Zodiac by Robert Graysmith
|
List Price: Our Price: $4.37 You Save: $3.62 (45%) Availability: Usually ships in 1-2 business days Buy Used: from $0.01 (click here) Category: Book See more book details and other editions |
|---|
Book Reviews of Zodiac
Book Review: Enlightening of the facts
Summary: 3 Stars
Graysmith recounts the timeline of the unsolved serial murders of the "Zodiac" killer. I knew that Zodiac is still free, but it never really hit me that he's among us until after I read this book. This person (or possibly more than one person) is working with somebody, sleeping with somebody, cared for by somebody. Could be you. Could be me. Nobody is working on the case anymore. He's intelligent. He's possibly still killing. He's good at what he does (however horrible and gruesome it is). He's free.Book Review: Book decent, anxious to see what the movie does....
Summary: 3 Stars
This was a decent book to read, but nothing that knocked my socks off. It was very detailed and after awhile I found myself just kind of skimming the pages because I felt after a few chapters the book was getting very formulaic in its description of the events. I'm anxious to see the movie.
Book Review: Written by a cartoonist, and you can kinda tell.
Summary: 2 Stars
Until David Fincher's movie came out (I still haven't seen it, but am eager to), I'd never really heard much about the Zodiac killer. I'd seen "Dirty Harry" and knew it was loosely based on Zodiac, but that was about it. Reading descriptions of the Fincher movie got me intrigued. I typically am not that into in serial killer stories, as the entertaining part of a mystery for me tends to be the motive, and serial killers seen to all have the same motive -- they're all just really, really nuts. That said, the Zodiac killer seemed a bit more complex, if only because he got the entire nation wrapped up in his case by sending (to the San Francisco newspapers) complicated ciphers and codes he claimed would reveal his identity.
This non-fiction book is written by a political cartoonist from the SF Examiner who was fascinated by the Zodiac's letters and ciphers and ended up spending over a decade researching the crimes, talking to suspects and witnesses, and working on his codes (ultimately, Graysmith ended up cracking the one coded message nobody else, including the FBI and CIA, had managed to break -- pretty cool, if you ask me). Overall, I found the tale of the Zodiac killer fairly creepy, and the parts of the book that focused on his actual crimes and taunting of the newspaper and cops were fascinating. But at least a quarter of this book was boring as heck, especially when we got into the late 70's and early 80's, when the Zodiac all but disappeared and Graysmith focused more on dissecting various suspects and theories. This could've been interesting in the hands of a stronger writer, but Graysmith is a political cartoonist, not a reporter, and it really shows. Nevertheless, this book is worth picking up if you're curious about the story of the Zodiac killer, and may make an interesting companion to the movie if you've already seen it and want to learn more. Other than that, though, nothing much else to see here, and I'm pretty unlikely to pick up Graysmith's follow-up to this book, Zodiac Unmasked. Oh, who am I kidding -- I probably WILL pick it up. But I'll have only myself to blame if I end up not liking it all that much either!
Book Review: Wasn't as good as it should have been
Summary: 2 Stars
Author was just too long winded. I love true crime, but this book just couldn't hold my attention.Book Review: I wasn't expecting a novel when I bought this "true" crime book...
Summary: 1 Stars
When this novel first appeared in 1986, everyone assumed the author, Robert Graysmith, had honestly and accurately documented the unsolved case of the Zodiac murders. Nothing can be further from the truth.
I first noticed errors in his work as early as 1993, but assumed they were perhaps typos or he was a little mixed up with directions. I had known since 1991 that "Robert Hall Starr" was none other than Arthur Leigh Allen, the most well-known Zodiac suspect, and I knew he lived at 32 Fresno Street in Vallejo. After reading this novel thinly disguised as a non-fiction true crime book, I assumed, as did everyone else, that Allen lived close to Zodiac victim Darlene Ferrin (pp. 33, 293) and later moved to Santa Rosa (p. 268); since he was in Vallejo in the 1990's, I assumed he moved back. After unsuccessfully trying to locate his place of employment in Santa Rosa (which Graysmith described in detail, pp. 271-272, 277, 281, 305) in late 1994, I started looking at things in Vallejo. It was then that I realized how close 32 Fresno was to 1300 Virginia (where Darlene Ferrin lived, p. 16), and I wondered what the odds were against Allen living close to her in 1969, moving to Santa Rosa and then returning to the same general area in the 1980's or 90's. A little further checking into old directories for Vallejo revealed that Allen had never moved away!
It was then that everything began to unravel for Graysmith. I noticed as I looked back over old newspaper accounts that I had read much of the dialogue before; Graysmith lifted it straight from the newspaper stories without even giving anyone credit! But it didn't end there. His theories never made any sense, such as the infamous "projector theory" (pp. 218-219). He claimed that, after closely studying the April 1978 letter (which was ultimately found to be a forgery), the Zodiac Killer used a projector to trace over the writing of other people, so that, if his own writing was checked by law enforcement, there would be no match. Nice theory, however, how did the Zodiac use the projector to write on the car door of victim Bryan Hartnell (pp. 72, 76-77)? Not only that, if he was so certain in 1978 that the Zodiac was using a projector to disguise his writing, why was he just two years later trying to get samples of Arthur Leigh Allen's handwriting for expert Sherwood Morrill to examine (pp. 281-283), and why did he spend at least four years trying to do so (p. 305)? Graysmith claimed that Allen's writing "was the closest to the Zodiac printing that I had ever seen" (p. 281). If Allen was the Zodiac as Graysmith is trying to make everyone believe, what then was the point of Allen using a projector to disguise his writing when it looked just like the Zodiac's writing anyway?
It's absurdities like this that make this novel a waste of time if you're interested in the truth and the facts of the case, but it is totally entertaining on another level entirely as we watch Graysmith painting himself into corner after corner and sticking his foot in his mouth time and again.
One thing that bears special mention is how and, more importantly, when, Graysmith claims he first heard about Allen. In his 1986 version of the story (p. 260), he says it was on March 2nd, 1980, and he was asking Inspector Dave Toschi if any Zodiac suspects ever wrote to him. Toschi claimed Allen was the only one, and Graysmith details the conversation. In his 2002 followup novel, "Zodiac Unmasked" (pp. 181-182), Graysmith claims this conversation happened sometime after August 31st, 1977 (the day Allen was released from Atascadero) and before January 3rd, 1978; it is apparently early September 1977, and not only are the details of the conversation different than in his original version 16 years prior (though they still revolve around Graysmith inquiring as to whether any suspects ever wrote to Toschi), he now claims the time it happened was two and a half years earlier!
To top things off, we find in this 2007 reissue of "Zodiac" yet a third version of that conversation (p. 346)! In this case, the director of the new movie "Zodiac," David Fincher, is detailing how Graysmith became involved, and it had nothing to do with asking about suspects! The time is just prior to Allen's release from Atascadero, so it is July or August 1977, and Graysmith wants to help with the case so Toschi essentially enlists his aid and tells him to check out Allen in Vallejo!
So, Graysmith details three different versions of the conversation and gives three different dates as to when it allegedly happened, and he was one of the only two people who were there! What gives?
The answer is obvious, and if he can't be truthful about an incident that he himself participated in, then we know precisely what to expect from the rest of this novel. If you want to know the truth, then don't waste your time with this book. If you want to read a scary and entertaining piece of fiction, then this novel is just what you're looking for! Just don't confuse it with reality.
Oh, and I had to give it a one star rating because there are no zero star ratings.