I started I’ll Be Gone In The Dark by Michelle McNamara, I can’t stand all the parts about her just talking about herself!

Submitted by gamercouplelolz t3_11dyqim in books

I’m on page 50 and so far it’s hardly been about the crimes or criminal, it’s all about her talking about herself! I’m getting so irritated, she sounds so self centered it’s infuriating. How about we talk more about the victims or the crimes or the criminal? Why is she going on and on about her mother and father and family and how she is such a mastermind detective. It seems incredibly self absorbed, and to be completely honest it sounds like she ignored her family and maybe even found them bothersome in the way of her research. She’s doing a ton of humble bragging too, I find it really distasteful. I know she died while writing this book but she also was the one taking a ton of prescriptions without checking if they safe to mix, she is a mother and completely seems to disregard her daughter as a nuisance. I don’t know if I can finish this book. Does it get any better?

7

Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

SteamboatMcGee t1_jacgf1d wrote

That book isn't a book about the Golden State Killer, it's a book about Michelle McNamara writing about the GSK, who she was fascinated by and through whom she was on track to realize her lifelong dream of becoming a book author.

Ultimately, she did not succeed in either identifying the GSK (apparently his name was not in any of her notes, much less the actual manuscript) or in finishing her book, and the friends and family who pushed for it to be completed after her death succeeded in what amounts to a vanity project, imo.

It is interesting from the perspective of real crime solving, especially from the civilian angle. A lot of us feel like we could solve these cases if only given the right access, and she did succeed in getting a lot of access.

26

lucyjayne t1_jad3gky wrote

I haven't read it, but listened to a lot of podcasts talking about the book. They all stated that Michelle pretty much solved the case, which I just took at face value because I had no interest in reading it. So, that's not true apparently! Well, now I know and feel silly for believing them.

3

Myshkin1981 t1_jad84ae wrote

I don’t want to speak Ill of the dead, but Michelle McNamara wasn’t any closer to solving this case than any of the thousands of other internet sleuths that have been obsessing over EAR/ONS for decades. Her one and only contributing was coining the term “Golden State Killer”. Her writing helped to renew interest in this old case, her untimely death amplified that interest, and the Golden State Killer was caught right about the time her book was being readied for publication. For these reasons a lot of people ended up thinking she had actually solved the case

8

SteamboatMcGee t1_jaerbkr wrote

Yeah I found the dialogue around the book really misleading once I'd read it. She had a lot of theories, but none of them fit the guy who was ultimately caught. And the investigations were languishing but clearly active, that's how she got so much info after all, by talking to investigators who were still trying to figure it out.

You could definitely attribute the popularity of the GSK (and that name) to her, but not any of the actual solving. He was caught through DNA, like so many are.

I will mention though, that the GSK was actually found by a civilian genealogist personally uploading a DNA sample (from one of the rapes) to a civilian genealogy website as if she were a normal person, and then using the suggested family connections to figure out who he was. This was all in violation of the genealogy websites usage agreements (other databases had also been searched legally, but this one was not aware and had not agreed to disclose customer info in this way).

It's entirely possible that if this had gone to court it would have been thrown out, and there are some really questionable privacy issues at play, so I have wondered and heard others wondering if Michelle McNamara and her book were useful distractions away from how this guy was actually caught.

5

FocusAny1808 t1_jac1q8o wrote

Pretty sure it wasn’t finished before she died and three other people put it together and maybe that’s why you feel it’s disjointed.

13

Soggy_Presentation85 t1_jabmjpv wrote

That entire book was such a let down for me. It was completely disjointed and all over the place even in terms of time line with the actual crime / events. Wish I had skipped that one. You are not alone in your feelings.

12

gamercouplelolz OP t1_jabo2w8 wrote

Ya idk if I will finish, maybe when I’m bored at work. Her writing style is just not my cup of tea.

3

infi_nate86 t1_jac03e3 wrote

Just watch the HBO miniseries, if you have access. I couldn’t finish the book either, but the show was quite good. Admittedly, there’s still a fair amount of her personal life that is covered in the series, but I didn’t mind it as much.

