Popular Crime: Reflections on the Celebration of Violence
Popular Crime: Reflections on the Celebration of Violence book cover

Popular Crime: Reflections on the Celebration of Violence

Kindle Edition

Price
$15.99
Publisher
Scribner
Publication Date

Description

“An engagingly written history of well-publicized deadly crimes.”— Pittsburgh Post-Gazette For true-crime afficianados, this book is a hoot. James has to be the least starchy serious writer I’ve run across in years. He has the gift of writing the way a person talks—no easy task, believe me—giving Popular Crime a folksy, conversational feel.”— The New York Times Book Review “A very entertaining book, and it will instigate arguments even as it scores many important points.”— The Washington Post “Running through Popular Crime is an exploration of the enduring popularity of true crime. James' thought-provoking meditations elevate his book far above any routine recitation of facts.”— The Seattle Times "A passionately researched and presented look at the phenomenon of popular crime stories in America since the 1600s, and how these stories have made an impact on our country's history and society without our even realizing it."-- Shreveport Times " Popular Crime is bloodthirstily engrossing, and you can read it with the cover proudly showing, because this is an important study of American culture and the human animal's fascination with violence. Bill James deserves a standing ovation."--Stephen King Bill James made his mark in the 1970s and 1980s with his Baseball Abstracts . He has been tearing down preconceived notions about America’s national pastime ever since. He is currently the Senior Advisor on Baseball Operations for the Boston Red Sox. James lives in Lawrence, Kansas, with his wife, Susan McCarthy, and three children. Excerpt. © Reprinted by permission. All rights reserved. I In Rome in the year 24 AD, the praetor Plautius Silvanus pushed his wife Apronia out of the window in the middle of the night. They hadn’t been married very long, or, we might guess, very happily. It was a high window, and she did not survive the fall. Silvanus was a member of one of Rome’s most celebrated and successful families. His father, also Plautius Silvanus, had been consul in 2 BCE. His grandmother, Urgulania, was a close friend of the empress, and a cousin, Urgulanilla, was then married to the man who would later become the emperor Claudius. Apronia’s father rushed to the palace and awakened the emperor Tiberius. Tiberius went immediately to the scene of the crime, where he saw obvious signs of a struggle and the marks of Apronia being forced out the window. Silvanus had no explanation. He claimed that he had been asleep at the time, and that Apronia must have leapt to her death. He was arrested, judges were appointed, and Tiberius presented his evidence to the Roman senate. A great public scandal arose, in the midst of which Urgulania sent her grandson a dagger. This was taken to be a hint. Silvanus attempted to stab himself with the dagger, and, that failing, apparently enlisted the aid of confederates; in any case, Tacitus records that he “allowed his veins to be opened,” and was soon gone. There was still to be a trial, however. Silvanus’ first wife, Numantina, was put on trial on charges of having driven her late ex-husband insane with incantations and potions … what we would now call “witchcraft.” She was acquitted. Silvanus’ family was destroyed by the scandal. Claudius divorced Urgulanilla, who was believed to have been implicated in the matter in some opaque way. The grandmother disappears from history. In 61 AD the Prefect of the city of Rome, L. Pedanius Secundus, became embroiled in a dispute with one of his slaves, either because he had agreed to release the slave for a price and then reneged on the deal—the story told by the slave—or because Pedanius and the slave had both fallen in love with the same slave boy who was kept as a prostitute, which was apparently the story circulated in the streets. In any case, Pedanius was murdered by the slave. Roman law required that, when a slave murdered his master, all of the slaves residing in the household were to be executed—in fact, even if the master died accidentally within his house, the slaves were sometimes executed for failing to protect the master. Pedanius had 400 slaves. The law had been as it was for hundreds of years, Roman law being harder to change than the course of a river, and there had been cases before in which large numbers of slaves had been executed, but now people were losing respect for the old values, and the slaves no longer saw the point in this tradition. Crowds of plebs—rank-and-file civilians, neither slaves nor aristocracy—gathered to protest the executions. Rioting broke out, and not for the first time, incidentally. Rioting had erupted over the same issue at other times through the centuries. The senate debated the matter, and most of the senators realized that the executions were unjust. They were unable to block implementation of the law, however, and the order was given that the executions must be carried out. Troops attempted to seize the slaves, but a crowd gathered to defend them, armed with stones and torches, and the soldiers were beaten back. By now Claudius’ stepson Nero was the emperor, never known for his civility. Nero ordered thousands of soldiers to the scene. The slaves were taken into custody, and legions of soldiers lined the streets along which they were taken to be put to death. Ordinarily, crime stories sink gradually beneath the waves of history, as proper stiff-upper-lip historians are generally above re-telling them, but street riots are one of the things that sometimes cause them to float. On January 1, 1753, an 18-year-old girl disappeared from a country lane in an area which is now part of London, but which at that time linked London to the village of Whitechapel. Employed