I'll Be Gone In The Dark - book club discussion!

[ufcasey]

It's book club discussion day! Today we'll be talking about I'll Be Gone in the Dark by Michelle McNamara. As usual, feel free to ignore the questions completely and just talk about your overall view of the book if you prefer.

Discussion questions:
1. This book was unfinished by Michelle McNamara due to her unexpected death. Did you feel you could identify the parts that had to be written by someone else? Was it pretty seamless between McNamara's work and others or did it feel disjointed?

2. The Golden State Killer was identified after author Michelle McNamara's death (and the publication of her book). With that knowledge, do you feel her book/hard work is vindicated? Or do you feel it is now obsolete since DNA, and not the other minor clues she obsessed about, ultimately led to his arrest?

3. McNamara not only focused on the victims, she also focused on the investigators themselves. Did you find their inclusion compelling?

4. How do feel about non-police investigators trying to solve crimes and blogging about it like McNamara did while trying to find the GSK? Helpful or potentially harmful to the investigation?

5. What part of the book was the most interesting to you? What part was the least interesting?

[ufcasey]

Tagging people who potentially read this book:
CheeringCharm, lyssbobiss, Command, B613, just, cabbagecabbage, justcallmekhaleesi, cleo29, rainbowchip, travella, nonsensetomfoolery, toepick, FastHands,captainobvious, letsgetweird, mustardseed2007, RoxMonster, knx9211, pinotgrig, abs, spedrunner, tacokick, dontlook, staceymcgill, turbo, monkeyfeet,

[tacokick]

Mar 27, 2019 9:58:15 GMT -5 ufcasey said:

It's book club discussion day! Today we'll be talking about I'll Be Gone in the Dark by Michelle McNamara. As usual, feel free to ignore the questions completely and just talk about your overall view of the book if you prefer.

Discussion questions:
1. This book was unfinished by Michelle McNamara due to her unexpected death. Did you feel you could identify the parts that had to be written by someone else? Was it pretty seamless between McNamara's work and others or did it feel disjointed?

2. The Golden State Killer was identified after author Michelle McNamara's death (and the publication of her book). With that knowledge, do you feel her book/hard work is vindicated? Or do you feel it is now obsolete since DNA, and not the other minor clues she obsessed about, ultimately led to his arrest?

3. McNamara not only focused on the victims, she also focused on the investigators themselves. Did you find their inclusion compelling?

4. How do feel about non-police investigators trying to solve crimes and blogging about it like McNamara did while trying to find the GSK? Helpful or potentially harmful to the investigation?

5. What part of the book was the most interesting to you? What part was the least interesting?

I’ll be honest. I didn’t love the book. I’ve been reading true crime since I was in middle school and this just wasn’t well-written. I don’t know if it was because they had to re-write it after she died, she wasn’t a great writer or editing but it was rambling and sloppy.

Her death was due to a combination of high doses of Adderall, Xanax, fentanyl and a cardiac issue. They found a lot of drugs in the house after her death. I’m not sure if she was in the best frame of mind when writing the book and it really came across to me in the parts she wrote. The details didn’t come out until after I read the book but they meshed with my thoughts about her writing. She seemed very scattered and IMO a bit unstable (unable to sleep, obsessing about the case, not taking care of herself) in the parts she wrote about herself. I think her death and her famous husband ended up forcing the publication of the book before it was ready, if at all.

1. I thought it was very disjointed. She rambled a lot and interjected herself in an odd way at times. I really feel like they should have published her writing as-is or not publish it at all.

2. I don’t think think she contributed at all to the arrest beyond popularizing a nickname. The case was already famous and there was already a lot of interest.

3. I thought this was interesting but not as well done as I’ve seen in other true crime books.

4. I think it’s fine for there to be amateur sleuths as long as they don’t jeopardize the investigation. Police can’t solve everything going on now much less decades old cold cases.