4

hour_of_the_rat t1_jac5j38 wrote

>but the show was quite good

I had the exact opposite reaction. I didn't read the book, but from what OP is saying, the tone of the book seems to match the HBO miniseries--an almost endless amount of everyone talking about how awesome Michelle was and how "then we realized" over and over and over again, without focusing enough on everything else--details of the case, victims, police, suspects, etc.

I was expecting a documentary about the serial killer, but it's actually a documentary about Michelle.

I was surprised at how much I didn't like it. HBO is generally known for its high quality, but this got past the editors.

5

infi_nate86 t1_jacbb3q wrote

Your opinion is valid. I haven’t seen the show since it came out, so perhaps your memory is serving you better. Having failed to make a dent in the book, I found the series good enough, but still not great.

2

Myshkin1981 t1_jad96oy wrote

I understand where you’re coming from, but I don’t think the book was ever actually supposed to be about the Golden State Killer; it was supposed to be about Michelle McNamara’s obsession with the Golden State Killer. Though the marketing has always pushed it as true crime. I too had problems with the book, but ultimately felt is succeeded as a self examination

9

ahkna t1_jaeggdx wrote

The subtitle "One Woman's Obsessive Search for the Golden State Killer" didn't clue you in that it would include a memoir aspect?

6

Topicchange t1_jac5svq wrote

100% this, it was given such a high praise that when I was reading it I was wondering if I picked up the wrong novel. I understand including her background to give context to who she is and how she came about helping to solve the crime, but I felt like it was 90% about her and 10% about the crime and victims. I’m pretty sure I finished it but I think I dissociated as I was reading it because I can’t remember, but I believe it’s the same all throughout.

Edit: she didn’t help solve the crime, my bad. Obviously it wasn’t memorable and more teeth pulling since I can’t remember too much of it

3

Myshkin1981 t1_jad9j67 wrote

She didn’t help solve the crime

3

Topicchange t1_jadc6jx wrote

Thanks for that! I can only recall the beginning up until the cuff links and bits and pieces here and there, guess I’m confusing the info with the podcast I listened to after I had read this book.

1

Denverdogmama t1_jaeakpz wrote

That never bothered me- it kinda reminds me of Stranger Beside Me. But I did have to bail on the show when it came to the episode where she died. I lost a parent at home when I was around the same age as her daughter, so I couldn’t do it.

3

bobatsfight t1_jacio5g wrote

I didn’t read the book, but enjoyed the miniseries enough to suggest maybe just skip the book and watch the adaptation?

1

Dunkin_Ideho t1_jadw5jn wrote

I haven’t read this and refused to watch the documentary becuase I always felt she was a Johnny come lately that got credit for work detectives did for decades simply because she was that goblin Patton Oswald’s wife.

1

Gone-In-3 t1_jacm0um wrote

Yeah I wish I had DNFed that book. It gave me 2 panic attacks where I thought someone had broken into my house.

0

wordyshipmate82 t1_jad83oc wrote

I thought it was very well written, and I enjoyed the parts about her life. I am not, generally, a fan of the "true-crime" genre, but since this subverted the genre, I enjoyed it, though it is perhaps this same subversion that many of you object to.

At the very least, her work and notes led directly to finding the Golden State Killer, which has been well documented. Without Michele's work, he likely would not have been captured.

−3

Myshkin1981 t1_jadpfy4 wrote

Her work and notes did not directly, or even indirectly, lead to the capture of the Golden State Killer. Genetic genealogy led to his capture. They uploaded his DNA profile to a DNA database, where they found several distant relatives. They then used genealogy to trace them all back to a common source, and from there created a list of possible suspects. They then used what they already knew about the Golden State Killer to eliminate possible suspects until only Joseph James DeAngelo remained. This was a shitload of work done by investigators, and Michelle McNamara had nothing to do with any of it

4