as a maid in London, Elizabeth Canning had spent New Year’s Day with her aunt and uncle in Whitechapel. As the holiday drew toward evening she headed back to London, and the aunt and uncle walked with her part of the way. With less than a mile to go along the thinly populated lane her relatives turned back, assuming that she would be safe making the last leg of the trek alone in the gathering dusk. In 1753, of course, the streets were unlit, and also, London had no regular police service. She had with her a little bit of money, what was left of her Christmas money, which was called a “Christmas Box,” and a mince pie that she was carrying as a treat for one of her younger brothers. She failed to arrive back in London. What happened then is oddly familiar to us. Her mother immediately raised the alarm, and her friends, relatives and her employers immediately organized a volunteer search. Within hours of her disappearance they were knocking on doors throughout the area, and within two days they had covered much of London with advertisements and fliers asking for information and offering a small reward. Her disappearance attracted the attention of the city. Someone along the lane thought that he remembered hearing a woman scream about the time she disappeared. The search, however, went nowhere for several weeks. On January 29, late in the evening, Miss Canning suddenly reappeared at her mother’s house, looking so bedraggled that her mother, when first Elizabeth came through the door, had not the slightest idea who she was. She had bruises on her face and body, a bad cut near one ear, she was dirty and emaciated and the nice dress she had been wearing at the time she disappeared had been replaced by rags. Her mother screamed, and, in the crowded part of London where they lived, the house filled quickly with friends and curious neighbors. At this point the system of justice, such as it was, flew into action with unfortunate speed. Her neighbors began peppering her with questions about her disappearance—an obvious lapse of judgment, but what do you expect from eighteenth century peasants? We’re lucky they weren’t carrying pitchforks. Where have you been? Who took you? Where were you held? When you escaped, where did you find yourself? Elizabeth, I believe, tried to answer these questions as best she could in her desperate condition. The story that she told, confused and disjointed and somewhat incoherent, is that, walking along the lane on the fateful holiday, she had been accosted by two thugs, who robbed her of her coins and her nice dress, and then pushed and dragged her several miles to a large house. There they turned her over to a group of women who made some half-hearted efforts to force her into a life of immoral trade. Resisting these efforts, she was locked in the hayloft—the attic, we would call it now—and apparently forgotten until she finally managed to escape, injuring her ear in the process. She had lived for four weeks on a loaf of bread, a pitcher of water and the mince pie. Within minutes, the finger of suspicion had been pointed at the residents of a particular house, a large house filled with gypsies, tramps and thieves. There were some loose women who lived there, and some other oddballs and eccentrics. Yes, said Elizabeth; that sounds like that must be the house. She was given a day to rest and recover, and then taken before an Alderman, who interrogated her and expressed some doubts about her account, but ultimately issued a warrant for a search of the property in question. A posse of Elizabeth’s over-eager friends descended on the house, accompanied by a representative of the Lord Mayor of London and by other officials. All of the residents of the house were arrested. They were arraigned days later before a Justice of the Peace, who happened to be the novelist Henry Fielding. Fielding issued warrants for the detention of two women. This story, very much like the story of the Duke Lacrosse team, would soon explode into a divisive national controversy with political overtones, occupying the attention of the British people to an extent that is ultimately inexplicable. Elizabeth Canning was destined to become, for a few months at least, perhaps the most famous person in the world. Crime stories of this magnitude make entire cast and crew into celebrities. In this cast we have an old gypsy woman named Mary Squires, with a face like a child’s drawing of a witch, and a mistress of the house called Mother Wells, and in the crew we have a man bearing the moniker (I am not making this up) Fortune Natus, and a young prostitute named Virtue Hall. Mary Squires smoked a pipe and would tell your fortune for a penny. She was the ugliest woman in the history of the world, a skinny old crone with a face full of warts, a nose the size of a pear and a lower lip, said the writers, the size of an infant’s arm. Ms. Canning accused Squires and Susannah Wells, who owned the house, of stealing her corsets or, as they were called at the time, her “stays.” (They were probably called “stays” because they helped the woman’s body stay where it was put.) The underwear was worth perhaps less than Ms. Virtue’s virtue, but at that time one could be hanged for theft in England, and while that was not the usual punishment this was not the usual case. In the early days of the story, due to the great public sympathy for Ms. Canning, her accusations were accepted at face value, and by late February the old gypsy stood in the shadow of the gallows. The mayor of London at that time was Sir Crispe Gascoyne. Gascoyne became concerned that an injustice was occurring on his watch, and took it upon himself to prevent this. The story told by Elizabeth Canning had serious problems. She had given a description of the house which did not match the suspect dwelling in one particu... --This text refers to an out of print or unavailable edition of this title. Read more

