Serial killer novels?

[CattiGuen]

Anyone know of any good ones?

Ixnay on American Psycho, the Harris books, and reference books.

I'd prefer if it was from the point of view of the killer.

 

[Dogmatix]

I Googled "serial killer autobiographies" and got a bazillion hits. Try that and let us know if you find a good one. That would be an interesting read.

 

[The Dave]

haha "Charlie Manson: Autobiography"

 

[Doug Johnson]

I'd prefer if it was from the point of view of the killer.

I've thought about writing one like this, but can't really get into it. Serial killers have no empathy, so I don't think readers would empathize with the narrator.


There are tons of books out there by "former FBI profilers." You might want to try them.

 

[Shade]

Serial killers have no empathy, so I don't think readers would empathize with the narrator.

I don't think it's that important for readers to empathize with the narrator. As long as they're interested in him, all should be well.

But while we're here, what about Iain Banks's The Wasp Factory for a multiple-killer narrator who's pretty sympathetic? Or Patrick McGrath's Spider?

 

[Stewart]

I've not read it, but isn't Patrick Süskind's Perfume concerned with a serial killer?

 

[denny]

Have you ever tried anything by Ann Rule?

Here's a link to her website:

http://www.annrules.com/

 

[Shade]

I've not read it, but isn't Patrick Süskind's Perfume concerned with a serial killer?

Dur, of course! It's not narrated by him, but the story is told largely from his viewpoint.

 

[Doug Johnson]

I don't think it's that important for readers to empathize with the narrator. As long as they're interested in him, all should be well.

I don't know. I was looking at a web site today that showed nothing but graphic, bloody pictures of Iraqi war victims. It was interesting, but I didn't stay there very long and definitely wouldn't buy a book like that.

Serial killers like to kill. They like it so much, they don't think about much else, other than boring stuff like making money, buying food etc.

I haven't read perfume, but a quick Google reveals:

"Perfume is the horrifying tale of an 18th century Parisian orphan, Jean-Baptiste Grenouille, whose primal curse — his unhuman lack of body odor — is paradoxically contrasted by a superhuman sense of smell."

I'd argue that it's really a book about someone with a superhuman sense of smell, who happens to kill, rather than a book about a serial killer. Even "Silence of the Lambs" was about A) an unusual seriall killer with an unusual job and B) mostly from Starling's point of view.

 

[MonkeyCatcher]

I don't know. I was looking at a web site today that showed nothing but graphic, bloody pictures of Iraqi war victims. It was interesting, but I didn't stay there very long and definitely wouldn't buy a book like that.

If you didn't stay that long, it couldn't have been all that interesting, could it?A book about serial killers doesn't have to be graphic or bloody to be interesting anyway.

Serial killers like to kill. They like it so much, they don't think about much else, other than boring stuff like making money, buying food etc.

A bit generalised, but we'll go with it.. Reading about people who like to kill would be interesting, so it wouldn't matter if they don't think about much else, as long as the writer is skillful enough. I agree totally with Shade - you don't need to be able to empathise with the narrator, just be interested by them. I've read many books where I have disliked, but still been interested by, narrators; Small Island by Andrea Levy is an example that comes to mind.

 

[Appolonia]

Jeff Lindsay has written two books about Dexter Morgan, who is a cold, logical blood-splatter specialist for the police department as well as a serial killer in his spare time. The twist is that Dexter follows the advice his policeman foster father gave him shortly before he died: he murders and dismembers only men guilty of very foul deeds. Written in the first person from Dexter's POV.

There are two so far:
Darkly Dreaming Dexter
Dearly Devoted Dexter

 

[Doug Johnson]

A book about serial killers doesn't have to be graphic or bloody to be interesting

I agree, but if you tell the story through his eyes, you describe what he's sees, and what he sees is graphic. That's why I think a different point of view works best.

 

[MonkeyCatcher]

I agree, but if you tell the story through his eyes, you describe what he's sees, and what he sees is graphic. That's why I think a different point of view works best.

But a writer can just miss out the bits where he is actually killing them. They could write about the chase and his emotions afterwards and it would still be interesting.

 

[Doug Johnson]

Jhe murders and dismembers only men guilty of very foul deeds.