5. I guess I liked learning the details of the case best? Least interesting was the disjointed parts about her.

[travella]

I didn't care for this book. All the hype over this book didn't help because I had high expectations. I gave the book 1*. The book felt like it was hastily thrown together because they had a tip that someone was going to be arrested soon. The book bounced back and forth too much, felt disjointed, and had zero flow. I researched the Golden State Killer online after reading this and felt I had a much better feel for what happened from that than from this book. The only part of the book that I actually liked was McNamara's letter to the Golden State Killer.

[wesleycrusher]

We read this book for my IRL book club a few months ago. It ended up that a lot of our discussion centered around the way they caught him- using the relative's DNA. This was the first case that we had heard of it happening. I know it's fox news, but this article was the best I saw listing all the cases solved with it in 2018 after this came out.

www.foxnews.com/us/dna-genetic-genealogy-made-2018-the-year-old-the-cold-case-biggest-crime-fighting-breakthrough-in-decades


As for the book, I do think it would have been better if Michelle McNamara could have wrapped it up herself- it jump around a bit- but part of me wonders if even she ever would have finished it without catching him, since she was so consumed by her case I could see her being constantly following just one more lead, then another "final" lead and so on and so on.

I just read A Serial Killer's Daughter: My Story of Faith, Love, and Overcoming by Kerri Rawson (BTK's daughter). Similar, in that he also stopped killing and raised a family. I can't imagine trying to reconcile this as a daughter. I read it after reading this article, if you want a quick less-religiousy summation.

slate.com/human-interest/2019/02/btk-killer-daughter-kerri-rawson-loving-a-serial-killer-dennis-rader.html

As to question number 4- I definitely don't mind amateur detectives online BUT sometimes things are taken way to far (see the trapped in a hoax article on CEP). People are misidentified and their lives are ruined. Some sites seem to play a bigger part in this than others for sure.

Finally, I'm not a huge true crime fan, although I've read some. I know true crime podcasts are very popular, especially with women. What about true crime resonates so much with women? Michelle McNamara talks about being obsessed with it. Controlled fear maybe?

[tacokick]

Mar 27, 2019 10:53:54 GMT -5 wesleycrusher said:

Finally, I'm not a huge true crime fan, although I've read some. I know true crime podcasts are very popular, especially with women. What about true crime resonates so much with women? Michelle McNamara talks about being obsessed with it. Controlled fear maybe?

I’ve read studies that connect it with the fact that most perpetrators are men and victims are most often female. That women want to know why and how these crimes are committed as a way of dealing with a culture of misogyny and violence. It’s also a way to shine a light on victims that otherwise would have been forgotten. On the other hand, I know a lot of women who are interested because they want to understand how they can avoid being a victim.

[abs]

I read the first few chapters. It started to give me nightmares so I had to stop! Sounds like I didn’t miss much though.

[rainbowchip]

I'm not a huge fan of true crime but this book drew me in. I did feel like it jumped around a bunch. Like the chapter where she talked to the guy who found the lady that was killed in her neighborhood. That was a mess! But all in all, I did like the details and how she tied them together.
It might have made more sense if she went more chronologically but having it organized the way it was pointed out similarities in MO.

I really want more details about the actual guy and how he pulled it off. I hope that the HBO documentary coming out will be focused on him. If anyone has found any podcasts or articles that go into this please share!

[monkeyfeet]

I agree with Rainbow Chip, that although I don't read much true crime, I thought this story was fascinating. It may have also been of my limited knowledge before I read it as well.

1 - the multiple authors didn't bother me.

With regards to question 2, I think it was technology alone, but the book gave someone who had limited knowledge insight!

3 - I liked hearing about the investigators, but that was probably the least interesting part to me.

4- I didn't even realize this was a thing. I found it interesting that the one guy from the chat boards asked if she got a po box when she bought those cuff links from OR.

I also need to know more about the killer. I know the book or an article thought he stopped because technology catching up to him, but I can't imagine how someone goes from killing spree to living a quiet life! And he got fired for stealing a hammer....makes him sound so dumb, but he was able to evade getting caught for such a long time! And what was the deal with them mentioning his small penis multiple times? It was almost like they were trying to shame him, which is fine, but interesting way to do so. I wonder what family member provided the DNA!

