Seriously, Read a Book!

In January of 1947 the body of a woman, later identified as Elizabeth Short, was found mutilated and abandoned in a vacant lot Los Angeles. In the papers (ever eager to run with a story of this ilk), she became known as "the Black Dahlia" after a film of the same name.

In June of 1958 the assault and murder of another woman, Jean Hilliker (formerly Ellroy), hit the L.A. papers. Unfortunately, there were probably many other victims who came in between them, but these would be the two murders that most impacted the life of the young James Ellroy (still known then as Lee Earle Ellroy).

As described in the afterword to this 2006 edition of his book (which accompanied the release of its movie adaptation), the fictionalized story is inspired by the lives and deaths of both women. In real life, both murders remain unsolved.

James Ellroy's world is a dark, dark place, one that is corrupt in every sense of the word. The detective (and ersatz Ellroy), Dwight "Bucky" Bleichert, though by no means naïve at the start, comes to see how the most gruesome elements can seep into and pervade every aspect of one's life. Innocence isn't lost, it was never there to begin with. 

The writing is frantic and maniacal at times – intentionally so. The characters' frustrations become your own. I found myself putting the book down and picking it back up in a huff, too haunted to just leave it alone. I certainly could not live on a literary diet James Ellroy alone (though I imagine that doing so would result in actual weight loss), but he is an undeniably powerful writer whose words (like the Dahlia's smile) will never really leave you alone. 

This book won't be 2.5/5 stars for everyone. If, like myself, you enjoyed Steven and Stephen's earlier volumes, Freakonomics and Superfreakonomics, then congratulations! — you've found a subject area that interests you (albeit a sometimes nebulous one that can show up under the guise of a variety of disciplines). If, for some reason, you only feel comfortable learning about the ways in which data and patterns can reveal the inner workings of our world with these two Freakonomists, then this book is for you.

However, I'm an ever-curious being with little patience; and, thus, haven't been sitting around just waiting for the Steven/Stephens to give me the go ahead. I thought of giving a list of recommended reading here, but one of the cool things about Freakonomics is that its principles can be applied to almost anything — for me this has included books on the philosophical nature of humanity as well as ones that helped me figure out how to run a G-D factor analysis to draft my fantasy football team (spoiler alert: it wasn't that helpful for football purposes, but learning how to use R opened a whole new world of statistical computing fun for me). 

So go forth and "Think Like a Freak," but, honestly, you might not need to read this book in order to do that. 

"She knew how to end things. She knew how to make it so you'd never forget. Never shake the sight of her in full dark bloom. She was an artist."

That's you, Megan Abbott — that "she" you're describing is you in all of your manipulative, terrible, chill-inducing, wonderful glory. 

There aren't so many characters out there like this. Abbott's Queenpin isn't what she is in spite of being a woman, nor did she sleep her way to the top — nobody gets where she is just by laying down. No, you get there by being smart, ruthless, and two perfect pointed-heel steps ahead of the game; and, of course, knowing all of the angles. 

"In this life," she said, crossing these glorious gams, shimmering in the filmy light, "you can’t let your guard down. If you can control yourself, you can control everyone else."

I know I can't do these characters justice. You have to work to pry the open the smallest details of what makes these people tick- and I'd be doing a disservice by showing you their cards too early. Let's just say that the ladies in this world can run with the best of them...and I do mean the very best.

An Unsolicited Personal Preamble

I am a total noob when it comes to military tactics, maneuvers and whatnot in the American Civil War (heretofore referred to as "the Civil War," but it's not like the U.S. holds the exclusive rights to combat among countrymen). I ended up reading this Noah Andre Trudeau work out of a combination of my burgeoning interest in historical narratives of conflict and warfare, references to Sherman in a number of my presidential reads and (the biggest one, if I'm being truthful) as a result of engaging in a bit of "library roulette."*

The March Oversimplified

So there's this guy leading a bunch of other guys around the South...too vague? Let me try again. Open curtain on William Tecumseh Sherman and his Union troops (often referred to as federal troops/army in journals quoted by Trudeau) in Atlanta, Georgia. Obviously they didn't just appear there, but that's a different story for a different time. The gist, however, is that when Ulysses S. Grant had to travel eastward to take command of the overall Union Army (March 1864), he tapped Sherman to take over for him in the Western Theater as head of the Mississippi Division. 

There's no denying that Sherman didn't always have his head screwed on tight, and was thought to be insane by some. He blamed himself for the death of his favorite son, Willie, and made no secret of his thoughts of suicide in letters home. 

