There's nothing like an unsolved mystery. When I was a kid I would sometimes sneak downstairs and watch reruns of Unsolved Mysteries when they were on some cable channel or another at midnight. Maybe you can help solve a mystery, you know? Which underlies the enduring appeal of another serial killer: the Zodiac. The case was never cracked. We're not even really sure how many victims he had. There are clues, not in the least the cryptograms he spent out, but not that many, even, really. We'll almost certainly never know, and that's the kind of thing that gets beneath people's skins and drives them crazy.

Robert Graysmith was a political cartoonist at the San Francisco Chronicle when those cryptograms started coming in, and his book Zodiac details the case and how it sucked him in. He developed friendships and relationships with the reporters and police working the case and couldn't stop himself from doing a bit of his own investigating on the side. The book describes the crimes police are certain were committed by the Zodiac and then goes on to crimes they think he committed, and their befuddlement as his claimed body count in his letters goes up and up without real certainty as to which disappearances and murders actually belong to him. It could be a handful. It could be a few dozen. It could be hundreds. There's really no way to be sure.

For me, the strongest part of the book was the first half or so, the crimes we can definitely connect to the Zodiac. Graysmith narrates the last hours in the lives of the victims, tension building as the reader knows that the grisly and terrifying end is coming up just around the corner. He narrates the confusion of the police, left with bloody crime scenes with no apparent motive and no clues. And then the cryptograms and taunting letters start coming, rubbing their faces in it, threatening school buses of children with bombs, forcing them to take him seriously even as they got nowhere trying to figure out who he was.

But it falls apart a bit as the letters keep coming but it gets harder to tie the boasts they contain to actual crimes. There are unsolved murders, but they fall outside his usual M.O. Did he switch things up to throw them off? Or are these entirely different perpetrators? And as the letters themselves became less and less frequent, Graysmith starts chasing his own leads. The book is less and less sure of the story it's trying to tell. Is it true crime? Is it a murder mystery? Is it a story about men who can't let go of a puzzle that got the best of them? It just kind of meanders around without much of a point. And Graysmith wasn't really a writer, and it shows: his prose isn't particularly great. We don't really get a handle on anything: the Zodiac killer, the personalities of the police hunting him, even the suspects Graysmith tracks down. It's just a pretty rote recitation of increasingly disjointed facts. If you're a devotee of true crime stories, especially about serial killers, or are interested in the Zodiac case, you might like this. I was hoping to like it more than I actually did. ( )

The three-star rating is my fault. I've watched Zodiac and seen several recent specials about the case, which means I already knew almost everything written in this book. There are a few tidbits, like about the clever greeting cards, and some pictures I hadn't seen before of the taunting notes Zodiac mailed to the police, but that isn't enough for me to feel more knowledgeable about the case than I did going in.

Robert Graysmith does a comprehensive job detailing each murder, laying out all the leads, and putting into perspective the roles of those chiefly responsible for breaks in the case, but by about two-thirds of the way through, he begins unspooling suspect theories that come across as anticlimactic. There is a lot of speculation and confirmation of leads, but there's a lot of rambling, too, and I had a hard time finishing the book.

For someone who doesn't know the specifics of the Zodiac case, this is a five-star read. For a hardcore murderino, it loses something by two-thirds of the way through. Since, to date, the Zodiac has never been caught, I imagine it's tough to write a suitable ending. ( )

It is difficult for me to understand how this book has gone through multiple printings and is still being sold. Presumably the readers are people fascinated with these unsolved murders from 50 years ago and drawn in by the promise of never-before-available details. Unfortunately the book is so poorly written that I had to force myself to finish it (and then only because the "Z" title fit nicely into a current reading challenge).

Other reviewers have complained about the amount of detail Graysmith includes, but IMO that's not the problem. It's the wretched writing! Much of the book alternates between police-blotter-like recreations of events, and descriptions of the author's efforts at detective work (for which he frequently applauds himself, albeit sometimes putting the words of praise into the mouths of other individuals).

I found myself wondering more than once why the publisher hadn't forced Graysmith to submit to an editor with a well-sharpened blue pencil. This selection from page 2 is typical of his graceless efforts at description: "He put his Timex wristwatch with chrome case and band on his left wrist, and shoved a dollar and fifty-five cents, all in change, in his right front pants pocket. He pocketed a white handkerchief and a small bottle of Binaca breath drops." Seriously? He put his wrist watch on his wrist and pocketed items in his pockets? Sheesh!

With so many wonderful true crime writers at work, it's unfortunate that this admittedly fascinating case was left to a cartoonist who happened to be at the right place and time. (No general criticism of the writing of political cartoonists intended - Tom Toles certainly excels at both.) But just because you work at a newspaper clearly does not mean you can write!
( )

Not my favorite true crime read. The writing was clunky and at times read too much like a police report. Admittedly, I didn't know much about the Zodiac killer only that he had never been caught - so pretty much all this was new to me. I never watched the movie and I never listened to a podcast on this so it was a lot to take in. I wouldn't be opposed to watching the movie or learning more about the killer - I just don't think this book was the right format for me. Maybe the writing style was too old - I'm really not sure. Interesting and fascinating, but not an easy read. ( )

I've only read one other true crime book before this one and that was [b:Helter Skelter: The True Story of the Manson Murders|105992|Helter Skelter The True Story of the Manson Murders|Vincent Bugliosi|https://images.gr-assets.com/books/1347694754s/105992.jpg|1077715]. I'm not the biggest fan of true crime books. I prefer to listen to or watch true crime in the form of TV or podcasts. I have found that both of the true crime authors I have read have an air of being smarter than everyone else though that is much truer for Bugliosi then Graysmith. I think I liked this about as much as Helter Skelter though I was much more eager to read this one. I actually listened to the audiobook on 2X speed which made this a very quick read which I liked. Overall this was a solid true crime story. It's a little slow at first but I thoroughly enjoyed it. ( )