Despite the hip, appealing jacket and auspicious credentials of the author, this book disappoints. It feels like an academic toss-off, designed for the layperson with a fleeting interest, who will leaf through it like a magazine. To swim through the author's disjointed and often autobiographical slough to arrive at the occasional chunks of interesting stuff is simply not worthwhile. On page 9, the author describes his attitude toward his doctoral thesis (...I stayed up, slept late, frequented cafes in the long afternoons, wrote and unpublished novel and an unperformable play, watched far too many old movies, and diligently avoided my supervisor...) Replace 'supervisor' with 'lit agent', and we may have discovered Newton's approach to book writing as well.

It's a wonder that a writer could take such a fascinating subject matter and make it so annoying.

There are many myths about abandoned children who become heroes, like Moses and Oedipus. These had the good fortune to be found by humans and raised by humans. But there are other myths, some as modern as Tarzan, about abandoned children who are taken up by animals. Romulus and Remus were raised by wolves, and Semiramis, who founded Babylon, was raised by birds. Such stories seem to be of intense interest to humans, and when a real "wild child" is produced, it can cause curiosity, sympathy, and sensation. The stories of six such wild children are recounted in _Savage Girls and Wild Boys: A History of Feral Children_ (Thomas Dunne Books) by Michael Newton. The individual stories, full of contradiction and wonder, are all intriguing, and the responses to the children and their fate have something to tell us not so much about feral children, but about ourselves. These poor children lacked human contact when they should have been learning how to talk, eat, and behave; the result of such deprivation brings up profound questions about what language means, and what it is to be human.

Peter, the "Wild Boy" came naked out of the forests of Hanover, and became an attraction at the court of George I. He lived on for sixty years, described in 1751 as "more of the Ouran Outang species than of the human." He could say only three words, "Peter" and "King George." Memmie le Blanc was lured out of a tree in France in Champagne in 1731 when she was about ten; she seems to have been a Native American dropped for some reason by the slave trade. She could run and swim well, used a club to kill prey, and lived on roots and raw meat. She eventually learned some French, and made artificial flowers for her living. Victor, the Wild Boy of Aveyron was captured in the woods and lost twice over the years before being finally taken in 1800. His development is among the best documented, as a young doctor set out to make the wild boy social. Victor learned to say the French word for milk. Kamala was about eight years old, suckled by wolves in the Indian jungle, until she was captured in 1920. She lived nine further years, and learned a few words. The famous Kaspar Hauser had a strange tale of being kept prisoner in a cellar for sixteen years. He is the one feral child here that might be fraudulent. The most modern example, the sad Genie who was tied to a chair in Los Angeles until she was about thirteen, acquired lots of words but no grammar. What was going on in the minds of these children?

Probably no one knows with any confidence, but that does not stop curiosity or speculation. One of Genie's caretakers found her "unsocialized, primitive, hardly human." By the time we get to her case, we can see that the same thing was said of all these wild children, and that their suffering struck cords in those around them. But like Victor, Hauser, and Le Blanc, Genie was rescued, received intense caring attention, became a celebrity, and then was consigned to oblivion. The pattern happened over and over to the wild children who lived long enough, and seems to indicate that bringing such creatures happily into human society is almost impossible. Those who thought about these children, and they thought long and hard, were eager to examine humanity uncorrupted, as completely blank slates, but no one came close enough to understanding the children to make them social. We fantasize that we can reclaim such lost humans, or that they have the intellectual power to reclaim themselves; look at Mowgli or Tarzan. It must not be forgotten that these poor children survived under appalling conditions, and that can inspire some admiration. But humans need each other, and Newton's serious and earnest book is best at showing this simple truth in a new way.

A wonderfully interesting read that poses some crucial questions about language, trust, and human identity. What separates us from animals, and from each other as humans? Perhaps it's much less, and much more, than we think. These case histories, fascinating in their glimpses into children's abilities to survive in the wild, are just as intriguing when the author describes their various attempts at re-entering human society. Beautifully written, with sparkling wit and literary savoir-faire at every turn, this reads like fiction and offers sadness, triumph, and mystery as it tickles the imagination.

Yet another by-the-numbers effort (or lack of such) that attempts to provide an all-round view of Satanism and alleged crimes committed in the name thereof. The content of this book is sadly lacking -- much of the data long outdated, and it seems that the author has just thrown in any old thing into it that bears even the most tenuous link to "Satanism" or the "Occult" (e.g. the Ku Klux Klan were neither!). This 400+ page volume has no practical value for anyone wishing to learn anything of significance about either Satanism or the occult -- rather it is a collection of jumbled entries evidently trying to focus mainly on the more "shocking" elements of juvenile devil-worship and neo-pagan or esoteric societies (much of it inaccurate). Serious readers should avoid this turkey like the plague.

This book, while unfortunately not as "encyclopedic" as I'd like, does exactly what it says: Under a fairly complete list of headings of modern societies, people, places, and concepts, this book does its best to list links with Satanic worship and crime. With societies such as the Ku Klux Klan, for example, even though they had practically nothing to do with satanism, Michael Newton lists those minor links that do exist in a factual, unbiased sense.

Included are L. Ron Hubbard's strong ties with Aleister Crowley, the origins of Wicca as it was in the 1950s and today, the actual American Church of Satan and its origins, and the various serial murders and other idiots who proclaimed themselves inspired by Satanic powers.

A list of actual cases that link Dungeons and Dragons with Satan worship or demonic possession is there--and Michael Newton actually states at the end of the D&D entry that most of these people had serious problems to begin with and were simply attracted to the game. I think this is quite admirable, considering the hate-mongering so prevalent in non-academic style works these days.

An enjoyable book, and chances are that information about what you're looking for is in here somewhere.