Which is a way of making the killer sympathetic, but it's unrealistic.

 

[Appolonia]

Which is a way of making the killer sympathetic, but it's unrealistic.

Well yeah, that's why they're listed under 'Fiction'. Seriously, have you had a chance to read Lindsay, Doug?

 

[Doug Johnson]

But a writer can just miss out the bits where he is actually killing them. They could write about the chase and his emotions afterwards and it would still be interesting.

Right, but IMO, that's a boring way to tell the story. "I knocked. She unlocked the door. I kicked it open. She screamed. I pulled out my knife. In the morning, I ate Rice Crispies for breakfast."

It's also unrealistic. They find the killing thrilling. In their sick mind, it's one of the most exciting things they'll ever do. Many serial killers will video tape it so they can "relive" the experience. So, if they were telling the story, they'd never leave out the details.

 

[Doug Johnson]

Well yeah, that's why they're listed under 'Fiction'. Seriously, have you had a chance to read Lindsay, Doug?

No. I don't like sympathetic serial killers: one of my pet peeves. Has Lindsay only written the two about Morgan, or has he written others?

 

[Appolonia]

No. I don't like sympathetic serial killers: one of my pet peeves. Has Lindsay only written the two about Morgan, or has he written others?

Lindsay's only written the two Dexter books so far. I've always had a problem reading books featuring killers as protagonists. I've tried and failed to enjoy Barry Eisler's supposedly excellent 'Rain' series, as well as Lawrence Block's Hit Man. Somehow Lindsay succeeded (at least with me) where the other books failed. I still haven't figured out exactly how he managed it.

 

[MonkeyCatcher]

Right, but IMO, that's a boring way to tell the story. "I knocked. She unlocked the door. I kicked it open. She screamed. I pulled out my knife. In the morning, I ate Rice Crispies for breakfast."

Well that is a boring way to tell the story, sure, but as I said before, an able writer could make it work.

It's also unrealistic. They find the killing thrilling. In their sick mind, it's one of the most exciting things they'll ever do. Many serial killers will video tape it so they can "relive" the experience. So, if they were telling the story, they'd never leave out the details.

You're using so many generalisations here. Not every serial killer is the same; they don't all have the same motives for killing. You say "most" video thei killings, but I'd say that it was more like a large majority. Who is to say that some don't feel remorse after they have killed, that they wish that this killing urge would just leave them? If there is no known serial killer like than then make one up - that would be interesting, and it is fiction after all

 

[Stewart]

I agree, but if you tell the story through his eyes, you describe what he's sees, and what he sees is graphic.

You seem to have a very limited view of what a serial killer is, Doug. The murders that such a killer commits does not have to be graphic; his vision, I would suspect, is rarely graphic. Although your explicit what he sees may bring some suspicion on you as others can only speculate as to what a serial killer sees.

Based on extensive psychological studies, the crimes they commit are about as mundane as walking the dog or feeding the fish and their is nothing graphic about them. Someone looking for a thrill may find much to get a stiffy at in a graphic murder but for, say, Dennis Nilsen, it was just a case of drug, strangle, and love. I doubt he would have found the eventual dismemberment of his dead boyfriends as anything other than a chore that he had to do, no more graphic than watering the flowers.

In recent years, British doctor Harold Shipman was hardly shredding his elderly victims and f****** the viscera like, say, Jeffrey Dahmer did on occasion with the dismembered bodies of his seventeen victims. Dahmer, a keen photographer, liked a few morsels to chew, but he preferred to toss his victims in a barrel of acid and let them compose. Just like taking the garbage out.

This is frightening things about serial killers, how ungraphic they are. That Carl Panzram or Henry Lee Lucas could just torture, rape and murder a woman and move on without remorse. That Joseph Vacher could knife somebody giving it as much thought as it takes to breathe. That Peter Sutcliffe could batter prostitutes' heads in with his hammer and then go into work the next day. That Ed Kemper could shoot his grandparents and say "I just wanted to know what it would be like to shoot grandma!"

I would say that getting inside the mind of a serial killer is not about being graphic, but about showing how different they are in their indifference to the morals we, as a society, take for granted.