Features & Highlights

  • The man who revolutionized the way we think about baseball now examines our cultural obsession with murder—delivering a unique, engrossing, brilliant history of tabloid crime in America.
  • Celebrated writer and contrarian Bill James has voraciously read true crime throughout his life and has been interested in writing a book on the topic for decades. Now, with
  • Popular Crime,
  • James takes readers on an epic journey from Lizzie Borden to the Lindbergh baby, from the Black Dahlia to O. J. Simpson, explaining how crimes have been committed, investigated, prosecuted and written about, and how that has profoundly influenced our culture over the last few centuries— even if we haven’t always taken notice. Exploring such phenomena as serial murder, the fluctuation of crime rates, the value of evidence, radicalism and crime, prison reform and the hidden ways in which crimes have shaped, or reflected, our society, James chronicles murder and misdeeds from the 1600s to the present day. James pays particular attention to crimes that were sensations during their time but have faded into obscurity, as well as still-famous cases, some that have never been solved, including the Lindbergh kidnapping, the Boston Strangler and JonBenet Ramsey. Satisfyingly sprawling and tremendously entertaining,
  • Popular Crime
  • is a professed amateur’s powerful examination of the incredible impact crime stories have on our society, culture and history.

Customer Reviews

Rating Breakdown

★★★★★
30%
(103)
★★★★
25%
(86)
★★★
15%
(51)
★★
7%
(24)
23%
(78)

Most Helpful Reviews

✓ Verified Purchase

Readable, but don't expect it to be "Crime Abstract 2011"

I've been reading Bill James since the 1982 Baseball Abstract, so I was going to read this, too.

Ironically, James is at his best in this book when he just has fun thinking outside the box and plays detective, challenging conventional wisdom on a variety of random crime cases. When he tries to play sabremetrician, however, the results are embarrassing. There's a murder-classification system that he must have created for data analysis, but then there's no data analysis--perhaps because he correctly realized there was little quantifiable about the series of anecdotes. He tries to create a 100-point guide to guilt or innocence, but the metrics are all pulled out of thin air and are entirely unpersuasive.