A boring rehash of the murders committed by serial killer Harvey Glatman. This is a poorly written and often tedious read by the same person who gave us "The Encyclopedia of Serial Killers" (another book to avoid as it is full of outdated and sometimes inaccurate information).

In "Rope" the author even stoops to rubbing one's nose in all of the violence and gore, a tactic often employed by writers with a need to mask a lack of real writing talent or imagination.

Save your money as you can find tons of information about Glatman on the Internet for free.

I've read a number of true crime books in the past. None of them has dealt with a character as strange as Harvey Glatman, a mousy little guy from New York who came to California to meet girls, and wound up tying them up and strangling them. It's a curious, strange story, and it'd be interesting if it weren't for Newton's obsession with getting every last fact before the reader.

The book includes a summary of each of the killings. Glatman essentially kidnapped the women, tied them up, photographed them, raped them, then strangled them, abandoning the bodies in the desert to the south or east of L.A. He was caught when his fourth victim fought back, and managed to get his gun away from him, running away right into the arms of a Highway Patrol officer getting off work. All of the facts of the crimes as far as the author can discern them, Glatman's trial (he pled guilty and requested execution as soon as possible) and subsequent execution, and even the disposition of the victim's personal effects, are covered in detail. It's fascinating for the most part, if a bit much.

The problem comes in the author's decision to go beyond that. He spends a chapter not only going over the killer's early life in New York, but briefly surveying the history of Jews in New York City (Glatman was Jewish and from N.Y.C.). The author seems obsessed with displaying a command of the study of serial killers which would no doubt be interesting in a survey of them. Unfortunately, given that the book is supposedly about Glatman, it's mostly distracting. To make things worse, the killings themselves are described in detail, mostly reconstructed from the interrogations the police did after Glatman was arrested. Several chapters later, the interrogations are repeated almost word for word, so that you go over the same material again. It's a bit much.

Lastly, remember that I said Glatman took photographs? They were apparently destroyed after his conviction (some of them were nude) but a newspaper in Denver got some of the milder ones and published them, and Newton reprints them. They're nothing compared with modern pornography: women bound wearing clothes, with frightened expressions on their faces. The idea that the fear is real, though, is a bit unsettling, and some may be squeamish about this.

All in all this is a solid true crime book, if a bit heavy on the detail and extraneous material.

Much better written, researched, and documented than most books of this type, Michael Newton does a very good job detailing the "life and crimes" of the unappetizing Harvey Glatman.

As other reviewers have pointed out, there are some redundancies. And, yes, Glatman is only moderately interesting (though let's not kid ourselves -- once you've read about one of these weirdos, you've pretty much read about them all). In addition, there's way too much filler in this book. There are numerous examples, but I'll mention only a couple.

First: At one point, Mr. Newton describes the crimes of the exceptionally repulsive Melvin Rees. Why? What on earth does he have to do with Glatman? Why not bring up Penny Bjorkland while he's at it? Carole Tregoff? And let's not forget good old Jack the Ripper.

Second: Many pages are devoted to the history of Jewish immigration to the U.S. This is an interesting topic, nicely addressed by Mr. Newton, but it's completely irrelevant to the Glatman case.

I'll add that I was a bit disappointed in not knowing what happened to some of the key players -- Lorraine Vigil, for example. And when did Mrs. Glatman die? And I was surprised that Mr. Newton didn't quote, or even mention, Dr. David Abrahamsen, a forensic psychiatrist who knew Glatman.

Despite all my belly-aching, this is the book to read if you're interested in Glatman. Why you should be (and why I was) is another matter.

P.S. Don't kid yourself that Glatman wasn't a sadist. Sure he was. That's why he used a rope, instead of his gun.

If there was ever an advocate for the mentally disturbed is is the author of this book.

After reading most of Mr. Newton's books one major theme keeps popping up. Criminals are good and should be worshipped and the Police are bad. What is this guy on?

If you're a big fan of the common criminal you should really enjoy this book. If, however, you are normal, you might want to skip this one.

I first began reading true crime books when I was a sophomore in High School. Although I cannot recall the author, I will never forget the name of the book: Perfect Victim. The book was about the shocking kidnap and brutal sexual torture suffered by Colleen, (I believe the last name was Stanton), at the hands of the young couple who abducted her. Since that time nearly four years ago, I have read nearly two dozen true crime books, my favorite among them being In Cold Blood by Truman Capote and Bitter Blood by Jerry Bledsoe. When I purchased the book Stolen Away, I was looking forward to reading it, because not only was it about the first use of the controversial insanity defense, but it also occurred in the late 1920's, and I have always considered history to be one of my favorite subjects. I felt the author, however, didn't do a sufficient job of telling the henioius story of how young Marion Parker was abducted and killed. I almost stopped reading the book during the first few chapters when the only topic covered for page after page was the mental problems that the killer's mother had endured throughout most of her life. I knew a brief mention of it was important in understanding why the defendant ended up the way in which he did, but I began to feel the book was written about Eva Hickman instead of her son, Edward. Although this, among a few other things, is what stands out as being one of the most disappointing elements of reading this book, I felt the biggest letdown was the fact that the author told all the important facts of the story in the very beginning and left no room for the climax that I have always looked forward to in every other true crime story I have read. This book was a major disappointment, and it has made me decide to never buy another Michael Newton book again.

I wasn't sure what this book was about when I picked it up. I had never heard of the case. Soon after I found myself reading it nonstop. It was well-written and full of information. Michael Newton did a great job.

What at first glance appears to be a book about the crime of slaying police officers soon uncloaks itself as a self-serving medium of hatred. If you can stomach the first few pages you will be drawn into some bazaar cathartic rant on the evils of law enforcement.

If I had to guess I'd say the author is venting after some run in with law enforcement.

Your money is better spent elsewhere.