From lusting for blood to bloodlust- that's been my reading lately.
Having just completed the Twilight saga, I've moved on to The Ice Man: Confessions of a Mafia Contract Killer, by Philip Carlo. It's the true story of Richard "The Ice Man" Kuklinski, one of the most notorious killers-for-hire in history. His name came up toward the end of my Abnormal Psych class last semester, and I was intrigued. My professor shuddered as she described seeing a taped interview with the man, how dead and remorseless his eyes were as he recited some of the horrific methods he used to torture and kill his victims. For decades, nobody suspected this husband and father of three, a man who loved entertaining his neighbors and showering presents on his family. Having an interest in the criminal mind myself, I decided to read more about him.
At the risk of having a contract taken out on me, I have to say I'm disappointed. Kuklinski is a fascinating case, and the author has the potential to tell a gripping story. Unfortunately, though Carlo has talent (this book was a NY Times bestseller, and he has written several other biographies), I had some real problems with this book. Carlo was in desperate need of two things: a thesaurus, and an editor who actually knows how to edit. The words "stone cold killer" were used to describe just about every killer in the book, repeatedly, thereby losing its effectiveness as a description for the Ice Man. Or any of the other killers, for that matter.
That wasn't the only repetitive part of the book. Phrases and even sections of the book are used again and again, sometimes verbatim. Annoying! The book should, by rights, be half as long as it is. A little editing and proper organization would have made this an excellent biography. As is, I found myself becoming aggravated, my focus on the story constantly broken by yet another "this was to prove to be a fatal mistake" or "he was dead before he knew it" or "the police had no idea..."
My beef is with the editor more than the author. It is the editor's job to clean this sort of thing up, and he didn't do it.
On the plus side, this has hammered home to me just how crucial a good editor is!
Final analysis? Richard Kuklinski's story is fascinating and ugly. If you're really interested, then get this book from the library, but don't buy it. Otherwise, give it a pass.
Having just completed the Twilight saga, I've moved on to The Ice Man: Confessions of a Mafia Contract Killer, by Philip Carlo. It's the true story of Richard "The Ice Man" Kuklinski, one of the most notorious killers-for-hire in history. His name came up toward the end of my Abnormal Psych class last semester, and I was intrigued. My professor shuddered as she described seeing a taped interview with the man, how dead and remorseless his eyes were as he recited some of the horrific methods he used to torture and kill his victims. For decades, nobody suspected this husband and father of three, a man who loved entertaining his neighbors and showering presents on his family. Having an interest in the criminal mind myself, I decided to read more about him.
At the risk of having a contract taken out on me, I have to say I'm disappointed. Kuklinski is a fascinating case, and the author has the potential to tell a gripping story. Unfortunately, though Carlo has talent (this book was a NY Times bestseller, and he has written several other biographies), I had some real problems with this book. Carlo was in desperate need of two things: a thesaurus, and an editor who actually knows how to edit. The words "stone cold killer" were used to describe just about every killer in the book, repeatedly, thereby losing its effectiveness as a description for the Ice Man. Or any of the other killers, for that matter.
That wasn't the only repetitive part of the book. Phrases and even sections of the book are used again and again, sometimes verbatim. Annoying! The book should, by rights, be half as long as it is. A little editing and proper organization would have made this an excellent biography. As is, I found myself becoming aggravated, my focus on the story constantly broken by yet another "this was to prove to be a fatal mistake" or "he was dead before he knew it" or "the police had no idea..."
My beef is with the editor more than the author. It is the editor's job to clean this sort of thing up, and he didn't do it.
On the plus side, this has hammered home to me just how crucial a good editor is!
Final analysis? Richard Kuklinski's story is fascinating and ugly. If you're really interested, then get this book from the library, but don't buy it. Otherwise, give it a pass.
