Talking With Psychopaths and Savages: Beyond Evil

The book is written well but unfortunately I don’t want to read about the author I want to read about the people he interviewed.Pats him self on the back just a little too much.

Bought as a Christmas present / my daughter finds this subject fascinating so can’t really review from a personal level but was requested by my daughter

One of my favourite authors.

Adore Christopher lee berry collection.

I share similar views to others who have given this book a low rating. It’s a shame I didn’t pay attention to them!Firstly, it’s clear from the beginning that the author is not going to forensically dissect his interview subjects. He, by his own words, prefers not to use “professional ‘psychobabble’”. Instead he resorts to tabloid cliche descriptions such as “pure evil”, “savages”, “monsters” or “lacking a soul”. These are not the words of a professional, objective psychoanalyst. I don’t need to be told that, actually serial killers are quite terrible people - ya think?This style of writing also gives the impression that these killers are somehow not human, which is lazy and unhelpful to laypeople like myself. At one point he uses the phrase “In my view, they are way beyond evil.” - what does that even mean?! Surely it’s because they are human, that makes their existence so fascinating, and forces us to seek out how they came to be.Another aspect I found off-putting was the fairly hypocritical nature of the author’s aims with the book. There are hints that he sees himself as some form of crusader (“I speak for the victims...”), but then makes a crass joke while describing the level of violence to one female victim - “she really really p*ssed him off, I guess!”Also, I could find not any acknowledgement of the fact that he’s making money off of these criminals, and their crimes. The fairly lurid descriptions of his subject’s appalling crimes reinforces the view, for me, that the selling of the stories are the real agenda.I assumed that his background would give him special insight into criminology and the justice system. But despite his exposure to it, this book makes him appear as just an enthusiastic amateur. For example, he compares prisoners behaviour to caged monkeys without acknowledging/discussing the effect that incarceration has on human behaviour.Finally, I started playing spot the cliche while reading. Here is a selection. If you like this kind of writing then you’ll love the book:“Time and again”, “you couldn’t make it up”, “in a nutshell”, “certainly not...rocket science” “up the proverbial creek without a paddle”, “in need of her head examined”, “it goes without saying”I recommend Brian Masters’ book on Dennis Nilsen “Killing for Company” for an example of how to write about this kind of subject.

Honestly, I was expecting a lot better from this. I know it's hard to put your own spin on things when there is only so much you can go over but come on. The author comes across as judgemental, rude and self indulgent.He constantly goes on about his own opinions and how much everyone agrees with him. He has some troubling ideas about woman saying at one point "I speak for all victims" and then at another saying that a woman must have really pissed a guy off to have died like she did. He also puts in air quotes "working woman" as a way to describe a sex worker, clearly preferring the word prostitute or whore. The way he talks about the killers, stating how he is so smart as to play them at their own game, is one dimensional and biased beyond belief.He also goes on about all the other books he has written, encouraging you to read them. I made it through this book in the vain hope that somewhere throughout it would be something interesting but I was sadly wrong and came away with the distinctive feeling of wasting my time. Won't read anything by this unlikeable author again.