Zodiac Unmasked: The Identity of America's Most Elusive Serial Killer Revealed

I’m a fan of Graysmith’s first Zodiac book, and of Fincher’s film; I read this sequel in a spirit of sympathy. But in addition to being poorly written, indifferently organized, and sloppily proofread, it has an ultimate effect precisely opposite to Graysmith’s intention. It leaves an objective reader pretty much convinced that Arthur Leigh Allen probably wasn’t the Zodiac, only a pathetic child molester with a lot of unfulfilled talents who loved the idea of people thinking he was the Zodiac. Graysmith’s books should be read: his inside access and marshaling of facts are essential to anyone who can filter out the often specious use to which he puts them. But what’s badly needed is a comprehensive account of the case show more written by a skilled crime historian without a vested interest in proving “his” suspect guilty, even at the cost of vapid speculation, implausible rationalization, and rampant elision of contradictory evidence. show less

After seeing Zodiac in theatres in early '07 (and how is it this fascinating film did not garner an academy award nomination?) I had high expectations of what I figured would be an equally fascinating, compelling read. Big disappointment. While the movie flows and builds toward a suspenseful conclusion, Zodiac Unmasked regresses to most of the material in its precursor, Zodiac, making the narrative of the sequel choppy and frustratingly redundant. Had I not read Zodiac first, perhaps I would have found the sequel more compelling, but there simply was not a whole lot of new information to glean from Unmasked that I didn't already know from either the first book or the first-rate film. And while I admire (sort of) the amount of show more misanthropic, obsessional research that went into the writing of the book, I don't admire the plain, drab writing style. This story could have been a true crime classic in the hands of a skilled writer. I can heartily recommend the film, but I'm sorry to say the books leave a lot -- namely, good writing -- to be desired. show less

The other reviews are correct... this book could have been a LOT shorter. The same information was repeated again and again. We GET it, Robert Graysmith.

Truth is, everybody wanted Arthur Leigh Allen to be the Zodiac, including Allen himself. But he probably wasn't. Sure, there were a lot of coincidences that make Allen look like a good match for the killer, but the DNA didn't match.

Ugh. Long and repetitive. Obsessive. Don't read this. Read Graysmith's other Zodiac book. That one is excellent.

Zodiac Unmasked was an interesting take on the real life incidents revolving around the Zodiac Killer.

This book could have been a LOT shorter than it is, there is almost so much content in this book I got bored (and I am OBSESSED with conspiracies and theories, I'll sit through long books and videos any day of the week). I almost quit this book completely because it was boring me to death. I did love all the research and information within this book, but it was almost too much.

This is one of many theories of who the Zodiac Killer was, and it truly is fleshed out. It may not be 100% correct, but it was a good read if you want to look into the information surrounding this theory.

The positives within this book is the amazing content show more within it, but that also ties with my major negative: it's long, repetitive and becomes quite boring due to those two factors. The theory itself is confusing and long, but that doesn't mean the book needs to be over 500 pages of repeating the same stuff over and over and over. I did enjoy the fact that the book was in chronological order, but I also felt that it didn't need to be. I would have loved all the hard hitting facts and awesome plot points first before all the boring, nitty, gritty details.

Overall, I'm not totally impressed with this book. It bored me to tears and I almost stopped reading it.

1 out of 5 stars. show less

Zodiac taught me that serial killers are either paranoid schizophrenics that have voices telling them to kill or they’re sociopaths. There was a lot of careful research done for this book, and I can appreciate that. I think the Zodiac is a fascinating example of a serial killer, but you can't help but cringe when you're reading some of the descriptions of the murders. It’s definitely creepy that a killer that sadistic and psychotic was never caught.

Zodiac Unmasked illustrated Graysmith’s findings from his personal investigation of the Zodiac killings that picked up where he left off with his first book, just called Zodiac. It's about the Zodiac killings that happened in the Bay Area back in the late 60's and early 70's. In the first book, he did find a particular person which he concluded as his main suspect. He said that he felt that the police and other investigators looking at the case had pretty much narrowed it down to a particular person; but he gave this person a pseudonym so when Zodiac Unmasked came out, he actually named this person, and the primary suspect is Arthur Lee Allen, who has since passed away. He expands on Allen’s life previous to the killings and the show more reasoning behind his suspicions. I was interested in this book after seeing the Zodiac film and would highly recommend reading this if you are interested in crime and mystery.

Ashley Z. show less

This is Robert Graysmith's second book about The Zodiac killer.

Author Robert Graysmith was on the staff of the San francisco Chronicle when the hooded killer's first letter arived.After 8 years of research Graymsith revealed 100 of facts never before released.. and his own theory of the Zodiac's true identity but they did not caught him.


Now 19 years after Zodiac was published it seems they have finally caught him.
Zodiac Unmasked!!
(I have just read Zodiac and can't wait to read this one.
Hardback

Update January 23st 2008
It has been a long time since I read this book but I recall I was very disappointed by this book. It promised answers but in honesty it were just guesses. Lots of repetition.