For now, back to an Atlanta occupied by Union soldiers and where Sherman ordered the evacuation of civilians from the city, and also the destruction of infrastructure (e.g. the railroad depot, below, was blown up upon Sherman's departure), marking the beginning of what would come to be known as Sherman's scorched earth policies. 

Sherman and co. began their journey seaward sans supplies- breaking off from the wagon chain which had carried their provisions, but also slowed things down. This left the troops to forage from the land and supplies found in the households as they marched through Georgia. The troops became known as bummers and their activity and directives are well depicted by Trudeau through journals and letters from  Georgian civilians and Union troops (and leadership) alike. 

The destruction wrought under Sherman's command was not pretty, though it was tactical. Though Sherman was by no means an advocate for racial equality (and was contemptuous of the burden imposed by the "trail of negroes" that followed in the wake of the federal troops), the army made ready use of the knowledge and strength capital offered by slaves (the picture above illustrates the scenario as depicted in many an excerpt from civilian diaries).

The "battles" between Union and Confederate troops en route to Savannah were minimal, small in scale and with fewer lives lost than in earlier battles of the war to which Sherman had been party (e.g. Shiloh). However, Sherman's march was psychologically and logistically devastating to the South. By taking from crops and civilians and destroying the railroad (in what became known as the Sherman necktie - below), the Confederacy was cut off from the resources necessary for its continuation.

On War

I haven't actually read Clausewitz (yet), but he seems to come up a lot in discussions of Sherman's legacy. From a strictly utilitarian perspective, it's impossible to know whether Sherman's march saved (by preventing theoretical battles through the destruction of property) or lost lives in the balance of things by fighting infrastructure rather than infantry. Savannah made for a lovely symbolic Christmas gift to President Lincoln, but Sherman's march undoubtedly sowed some serious resentment among Southerners. 

Though not exactly a treatise on the Laws of War, I remember a general in Max Brooks' World War Z mentioning that the traditional take on warfare (of the non-zombie kind) was that soldiers simply needed to be "bred, fed and led," a trio of factors crippled for the Confederacy through Sherman's Union leadership. 

Conclusions?

Trudeau lets you draw your own conclusions, and mine are still, at most, rough sketches. Trudeau references Sherman's own "rules of war" throughout the book (guided in part by Sherman's sense of collective responsibility), and draws language and information from a plethora of vantage points. I closed this book wanting to learn more which (for my money) is actually a good thing. 

_____________________________________________

* A fun little game wherein I start with a pick from the library's category page (which, as far as I can tell, just includes three or four random books from each category) and I give myself three clicks (max) of "you might also enjoy" pages before selecting what to read. I realize it's not exactly The Deer Hunter, but a girl's gotta spice up her life sometimes!

back to top

Preliminary Bitchings (and assorted moanings):

Sometimes you get what you pay for, and I chose this book primarily because it was free. This is as close as I have ever come to tossing a book out the window, which is saying something, given that it's less than 200 pages long. I've accomplished this feat by way of a series of threats and bribes to myself, which (in the bribe department) included reading Bill Bryson's One Summer: America, 1927 in hopes of finding some titillating historical context for Hoover's era. So, let it be known that, should anything interesting make it's way into this review, it's probably in error.

Why so serious boring?

This book's author, Vernon Kellogg, was an entomologist who taught Herbert Hoover at Stanford, and subsequently worked with him abroad doing food aid/relief work. According to Bryson, Hoover was all about good PR (issuing press releases regarding whatever good deeds he did- and there were many), and that's precisely how this work reads — it's uncut, 100% pure praise for Herbie Hooves (not a real nickname). Kellogg refers to Hoover as "the hero of our story" on more than one occasion, so it's not like he's hiding it. Nevertheless, this isn't a style that really jumps off the page.

Oh, and also, turns out Hoover was a really, really boring dude. His strengths, though necessary for the world to run smoothly, do not make for fascinating fodder. Of Hoover as a college boy Kellogg writes:

"...he revealed an unusual faculty for 'organizing' and 'administering' which is precisely a faculty that as a man he has revealed to the world in highest degree."

For the briefest of moments I thought I had hapsed upon a lighter side of Herbert Hoover when I found a shot of him with Stanford's inaugural football team, but (classic Hoover) he was, true to form, the student manager. 

The Mining Man

Hoover was a geology major at Stanford (which you can tell, since geology students apparently just sat around taking pictures with geology equipment for kicks all day), and had a knack for (as you may have gathered) administering and getting things done.

