Zodiac

It is difficult for me to understand how this book has gone through multiple printings and is still being sold. Presumably the readers are people fascinated with these unsolved murders from 50 years ago and drawn in by the promise of never-before-available details. Unfortunately the book is so poorly written that I had to force myself to finish it (and then only because the "Z" title fit nicely into a current reading challenge).

Other reviewers have complained about the amount of detail Graysmith includes, but IMO that's not the problem. It's the wretched writing! Much of the book alternates between police-blotter-like recreations of events, and descriptions of the author's efforts at detective work (for which he frequently applauds show more himself, albeit sometimes putting the words of praise into the mouths of other individuals).

I found myself wondering more than once why the publisher hadn't forced Graysmith to submit to an editor with a well-sharpened blue pencil. This selection from page 2 is typical of his graceless efforts at description: "He put his Timex wristwatch with chrome case and band on his left wrist, and shoved a dollar and fifty-five cents, all in change, in his right front pants pocket. He pocketed a white handkerchief and a small bottle of Binaca breath drops." Seriously? He put his wrist watch on his wrist and pocketed items in his pockets? Sheesh!

With so many wonderful true crime writers at work, it's unfortunate that this admittedly fascinating case was left to a cartoonist who happened to be at the right place and time. (No general criticism of the writing of political cartoonists intended - Tom Toles certainly excels at both.) But just because you work at a newspaper clearly does not mean you can write! show less

A super interesting firsthand account from someone who worked at the SF Chronicle when the Zodiac sent his letters to them, and who obsessively compiled all the details of the case together. It upsets me greatly that the Zodiac was never caught and even made me leave the light on a littler longer some nights! After reading In Cold Blood it just didn’t measure up (because what could, really?), but the only real criticism I have is that there are too many ballistics details.

"A sexual sadist, the Zodiac killer took pleasure in torture and murder. His first victims were a teenage couple, stalked and shot dead in a lovers’ lane. After another slaying, he sent his first mocking note to authorities, promising he would kill more. The official tally of his victims was six. He claimed thirty-seven dead. The real toll may have reached fifty.
Robert Graysmith was on staff at the San Francisco Chronicle in 1969 when Zodiac first struck, triggering in the resolute reporter an unrelenting obsession with seeing the hooded killer brought to justice. In this gripping account of Zodiac’s eleven-month reign of terror, Graysmith reveals hundreds of facts previously unreleased, including the complete text of the killer’s show more letters."
I found this book to be a little disjointed with a plethora of names that make it difficult to keep up with. However, the story is interesting and lays out Mr. Graysmith's commitment (obsession?) to uncover the person behind the murders and injuries to so many people over so long a period of time. show less

There's a scene in David Fincher's excellent film based partly on Zodiac where Robert Graysmith (played by Jake Gyllenhaal) begs journalist Paul Avery (Robert Downey Jr.) to write this book and is, regrettably, rebuffed. Graysmith then takes on the project himself. As a true crime writer, he makes a great cartoonist. He just doesn't have the skills to write believable dialogue or to pull together the many twisted threads of the Zodiac's unsolved crimes. In the end, Zodiac is as much about Graysmith's singular obsession with the case as it is about the case history itself. I was left feeling sorry for his wife and kids more than anything else.

The material might be good but the narrator was so monotone and boring. I had to increase the speed to 1.2, which helped. I often felt myself zoning out when he was talking. The overall content seems interesting but not sure if I would ever pick it up to read after listening to it. I was actually quite disappointed in the narrator.

I've only read one other true crime book before this one and that was [b:Helter Skelter: The True Story of the Manson Murders|105992|Helter Skelter The True Story of the Manson Murders|Vincent Bugliosi|https://images.gr-assets.com/books/1347694754s/105992.jpg|1077715]. I'm not the biggest fan of true crime books. I prefer to listen to or watch true crime in the form of TV or podcasts. I have found that both of the true crime authors I have read have an air of being smarter than everyone else though that is much truer for Bugliosi then Graysmith. I think I liked this about as much as Helter Skelter though I was much more eager to read this one. I actually listened to the audiobook on 2X speed which made this a very quick read which I show more liked. Overall this was a solid true crime story. It's a little slow at first but I thoroughly enjoyed it. show less

I'm really rather embarrassed to have read this, but the recent film (all thirteen hours of it!) sufficiently intrigued me. Graysmith, as several people cautioned me, is not a very good writer; he has an odd tendency to sensationalize not especially sensational moments, and then describe parts that are naturally fantastic or terrifying in a strangely flat tone. In a way it served as a compliment to David Fincher, who included some legitimately nail-biting scenes in his 26-hour-long adaptation. It's intriguing, however, to see how Graysmith's seriously consuming interest in Zodiac manifests in this book; he draws some connections that seem like pretty lengthy reaches to me, and I'm not utterly convinced of the veracity of all his show more reporting. In a way this becomes a story not so much about a serial killer, but about a man obsessed with one. It was in the scenes with that element as their focus that Fincher's film became the most cohesive (and stopped making you feel every second of its 39-hour-length), and interestingly, the places in Graysmith's narrative where that subtext shines through are where it's the most compelling as well. In the end, neither is the best book *or* movie that could be made on the subject, but they're both very interesting in spots. show less