[tacokick]

Mar 27, 2019 12:57:21 GMT -5 monkeyfeet said:

I agree with Rainbow Chip, that although I don't read much true crime, I thought this story was fascinating. It may have also been of my limited knowledge before I read it as well.

1 - the multiple authors didn't bother me.

With regards to question 2, I think it was technology alone, but the book gave someone who had limited knowledge insight!

3 - I liked hearing about the investigators, but that was probably the least interesting part to me.

4- I didn't even realize this was a thing. I found it interesting that the one guy from the chat boards asked if she got a po box when she bought those cuff links from OR.

I also need to know more about the killer. I know the book or an article thought he stopped because technology catching up to him, but I can't imagine how someone goes from killing spree to living a quiet life! And he got fired for stealing a hammer....makes him sound so dumb, but he was able to evade getting caught for such a long time! And what was the deal with them mentioning his small penis multiple times? It was almost like they were trying to shame him, which is fine, but interesting way to do so. I wonder what family member provided the DNA!

A family member didn’t share DNA, they had taken an Ancestry DNA type test and uploaded to a genealogy site. The police used it to trace his family tree. It’s kind of controversial since they didn’t upload it with the idea that the police would use it.

[tacokick]

If anyone is looking for other stories/info about him, look up his earlier nicknames. They were used for decades before she wrote the book.

Most popular:

East Area Rapist
Original Night Stalker

Less popular but commonly known:
Visalia Ransacker
East Bay Rapist
Diamond Knot Killer

[monkeyfeet]

Mar 27, 2019 14:05:19 GMT -5 tacokick said:

Mar 27, 2019 12:57:21 GMT -5 monkeyfeet said:

I agree with Rainbow Chip, that although I don't read much true crime, I thought this story was fascinating. It may have also been of my limited knowledge before I read it as well.

1 - the multiple authors didn't bother me.

With regards to question 2, I think it was technology alone, but the book gave someone who had limited knowledge insight!

3 - I liked hearing about the investigators, but that was probably the least interesting part to me.

4- I didn't even realize this was a thing. I found it interesting that the one guy from the chat boards asked if she got a po box when she bought those cuff links from OR.

I also need to know more about the killer. I know the book or an article thought he stopped because technology catching up to him, but I can't imagine how someone goes from killing spree to living a quiet life! And he got fired for stealing a hammer....makes him sound so dumb, but he was able to evade getting caught for such a long time! And what was the deal with them mentioning his small penis multiple times? It was almost like they were trying to shame him, which is fine, but interesting way to do so. I wonder what family member provided the DNA!

A family member didn’t share DNA, they had taken an Ancestry DNA type test and uploaded to a genealogy site. The police used it to trace his family tree. It’s kind of controversial since they didn’t upload it with the idea that the police would use it.

Yes, that’s what I meant; thanks for clarifying for me. The book, if I remember right, said it was only a matter of time as those sites gained popularity. But as happy as they (family) are to have found the killer, I would imagine there would be some mixed emotions. He’s obviously not the man they thought him to be.

[lyssbobiss, Command, B613]

Thank God I’m not alone in my opinion on this book. It took me a while to get through because it wasn’t organized very well to me. There were parts of it that I could appreciate, and I don’t know if they were written by Michelle in a more lucid mindset or if they were a part of Jensen’s additions, like some of the stories of the couples who were murdered. Those were well-written and made contextual sense. But then it would jump around and I would find myself confused again. It also didn’t help for me personally that it seemed to be organized geographically rather than chronologically. I don’t have any familiarity with California, so the city names didn’t help. And her anecdotes about why she was obsessed with crime seemed disjointed as well. I didn’t read her blog when she kept it, because I didn’t know about it, so it’s possible that maybe her writing style just isn’t my thing, but this book did read almost like a remix of a book.
I feel guilty saying that because it was so hyped, and I love Patton, and drug addiction is really powerful. Additionally, I do think she helped keep the case in the public conscience, which may or may not have led to the GSK’s capture. I don’t want to discount the work she did, but it wouldn’t be my first choice of book to recommend to someone into true crime.