The next phase of his life would, in this day and age, have made for a Bar Rescue or Kitchen Nightmares-style reality television show, except, ya know, with mining. 

"Hoover really developed a new profession in connection with mining; a profession of making good mines out of bad ones, of making bankrupt mining concerns solvent..."

This part didn't have to be so damn boring, but, alas, it was. Why? Because Kellogg can't go more than a paragraph without extolling the virtues of Hoover the Great.

"Herbert Hoover is a great miner because he is—I say it bluntly and not from any blind hero-worship—a great man."

Seriously Vern, pull yourself together!

The Great Administrator

Hoover knew how to get shit done. I'll give him that much. So I have no reason to mock him for what he accomplished by creating the Commission for Relief in Belgium. He wasn't exactly "hands on" about it, but, as the data monkey for getting funding for non-profits, I can relate.

When America decided to saunter its way into WWI, Wilson told Hoover it was time to come home and deal with the food situation on the other side of the pond (the American side), and Hoover became the director of the U.S. Food Administration.Again, he had a knack for knowing how to get people to pony up money, and effort- making it the patriotic duty of those who couldn't put their lives on the line to, at least not waste wheat.

Hoover's time wasn't exactly one of balking gender norms, so he knew how to pick a target audience. (Though, tip of the hat to Becky here, you'll note that while the message is to the American Housewife, Hoover's letter addresses the Gentlemen). 

Sure, there was resistance, but who can turn down an order from Uncle Sam? Terrorists, that's who (or communists or whoever we were blaming everything on circa 1917).

I actually found Hoover's success with changing the hearts and minds of the populace with respect to his "staying out of their kitchens" to be interesting, given the current debates surrounding USDA school lunch regulations, soda taxes, banning trans-fats etc. Unfortunately, Kellogg wasn't exactly thinking about his audience in the distant future.

"The picturesque details of the great campaign for food conservation and its results on the intimate habits of the people are too fresh in the memories of us all to need repeating here."

Conclusions

Mine?

This is a supremely boring read, about a pretty boring president (who may not have been as boring as I think, but you're not gonna find that out from giving this one a read - especially since it came out before Hoover became president).

Kellogg's? 

Herbert Hoover = Superman. Oh, you think I'm exaggerating?

"Hoover not only saved lives, but nations and civilizations by his superhuman efforts."

It's over! It's finally over!! Here's hoping the rest of the back nine for my presidential readings go more smoothly...

There's a fine line between being lovably flawed and being a jerk when it comes to detectives/secret agents and what have you. Last time around, Bernard Gunther was in the former category. You can't blame a guy for having a bleak outlook on life in late-1930s Berlin, and the misogynistic attitude was what it was. In round two of Bernie's adventures, The Pale Criminal, I found him much harder to stomach. 

It's not just the bedding of women during sex crimes investigations that got me, so much as his internal monologue of imagining himself between their thighs while they describe the last known whereabouts of their (presumably dead) children. Likewise, the threat of the pink triangle was real (I know, it's shocking that the Party wasn't more progressive when it came to same-sex relationships, but true nonetheless), but the quips about it just made Gunther seem mean (especially when paired with toilet humor even I didn't find all that funny).

Philip Kerr makes more use of his environment this time around. Bernie gets sucked back into Kripo, and is keenly aware of the internal strife within the leadership of the Nazi Party (including the questionable "purity" of The Blonde Beast, Reinhard Heydrich's, status as an Aryan). Julius Streicher's fiercely anti-semitic rag, Der Stürmer factors in as well which, if nothing more, is an artifact of the times.

In the end, the mystery just wasn't that good, and I liked Bernie less and less. If the last in the Berlin Noir trilogy doesn't come to my library, chances are I won't actively seek it out.  

Thanks to Jeffrey's recent DJ&MH review series (which includes Mary Reilly and Hyde in addition to the original), I realized that I had not, in fact, ever become acquainted with Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde as Robert Louis Stevenson wrote them. Actually, the closest I'd come was seeing Dr. Jekyll & Mrs. Hyde (a mid-90s movie adaptation that I cannot, in good conscience, recommend), at a friend's house in middle school — and, frankly, no case of two being one involving Sean Young could ever possibly top Finkle and Einhorn, so that film was doomed from the start.*

I'm glad I bothered (and not just because I'm pretty sure I had been pulling a mental Frankenstein-style name mix-up, wherein I assumed the doctor was the more sinister half of the duo). The tale itself is more complex than a "man becomes monster", or binary morality tale (though I can see how excerpts could have been used for the likes of Reefer Madness). The philosophical substance of the story reminded me of one of my favorite passages from Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn's The Gulag Archipelago.

