newspapers, which was nice. However, I still wanted those newspapers to be listed in a bibliography, or at least a note of which database he used to find the prints. Without it, I have to say that Schechter painted a fictional portrait of a serial killer. The accounts in this book are way too specific to be real. It reads like fiction most likely because a lot of it is. The dialogue has no basis, and plenty of it would not have been recorded in any form. So how did Schechter know who said what and when? It was conjecture. And I'm fine with conjecture, as long as the author makes a note of it! Erik Larson--author of Devil in the White City, among others--at least gives us that. He adds a forward to his books that lets us know that some conversations were fabricated to help with the facts. Any nonfiction writer worth his salt should know this. I. Do. Not. Trust. Schechter. And his lack of refinement in this category really irked me to no end. Sure, I could do my own research to back up his information, but that's not the point of reading nonfiction. I should not have to double-check the author's work. Nonfiction should not come with homework (unless you are writing a paper and using it as a source, hah!). For all I know, Schechter wrote this book by looking through blogs and Wikipedia. So, no. Just no.