[ufcasey]

So I tried to read this book three separate times and gave up pretty quickly each time. One of those times I even did the audiobook thinking maybe that would help, but nope. And I quit fairly early on all three times so I can't really respond to any of the questions. I thought it was maybe just me and not wanting to read a true sad story when I want my reading to be more escapism lately.

[expectantsteelerfan]

Mar 27, 2019 10:19:32 GMT -5 tacokick said:

Mar 27, 2019 9:58:15 GMT -5 ufcasey said:

I’ll be honest. I didn’t love the book. I’ve been reading true crime since I was in middle school and this just wasn’t well-written. I don’t know if it was because they had to re-write it after she died, she wasn’t a great writer or editing but it was rambling and sloppy.

Her death was due to a combination of high doses of Adderall, Xanax, fentanyl and a cardiac issue. They found a lot of drugs in the house after her death. I’m not sure if she was in the best frame of mind when writing the book and it really came across to me in the parts she wrote. The details didn’t come out until after I read the book but they meshed with my thoughts about her writing. She seemed very scattered and IMO a bit unstable (unable to sleep, obsessing about the case, not taking care of herself) in the parts she wrote about herself. I think her death and her famous husband ended up forcing the publication of the book before it was ready, if at all.

1. I thought it was very disjointed. She rambled a lot and interjected herself in an odd way at times. I really feel like they should have published her writing as-is or not publish it at all.

2. I don’t think think she contributed at all to the arrest beyond popularizing a nickname. The case was already famous and there was already a lot of interest.

3. I thought this was interesting but not as well done as I’ve seen in other true crime books.

4. I think it’s fine for there to be amateur sleuths as long as they don’t jeopardize the investigation. Police can’t solve everything going on now much less decades old cold cases.

5. I guess I liked learning the details of the case best? Least interesting was the disjointed parts about her.

I didn't know any of this about Michelle, but reading it didn't surprise me.  

I felt like some sections were done well, and others weren't, and I couldn't tell if it was from others trying to finish her work for her or not.  

Overall I felt like it was really hard to follow.

And more than anything, I hated reading the whole thing (I had to force myself to keep going many times) knowing there'd be no payoff of finding who he was in the end.  I was almost annoyed by the 'call to action' at the end asking others to take up where she left off.  I had no interest in looking into it further.  But I WAS happy to read he was caught and interested in hearing who he really was when the links were posted on here.

[mustardseed2007]

1. I liked the book fine. I read it first after her death (obviously) but before they caught the GSK. Certain times she really did obsess over things and knowing about her death...that she seemed to have really bad anxiety and the case was all consuming for her, it made me feel really bad for her. Then when they did catch him and knowing HOW they caught him, it was exciting but also tragic to see how she really DID talk about that method of identification in her book.

2. Since she talked about DNA in her book I think she was somewhat vindicated, but then since she won't ever know it's just tragic. The letter to the old man and then the description of how they put him under arrest was really chilling though, in a good way.

3. I thought this was interesting. I always thing it's interesting to hear about the detectives. But...I think Paul Holes is overblown now.

4. Potentially harmful. I mean, I certainly will obsess over a mystery but this goes way too far sometimes and I thing that a general call to action is not actually a good thing.

5. What part of the book was the most interesting to you? What part was the least interesting?
The letter to the old man was the most interesting. The least interesting I'm not sure b/c it's been a bit since I read it. I remember skipping past the part where it talked about triangulating where the crimes occurred to find out where he lived. That went on and on.

By the way I just finished reading the serial killers daughter book that someone else mentioned above. I thought that was an interesting, quick and easy read. It inspired me to listen to the podcast by the smiley face killer's daughter today during a really long car ride. I listened to 3 episodes and found it super creepy and haunting, although it really pulled me in too.

[minzy]

I’ve been got nothing to add about the book as I didn’t read it, but I do appreciate the discussion! I’ve got it on my nightstand but think after everyone’s review I’m going to pass on this one.

[tacokick]

Mar 28, 2019 5:17:51 GMT -5 minzy said:

I’ve been got nothing to add about the book as I didn’t read it, but I do appreciate the discussion! I’ve got it on my nightstand but think after everyone’s review I’m going to pass on this one.