"If only there were evil people somewhere, insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?" 

It's short, and RLS, and a classic. So, really, you have no excuse for not giving the original a read.

__________________________________

* If you were absent from class during the early 90s, and haven't seen Ace Ventura: Pet Detective, you need to remedy that situation immediately.

back to top

Read in December of 2013, just updated to Booklikes-i-ness (and added pictures).

This is one of the most incredible Holocaust books I have come across to date. It is about so much more than author Gitta Sereny's conversations with Franz Stangl (Commandant of Treblinka). These conversations (conducted while Stangl was in Düsseldorf prison) give us a narrative around which Sereny integrates her exceptional research, outside interviews and experiences. Sereny manages to be both our guide and an appropriately impartial observer of the events described (and is open in describing what could and could not be verified).

Written in 1972, this book seeks to address facts that "have become blurred" and the claims of "chroniclers...who will have us believe that the extermination of the Jews was almost an accidental development, somehow forced upon the Nazi's by circumstance" (p.93). Similarly, she disambiguates two sets of terms that have been conflated over time: concentration vs. extermination camps, and War Crimes vs. Nazi Crimes.

Stangl's retelling of his own story, I think, can best be summed up in a quote from Carl Jung:

“People will do anything, no matter how absurd, to avoid facing their own souls.”

Stangl's justifications for his role at Treblinka are remarkably similar to the findings of behavioral economists regarding the "trolley problem" wherein (pardon my terrible summary) participants seem infinitely more comfortably with hitting a switch to divert a trolley headed for five people, but that would, then kill one person than they would if they had to physically push that one person in front of the trolley in order to prevent the five people further down the track from getting killed.

In Just Babies: The Origins of Good and Evil, author Paul Bloom describes:

...this is because the thought of touching the man, of laying your hands on him and shoving, gives rise to a powerful emotional response, much more than the thought of just throwing a switch, and this is why most people see this act as morally wrong (p.169).

This concept is illustrated time and again in Stangl's perception of his actions at Treblinka. Stangl's wife, Therese, recounts a conversation with her husband she had after he received his appointment at the Sobibor extermination camp:

I said, 'I know what you are doing in Sobibor?...What are you doing in this?'...he said...'I have nothing to do with any of this...My work is purely administrative...Oh yes, I see it. But I don't do anything to anybody.'(p.136)

This theme plays again when Stangl vehemently denies having ever fired a gun into a group of people who were, hours later, gassed en mass in an operation he was overseeing.

Sereny's work also intricately examines the role of Pope Pius XII — something I previously knew little about, so if you're into that you'll enjoy that part as well. 

Hopefully these passages will give you just a glimpse of myriad accounts gathered through Sereny's persistent research and access to survivors, witnesses and prisoners alike. In the time since finishing it, I have found myself referencing this book constantly, and recommend it highly. 

"If only there were evil people somewhere, insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?"

I'm gonna commit what should be the most flattering of intellectual property crimes, and pass along the opening query with which Kemper begins his (admittedly superior) review of this book: 

Who would be more dangerous, two sociopathic killers teaming up or a middle-aged couple who could use some marriage counseling?

Well if that isn't a question for the ages, then I just don't know what is. This is a bit of a lazy review, so I'll give you some extra tidbits of info to take into account while puzzling through this scenario:

• One of our sociopaths, Armand "Blackbird" Degas, is Canadian (well, French-Canadian), half Ojibway Indian
• Sociopath number two, Richie is (IMHO) incredibly annoying
• The man of the house is an iron worker
• The little lady is in real estate/taking care of her elderly mother

I was up and down with enjoying the story, and wanting them to get on with it already. I'll tell you this, though: Elmore Leonard knows how to keep tension in the air. I believe the word that is "suspense," but that term covers far too broad a swath of feelings for my liking these days.

Short, interesting and unpredictable. 

Where do you know her from?

Actress Judy Greer has been in, well, everything (seriously, check her IMDB, which she's pretty obsessed with- it's kind of staggering). This, of course, is the point of her book (or at least its title, I Don't Know What You Know Me From: Confessions of a Co-Star) — chances are, you recognize her, but there's also a pretty good chance you don't know from where, and, more likely than not, don't know her name (especially since, in her post-book career, she's often seen in Sprint commercials with a hamster voiced by Andrew Dice Clay, but I digress).