But it is good to hear James expose the emperor's clothes on a feature of the American justice system: how much it is a gameshow of obfuscation on both sides, and how little criminal trials have to do with the truth. There are the obvious examples of recent Los Angeles celebrity cases, but the book earns its keep when it explores the historical record with tales of the corruption of Clarence Darrow and other noted criminal defense attorneys.

The book is entirely readable, but it's less a coherent book than a series of anecdotes: your eccentric uncle shooting the breeze about things he wants to talk about on the subject of crime and crime books. One gets the sense that the book wasn't published because it was finished, but it was finished because it was time to be published. So we see themes raised and dropped without rhyme or reason; the organization is chronological. Chronological, but not systematic: for example, the Stanford White case is disposed of quickly with the assumption that the reader already knows about it. (I don't, so I felt let down.) Some crime books get extensive reviews; others don't. As others have noted, it feels insufficiently edited.

I don't regret purchasing it, as I enjoyed reading it, but I can see the potential for disappointment. Don't think of it as a Baseball Abstract revolutionizing the field; it's more like the baseball books James wrote in the 1990s with Rob Neyer where the two dug through the historical archives to tell interesting anecdotes about baseball players in an alphabetical catalog that ended before it even got to the letter B: entertaining in places, inconsistent with spotty insights, and not remotely complete.
54 people found this helpful
✓ Verified Purchase

Some positives and a huge number of glaring flaws

I'm a bit torn because I enjoyed much of Popular Crime more than this review will imply, but I have to admit that it's a muddled, horribly unfocused mess and almost all of the criticism I've seen in the Amazon reviews is fair. It follows a basic formula: (1) James discusses a crime case (usually a murder case) (2) James gives his own thoughts and analysis about whether the accused was guilty and/or should have been convicted. (3) James engages in whatever random thoughts the case brings out in him, including ways to "improve" the legal process or prison system. (4) James gives his generally snotty opinion of books about the case (sometimes he quotes passages just to illustrate the low quality of the writing). The problem is that James is in desperate need of a strong-willed and competent editor, and I assume he refuses to accept one (ironically, he points out how badly one poor crime-story author needs an editor). Here are just a few problems with James writing: (1) His tone is wildly inconsistent and sometimes bizarre. He switches tense and tone constantly, often solemnly noting "It is the author's opinion..." before going straight back to first person and intentionally using folksy misspellings. Interestingly, he tells a story at one point about how he spent most of his time in high-school compiling baseball statistics and passing funny notes to classmates. This was frowned upon by teachers, but James' point is that it was the best preparation for his career. My takeaway was that James still writes EXACTLY like a high-school smart-ass trying to amuse his neighbors. (2) Along with his off-putting tone, he's incredibly unfocused to the point of being lazy. He covers some cases in satisfying depth (I appreciated his treatment of the Lizzie Borden case, which I knew virtually nothing about). Others cases are discussed in such little detail I have no idea why he bothered. I swear he must have had a stack of notes containing cases he wanted to get through, and sometimes felt like he was in a hurry and just cranked out a sloppy, worthless paragraph. In one instance, he even writes something like, "If you want more information, you know where the internet is" (there's the high-school wise-guy passing notes again). (3) James shares some theories that range from silly to unbelievably stupid. As others have noted, he proposes a system where "points" are awarded for establishing certain types of evidence, with 100 points being necessary to convict. He never even attempts to demonstrate why 100 points means a person is guilty, which would be impossible because he's just making it up. Then he spends the rest of the book using his system to tell us whether people should have been convicted. He also has a system for classifying types of crimes. I should have printed out a key because he then spends the rest of the book telling us that a case was a IQR7, or whatever. This only serves to demonstrate James' personal obsession with classifying things. Incredibly, he offers his opinion that America imprisons too few people, and his solution to the problem of prison conditions and violence is to mandate that no prison can house more than 24 prisoners. Apparently this would solve the NIMBY (not in my back yard) problem because prisons would be everywhere. He claims it would save money without providing even the most basic calculations of why this would be so (he also points out what a better career becoming a prison guard would be, since there would be a warden for every 24 prisoners, but doesn't seem to sense at all that this might not be consistent with reducing costs). Unbelievably, in his discussions of prison reform and policing, he at no point mentions or even acknowledges the war on drugs. There are many sources to understand why you can't talk about the state of prisons or policing in the U.S. without talking about the war on drugs, but I recommend the wonderful documentary The House I Live In as a good starting point. (4) There is a huge gap between James' talent as a writer and James' opinion of his talent as a writer. In one of the first case discussions, he begins a paragraph with "The death of the Beautiful Cigar Girl consumed the interest of the New York public as few stories ever have." I was confused by this - he just described the murder of a girl but I had no idea that she was "the Beautiful Cigar Girl". Why was the term capitalized? Was she a famous model that everyone knew about? Who knows. On one other note, James, who is a bit too defensive about his love of crime stories at times, criticizes Erik Larson's treatment of the horrifyingly evil serial killer H.H. Holmes in The Devil In The White City because Larson doesn't want to engage in speculation about how many victims Holmes had. James is clearly impressed with Holmes, who he thinks is much more impressive than that loser Jack the Ripper. First of all, Erik Larson is a superior writer to James by orders of magnitude. Second, Larson does a brilliant job with his story. And third, H.H. Holmes was a reprehensible psycho who murdered women and children, so James comes off as a bit too much of a fan. I could go on, but I'm afraid that I'm starting to ramble as badly as Bill James.
8 people found this helpful
✓ Verified Purchase

