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 ma [...]
Thank whatever gods may be that this is finally over. The weeks I spent slugging through this I couldn't stop thinking that I could be reading something else! To begin with, let's give the devil his dueRobert Graysmith knows a LOT about the Zodiac killer. Probably more than anyone. He has poured years of his life into interviews with witnesses and investigators: in effect, conducting his own investigation. This was probably a good thing, because the police agencies seemed to be totally inept at [...]
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.
Hard to get into at first. Graysmith jumps back and forth in the chronology of this decades-long murder case. The number of players involved (suspects, police, witnesses, Zodiac's victims and possibile victims, journalists, relatives and friends of all of the above) also made this book hard to follow at first. Maybe Graysmith assumes the reader has read his earlier book on this subject — I hadn't. But, Graysmith is an excellent descriptive writer and his obsession with the case becomes as inte [...]
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.HardbackUpd [...]
See also Zodiac.This book shares with Zodiac the inherently confusing, nebulous, ambiguous nature of its material, but it also has some problems of its own. The worst of which is repetition. Graysmith not only repeats information covered in Zodiac (which I totally admit he couldn't avoid), but he repeats information within Zodiac Unmasked. There was a symposium on Zodiac in 1993, and Graysmith not only gives large chunks of that verbatim, but he repeats the quotes, again verbatim, at other point [...]
It is hard for me to review this book because it is very long (like 450 pages) and almost entirely redundant of the first zodiac book. it has like 10 pages of new information spliced throughout & a bunch of painstaking minutiae in between. Had I not read the first Zodiac book, perhaps I would've liked this one. The only reason I did read it-- the first book did not conclusively "unmask" the killer -- so i had to read on and find out. right? wrong! just skip to the last page and save yourself [...]
This is a good book for detailed descriptions of the crimes and the police procedure. However, the case for the suspect is circumstantial. What the book details is the systematic hounding by the author of his number one suspect, leading to serious invasions of his private life plus quite intrusive action taken by the police, using Graysmith's thesis as justification. The main suspect was hounded to his grave and cleared recently when his DNA did not match DNA know to belong to The Zodiac. Two st [...]
In contrast to the first Zodiac book by the same author, I found this to be poorly written. It was confusing and the author jumped back and forth in time so much it was hard to keep track of what was happening when. Information was repeated and hard to keep straight. I think the author got a little too close to the subject and tried too hard to give every possible detail and in the process lost track of the best way to lay it out.
This is a very interesting book. However, it's badly written, in need of serious editing, and very repetitive. Still a worthwhile read, if you have the brain power to keep everything straight (seriously, there was no need for so much jumping around the timelines), though the repetition will help with that. If it's the sort of thing that interests you, I'd certainly recommend it.
Being true crime obsessed, I can whole heartedly say I've never struggled to read a true crime book before. It was unnecessarily repetitive, at times I thought I was reading 3 chapters back. It mostly goes between talking about Arthur Leigh Allen and people who talk up his first book. It is to a point of unhealthy obsession with the man. I have no doubt Arthur Leigh Allen did unspeakable things that he wasn't charged for other than child molesting (which is despicable) but in all honesty I think [...]
Too much imagery. Unnecessary imagery. The book was pretty interesting, but it was so long and so boring. I felt as if I watching a five hour documentary showing green light gates and kids running off of a school bus. It was ok, but I wouldn't recommend it. Way too long and way too boring. Not of my liking. I just ended up abandoning the book and moving on to a new one that kept my interest all throughout.
While I lived in the Bay area during the time The Zodiac was active, I lived in San Mateo which seemed a lifetime away from Vallejo, as a new Mom the section I read in the Chron was the Pink section and politics, international and Opinion pagesuff about murder and mayhem in far away places was not paid attention to. It was a different time, the thought of a serial killer was not in our conscious minds. It wasn't until the 70s that the general public got a concept of the reality that there was am [...]
Unusual in that a) the book's thesis is likely correct, and Graysmith was the first person to put in the work to connect the dots, and yet b) the book is terribly written and contains volumes of extraneous nonsense on top of valid reporting. Graysmith's primary problem is that he wants it both ways - he wants to establish that his primary suspect was the Zodiac, but he also wants to throw in every other titillating fact, detail or theory at his disposal in order to keep the reader turning the pa [...]
I'm a big fan of Graysmith's first Zodiac book, and of David Fincher's film; I read this sequel in a spirit of sympathy. But in addition to being poorly written, indifferently organized, and sloppily proofread, Zodiac Unmasked has an ultimate effect precisely opposite of Graysmith's intention--that effect being to leave 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 [...]
I am having a really hard time getting through this - the author's writing is horrible. He jumps around throughout the book, throwing in awkward and random sentences that at times don't even really have much to do with what he had been talking about.This is going in the DNF pile for now. Maybe I'll pick up when I don't have 20 other books on my shelf to read.
I read this book after watching the 2007 movie Zodiac. I find this book is less interesting than the movie, maybe it's because this book is factual and only covers the real events, whereas the film is more loosely based on real events. But this book surely gave more depth in the Zodiac case for me.
This is an odd one. Unfortunately, I wasn't able to find a copy of Graysmith's original Zodiac book to read first. This felt a bit unedited, a bit like a collection of notes rather than a cohesive narrative, at first anyway. Once we get to the period of time following the publication of the original book, then things start to fit together more like a continued investigation, rather than a rehash of something older.The last fifth, or so, of the book is very compelling and could form the basis for [...]
Save your money, just Google itI read this book because it was recommended to me by a close friend, and honestly it is one of the worst reads ever. Don't get me wrong the story is interesting, a serial killer who was 'never' discovered, but the read is labourious. It reads like a bad documentary where there entire show is recalled after every ad break, then two minutes of New stuff before the next ad break. What I'm trying to say is this story is the most repetitive thing ever, the name of the s [...]
I love and enjoy almost any book I read. I LOVED the first Zodiac book. I am super interested in Zodiac, which accounts for the extra star rating. However, this book really didn't do it for me. It was a repetitive, boring, and redundant piece of writing that was at times difficult to follow and choppy, and way, way too long. There are multiple times where Graysmith repeats himself with the same wording. It was mostly a much more plodding rehash of the information presented in the first book. It [...]
Picked this up in a used bookstore. Read Graysmith's original 'Zodiac' back in the early 90s. This is *not* just a rehash of that material. Readers who like True Crime, especially serial killer material, will find this palatable. Most of the book is dedicated to the suspect Graysmith and most of the detectives who worked the case believe is responsible for the Zodiac killings in the late 1960s/early 70s. There is a whole cult community dedicated to identifying the Zodiac; this book will probably [...]
very thoroughI wasn't that knowledgeable about the Zodiac killings when I started reading this book. I had heard of them, but didn't know the details. I believe that the author assumed the reader knew about the people involved, because I wasn't sure who some of the people were. Once I figured it out, it was very informative. But, I wish that I had more background information before I started.
Graysmith's first Zodiac book is a classic of the genre, but this 'sequel' in which the man known as 'Starr' is finally revealed lacks the intensity and actually becomes a slog to get through. This is because it is mostly a retread of the first book - if this had been edited down to half its length and a lot of the extraneous material from the first was removed, it would be a much tauter and interesting read. I mean, most people who read this book will read 'Zodiac' first, right?
Another great book from Robert Graysmith, if you want the true story or as close to a true story then you must read his books on the Zodic killer, he was there and spent more than 10 years investigating the zodiac killer.