I, on the other hand, definitely know her name (it's Judy Greer, in case you didn't catch on) from watching the opening credits to every single episode of Archer (more times than I should admit in public) in which Greer voices Carol/Cheryl/Cherlene Tunt — railroad tycoon, and First Lady of the government-in-exile of La Rapública de San Marcos (and also Country Music).

Judy has become become pretty adept at fan profiling in order to answering the implied titular question. If you're reading this, my next best guess(es) (after Archer, duh) would be Arrested Development (Kitty Sanchez - below), or maybe It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia (Fatty McGoo).

What about the book?

Oh yeah, the book. It was ok (I gave it three stars because it was probably a bad choice on my part). Judy's not a comedy writer (à la Tina Fey, Mindy Kaling etc.), she's an actress. I laughed out loud a time or two while listening, but this wasn't a gut-buster. Her life anecdotes are humorous, but no funnier than emails from my (admittedly hilarious) friends. 

This also wasn't a tell all book about the stars with whom she's worked, which is probably a good career move for her, but a let down for me. I knew it wasn't going to be the behind the scenes all Archer all the time show, but it (and Arrested Development, IASIP etc.) was only mentioned once in passing. It's possible that they don't record together or whatever, but look at these people! I wanted something about at least one of them (e.g. why is Lucky Yates wearing those amazing glasses and a track suit?).

What I knew it wasn't going to be, but still secretly wished it was:

You're Not My Supervisor: Growing Up Tunt (With My Stupid Brother Cecil). Obviously Adam Reed would have to write that book, and even though I knew that wasn't what this was, I guess I was hoping for at least a mention of her thoughts on being the voice of Cheryl. (I was trying to be realistic, and knew Cherlene probably wasn't feasible). 

Yes, I've used this gif before, but who wouldn't want to know what was going on in that devious little mind?

I know, I know, you just crave attention. But what about therapy cranes, Grandpapa dressing up like a ghost to scare black people, the train dwarf looking right at you with his dwarfy eyeballs? Give a girl SOMETHING! 

Your point? Unless Pam ate it.

I could go on all day with Archer greatness (and also gifs), but that would be off-topic to say the least. If you're curious about the life of a co-star (a successful one at that), time off "on location," step-parenting after marrying Dean Johnson (I love that she first name/last names her husband all the time) and why it actually sucks to go to the Oscars sometimes, then you'll like this book. I recently heard Judy talking audiobook recording with Gary Dell'Abate, and they both agreed that reading back your own words, you start to think "Who cares?!?" So, it's not like she was unaware that it felt padded. That said, I'm not looking for the five hours of my life back either.

Who would be more dangerous, two sociopathic killers teaming up or a middle-aged couple who could use some marriage counseling?

Whether it's pious, political or for the public good, books have been banned ever since people could find a problem with the words on the page. Lovereading.co.uk have delved into the most prominent bans in history. Are there any you agree with? Which books would you like to see banned? 

This was actually my first foray into the works of Carl Hiaasen *gasp* – I know, it's hard to believe. I can't say I wasn't forewarned^† that Bad Monkey might not make a great first impression for Carl (beloved by many whose opinions I hold in high regard). But, I've been known to disregard good advice before, so I forged onward.

"Have you ever been to Florida? It's a criminal population. It's America's Australia." - Jack Donaghy

This is just one of the many facts about life I learned from Jack Donaghy (30 Rock), and, seriously, in case you don't follow the exploits of the faux superhero, Florida Man,* it's kind of true. And, in many ways, this book is just one long series of Florida Man tropes, made extra special (for us literary folk) by their being located in Key West. 

Our protagonist, Andrew Yancy, is a (former) cop, demoted to the position of food/health inspector, and trying to get back in good standing by hunting down the murderous source of an arm reeled in by tourists on a fishing charter. There are cheating wives (of the money grubbing type) on the lookout for new paramours and good plastic surgeons, sleazy real estate developers, voodoo queens, and, of course, the titular Bad Monkey, Driggs (who may or may not have played opposite Johnny Depp in "those pirate movies").

It was funny at times, but I just couldn't latch on to the characters for better or for worse. I'm not writing off Hiaasen (as mentioned, I was forewarned), but it felt like a parody that was drawn out just a bit too long.

So, I guess I'll leave you with one parting 30 Rock jab (enter Jack, dialing the Everglade State's 9-1-1):

"Thank you for calling Florida's emergency services. If this is regarding an anaconda in a crawl space, press 1. If a sinkhole full of Indian bones has appeared in your living room, press 2. If you want to know why JAG wasn't on this week, press 3."