More tangents than 8th-grade geometry

After reading the Kindle sample for this book, I was looking forward to reading a book about detailed, historically-significant crimes told from an tongue-in-cheek, enthusiastic perspective. This is not that book.

Popular Crime takes on a "here's a heavily biased reflection on certain crimes focusing at length on what I think of them" theme. It is difficult to follow, preachy and largely unengaging.

On multiple occasions, James goes so far as to disregard cited facts about the crimes that he haphazardly summarizes simply to posit his own gut-feeling theories.

Far better books detailing crimes and history are The Poisoner's Handbook and the ubiquitous The Devil in the White City.
6 people found this helpful
✓ Verified Purchase

A Fun and Messy Look at Popular Crime, Popular Crimes

A good and interesting read, but . . . I finally understand why some people didn't like James's baseball books as much as I did. The organization of the book is just about non-existent. The silly thoughts and the significant, thought-provoking points are jumbled together with no particular effort on James's part to pick among them. I loved that in his baseball writing; everything was fresh and new, and for fans of baseball and baseball statistics it was wonderful to find someone who thought seriously about them and who let his fine writing follow the thoughts. This book is fun, and James's thinking is fun to read and to follow. But I wanted more.
5 people found this helpful
✓ Verified Purchase

Interesting but ultimately frustrating.

Interesting in places, but too many digressions and the reader is left wanting more detail in some cases and less in others. Also, as other reviewers have noted, the author spends far too much time discussing his lack of qualifications. Dude, you can be an expert by virtue of the extensive amount of research you put in. Finally, way too much time is spent with reviews of other works on the individual murders discussed. This topic would be much better off as an appendix.
4 people found this helpful
✓ Verified Purchase