I know a lot of people loved it! I’m surprised so many other people didn’t here.

[wildrice]

I read it about a year ago. I think it was actually right around the time that they found the killer - I tried to avoid reading news articles about him until I was done, so IIRC it was literally while I was reading the book that he was caught. I think finding him through Ancestry DNA is fascinating. Personally, I have no issue with someone using my DNA in this way. If one of my family members was a serial killer (or committed a lesser violent crime) I'd be completely supportive of them being caught and punished. It would suck if it was someone I was close with, but these victims really do deserve some closure and justice around this.

I remember I liked the book, but I was not reading it for a book club and I tend to read things less critically when I'm not planning to discuss them. I thought the book was interesting, and I don't really read much true crime (despite finding it fascinating) so the format didn't jump out at me as being a problem.

It's too bad that she died, because I think that did affect the book (also, too bad that she died because she was young and vibrant and that's a tragedy on it's own, obviously). I also think it's too bad it was published before the killer was found, though there was no way to predict that was something worth waiting for - he may have never been found! I don't recall being bothered by different writing styles throughout the book, but it I hated how abruptly it seemed to end and then the last chapter or whatever was written by someone else quickly to tie things up.

I think there definitely was potential for it to be a better book, but I wouldn't avoid recommending it.

[wesleycrusher]

It surprises me that so many people here did not like the book. My RL book club loved it, and while I thought it jumped around, it wouldn't stop me from recommending it as a true crime book.

[aspentosh]

It was ok, IMO. I read it while H was out of town and that was not by best decision, lol. It was creepy even though I knew he'd been caught.

1. There were definitely parts that flowed better than others. My biggest dislike on the book was all the jumping around. I found it hard to get into it because of that.

2. I don't necessarily believe she was writing the book to find him. I think she wrote the book because, to her, it was important that she put into words what she was doing. She had her blog that brought a lot of people together so I think she felt it was the "next step"... maybe?

3. I actually really liked the she talked about ALL the people involved, not just the victims. It gave the book more substance.

4. I wonder if bloggers/writers hurt the investigations because the killer could read the book and stop doing things that might be helpful to police. That being said, the GSK had an MO and stuck to it so I'm not sure in his case it mattered. But maybe for others.

5. Most interesting were the maps at the end. I loved seeing it depicted in pictures and trying to get into his *very creepy* mind about how he chose his victims. Least favorite was the jumping around.

I'm not a true crime fan. It creeps me out and gives me nightmares. It took me over a week to finish this book, and I'm not sure it's because of that or because I found it harder to read from a writing perspective.

[pinotgrig]

I gave this one 3 stars. I was really conflicted about it - it did scare me a bit, but I don’t know how much of that was the author’s doing, since the GSK was creepy all by himself. I also didn’t much care for the layout. The first half of the book wasn’t told chronologically which kept throwing me off and I couldn’t ever figure out why it was done that way (I think because of some confusion between the EAR and the original Night Stalker?), but I feel like it was said pretty early on they were one and the same.

That said, though, the writing was very well done - I like that McNamara shared some of her personal life so we could see how she became involved in the investigation, how closely she worked with police, and how she would slip away from movie premieres to follow up on a lead. I also enjoyed how she wrote - it wasn’t just a telling; there was more behind it that made me feel more personally connected. However, this flow wasn’t a constant throughout but was instead a bit more choppy. I know this is partly due to McNamara’s death before the novel was completed and having been completed by others, but it was a bit distracting.

[mrspez07]

I know this discussion is old but wanted to weigh in nonetheless.

I listened to the audio on this. I love murder mysteries but have never really gotten into true crime. This one was a little too real in some parts for my fictional murder loving mind. I’m vaguely familiar with these areas of northern CA and got sucked in with the detailed breakdown of the Danville area. Some parts were definitely more captivating and coherent than others. I liked the info about the investigators, it was a good personal angle to the story.
I wished that there had been an epilogue noting the update of capture and how and weighing it some against the book, but I need to remember it wasn’t a podcast, but a book with a publish date