__________________________________________

† Yes, I am aware that I have used a double negative- it was intentional, and I will sacrifice a lamb, or vegan shoes or whatever to the grammar gods as needed.

* His "adventures" consist entirely of the (sur)real headlines that come out of the Sunshine State (e.g. "Florida man arrested for throwing dog poop at pregnant girlfriend" [1]; "Florida man attempts to pay water bill with crack cocaine" [2]; "Florida man stabs brother after macaroni and cheese goes missing" [3])

back to top

Recommended required reading:

Before I begin anything that bears even a slight resemblance to a review, I want to say that I am incredibly grateful that a friend (a real, live human one at that) suggested I read (or re-read, as it were) Daniel Kahneman's Thinking, Fast and Slow before taking on Haidt's oevre. I wholeheartedly endorse the aforementioned recommendation, so do with that what you will.

Excuses, excuses:

I am absolutely committed to reviewing this book...at some point. Jonathan Haidt does an excellent job of using analogies to help his readers understand lofty propositions in moral philosophy. For example, he likens the five dimensions of moral foundations theory* to taste receptors on the tongue. 

I was feeling clever (and in the mood for a bit of procrastination) and thought: 

"Hey Mara- maybe you should be super cool and awesome and do a quick illustration of moral foundations as tastebuds." 

"Good thinking Other Mara, your ideas are always great and never take unexpected and/or detrimental turns, let's do it!" 

Well, shock me, shock me- turns out that both Mara and Other Mara were quite rusty in their illustrator skills, and it took an inordinately long amount of time, with less than satisfying results. But, since the collective Maras wasted their time, here is our "moral taste buds tongue" for you to ogle while they get some big kid work done and (hopefully soon) write a real review. 

_____________________________

*  He adds a sixth, ultimately, but that's a tale for another time. 

back to top

note: I read this one in October of 2013, but thought I'd bother to give it the proper Booklikes formatting since I make reference to it in a more recent review. 

This book was quick and interesting, but lacked a certain je ne sais quoi for me and, at times, felt a bit "forced" in its attempt to give the relationship between its two titular characters a causal weight in the events that eventually befell the Kelley family.

Like Dr. Douglas M. Kelley (below), I am fascinated by the inner workings of the human mind. Likewise, the human capacity for evil revealed in criminology and the study of history (in particular the events of and surrounding WWII) capture my curiosity and desire to understand. Kelley and I are certainly not alone in this, and in the decades since WWII scholars from a variety of fields have sought to unravel the sociological, psychological and historical underpinnings of what happened. All of this is to say, that I did not find Dr. Kelley to be quite as exceptional as the author may have intended.

That notable figures who work with notorious criminals are often somewhat egotistical is not surprising. John E. Douglas, the original "Mindhunter," is an example that stands out (see: Mindhunter: Inside the FBI's Elite Serial Crime Unit). What author Jack El-Hai refers to as tele-empathy, "the ability to feel what others are feeling and thinking" after carefully examining them" (p.201). Seems like it would be requisite for the job. From studies such as the Milgram experiment and the Stanford Prison Study (both of which El-Hai refers to toward the end of the book), we have learned more about quotidian obedience to authority. Books such as Martha Stout's The Sociopath Next Door describe that individuals who completely lack conscience are by no means an anomaly. 

The most interesting pieces of information in re. the over-the-top character of Hermann Göring which are almost unfathomably bizarre (his extreme pill addiction, his letter writing campaign to President Truman regarding the inhumane conditions in which he was being kept, his obsession with wild animals etc.) were brushed over too quickly for my liking, in favor of Kelley's family history.  

While I enjoyed this book, I feel like it could have done more. Perhaps that was not the author's intention, but somehow the parallels between Göring and Kelley failed to draw me in as stories unto themselves. Furthermore, these characteristics seemed to me less exceptional, less notable than one might believe based on this material alone. Kelley told journalists that:

"[Göring] is still the same swaggering, vain, conceited braggart he always was. He has made up his mind he's going to be killed anyway, so he's very anxious to be considered the number one Nazi, a curious kind of compensation" (p.116).

This desire to rise to the top (one that Kelley, apparently, shared with Göring) seemed, to me, unsurprising. It certainly didn't seem like a trait so noteworthy as to suggest that two men sharing it would somehow be distant reflections of one-another. I'll withhold the other "big" parallel as not to spoil anything, but I, again, thought it was a bit overstated...