Serial Killer Autobiographies
I was listening to The Last Podcast on the Left's Dennis Nilsen episodes the other day, and they mentioned that he'd written this massive autobiography while in prison (Nilsen has since fucked off to death). The autobiography is, as of this point in time, unpublished, but it got me thinking.
Carl Panzram, Minnesotan serial killer/arsonist/yacht thief/general terror of the early 20th century, also wrote an autobiography. Panzram's is published and it's something I've kind of lusted over for a while but keep just not buying. Panzram's, unlike what has been released of Nilsen's, is supposed to be surprisingly free of boastful exaggerations or falsified information.
On another level, a man who was not a serial killer, Charles Manson had his book. Again, Manson's is supposed to be a little iffy on how true it actually is. Most of these people (again, apart from Panzram, because the dude gave zero fucks) exaggerate or make themselves out to be less implicit in their crimes/more of a victim than they actually were. Which begs the question--is there actually any use in reading them?
I think there is. I think that, even if the facts aren't really true, it's pretty much just an unreliable narration of a life. It's still them 'in their own words', which, as long as you don't get caught up in who they say they were and, say, forget they had a cult in the desert that ended up killing seven people, is an interesting to see. I haven't yet read an autobiography or the words of someone who was convicted of murder (unless you count the Eric Harris journal/bits and pieces of Dylan Klebold's, but since that was a private journal and not really something EXPLICITLY written for the public eye [though that's kind of up for debate, esp. for Harris], I don't count it), but I do plan to. As a fan of true crime and author myself, it's a look into the head of someone I wouldn't normally get to look into the head of.
It's interesting. I think that's my main thing. There is, of course, the possible danger of people pointing to it as 'evidence' that their favorite criminal is not guilty, but people do that anyway. The people who are going to look up to serial killers are going to do it whether they have an autobiography or not. Biopics of serial killers are made--most recently, My Friend Dahmer, which some people did look at as something that romanticized the creep--and hearing them in their own words gives a view into those creepy-ass minds that we wouldn't get otherwise.
And, to be honest, Carl Panzram, especially for someone born on a farm in Minnesota in the late 19th century, could write.
Carl Panzram, Minnesotan serial killer/arsonist/yacht thief/general terror of the early 20th century, also wrote an autobiography. Panzram's is published and it's something I've kind of lusted over for a while but keep just not buying. Panzram's, unlike what has been released of Nilsen's, is supposed to be surprisingly free of boastful exaggerations or falsified information.
On another level, a man who was not a serial killer, Charles Manson had his book. Again, Manson's is supposed to be a little iffy on how true it actually is. Most of these people (again, apart from Panzram, because the dude gave zero fucks) exaggerate or make themselves out to be less implicit in their crimes/more of a victim than they actually were. Which begs the question--is there actually any use in reading them?
I think there is. I think that, even if the facts aren't really true, it's pretty much just an unreliable narration of a life. It's still them 'in their own words', which, as long as you don't get caught up in who they say they were and, say, forget they had a cult in the desert that ended up killing seven people, is an interesting to see. I haven't yet read an autobiography or the words of someone who was convicted of murder (unless you count the Eric Harris journal/bits and pieces of Dylan Klebold's, but since that was a private journal and not really something EXPLICITLY written for the public eye [though that's kind of up for debate, esp. for Harris], I don't count it), but I do plan to. As a fan of true crime and author myself, it's a look into the head of someone I wouldn't normally get to look into the head of.
It's interesting. I think that's my main thing. There is, of course, the possible danger of people pointing to it as 'evidence' that their favorite criminal is not guilty, but people do that anyway. The people who are going to look up to serial killers are going to do it whether they have an autobiography or not. Biopics of serial killers are made--most recently, My Friend Dahmer, which some people did look at as something that romanticized the creep--and hearing them in their own words gives a view into those creepy-ass minds that we wouldn't get otherwise.
And, to be honest, Carl Panzram, especially for someone born on a farm in Minnesota in the late 19th century, could write.
Comments
Post a Comment