Could Have Been Great

I was extremely excited to read this book. I've never read anything by Mr. James before, but as a fan of crime analysis I was hoping to get a fresh perspective on the "celebration of violence" and a look at some new cases I'd never seen before.
The book started out promisingly. Mr. James' retelling of various eighteenth and nineteenth century crimes were definitely interesting, and I especially enjoyed his perspective on the "Missing White Girl" theory and why we as a society have always wanted to protect our women. Because I didn't know many of these cases I just took Mr. James' word that his research was accurate, and took note of additional readings he suggested (although he certainly doesn't mind bashing a fellow author's work). However, as the crimes became more recent, the book began to fall apart.
Mr. James has a tendency to go off on tangents and, worse, state his own opinion as if it were fact. In order for this book to be 100% accurate, Mr. James would have to be a researcher, a psychologist, a crime scene investigator, a cop, and a time traveler. He acts as though he knows certain things to be true, and wildly suggests theories that just cannot be possible (His linking of the Nason murder to another criminal was so unfounded I had to reread it several times to be sure I understood him correctly). He firmly tells us that JFK was only shot by Oswald and there was no second shooter, then tells us in the next paragraph that JFK was shot by his own secret service agent, based on flimsy "forensic" evidence and an annoyed statement made by another president. I was willing to go along with James acting like an expert despite apparently doing little to no research until he started in on the Jon Benet murder. I've read several books about the case, including Steve Thomas' "Jonbenet," and James' take on the case angered me so much I had to put the book down. An avid Ramsey supporter, he repeatedly mocks Thomas and misstates so much evidence it is like reading about another case entirely. Although I would still recommend the book to crime aficionados, I sincerely urge everyone to skip the JonBenet chapter unless you have read enough about the case to understand that James is spouting drivel.
Also frustrating was James' complaining about how "The Left" is a main cause of serial killers running around this country. His political views come in out of nowhere and they repeatedly float back in, as he seems to think "The Left" and "The Right" are seriously divided on how to treat crime in this country. At the end of the book, he urges us not to get caught up in the "Left vs Right" issue, but this whole topic has no place in the book. Once again, it is just James' opinion being stated as fact.
I am grateful for his recommendations and several sections of the book are interesting and well-written. In the end, it was the author who let his own book down. In a book about the celebration of violence, I do not care what one man who seems to have done no research thinks about politics, prison reform, or possible theories. In a book about the celebration of violence, more focus should have been on the media or courtroom spectacles. I know enough not to read this author again, but I know I will reread sections I found interesting and share some theories with my friends.
4 people found this helpful
✓ Verified Purchase

A very different Bill James

I've read The Historical Baseball Abstract and found it quite interesting, although the annual abstracts kind of scare me off.

This is a completely different animal. The author reviews selected historical crime stories, the facts surrounding the stories and the effect of both the story and the crime in American society.

I'm not very well-read on the subject and have generally avoided if in the past, not knowing enough to know the exceptional efforts from the crap (which I assumed made up the bulk of it). Nothing in this book makes me think that assumption is incorrect but Mr. James manages to find many well-written examples and shares his views on the story, the crime and basically anything he finds interesting, remarkable or compelling. I think he hits way more than he misses and presents his subjects in a respectful and intelligent manner. His story on Clarence Darrow alone was worth the price of admission.
2 people found this helpful
✓ Verified Purchase

well written, occasionally wrong-headed

I love how James writes. His humor and irreverance works for me and always has. However, when he tries to quantify crime like he does with baseball statistics it proves to be a monumental stretch. Also his pollyanna solution to the systemic problems of prison reform are eye-rolling. His take on almost all of the individual cases he writes about are enlightening and thought provoking. A very good book. And might I say, a brave undertaking to step out of his literary sweet spot.
2 people found this helpful
✓ Verified Purchase

Very interesting and informative book

Very interesting and informative books about true crimes. Only issue I had regarded James' writing style -- a little too breezy and informal for me. I would have preferred a higher standard. Still, worth reading.
1 people found this helpful
✓ Verified Purchase

Everything i hoped it would be

Who's ready for a comprehensive account of every famous 20th century crime, plus at least half of the obscure ones? Come on down and have a writer who's certainly thought about all of these cases more than you have explain what happened and why you, and everyone else, got it wrong. Fascinating mix of clinical detail and opinionated flourish.
1 people found this helpful