Douglas may present a clear chronology of events relating to the investigation of Unabomber. However, that is the sole limit of the books's worth. The remainder of the book is a staging ground for Douglas' brand of psycholinguistics, the analysis of a person's patterns of expression and thought in order to provide a psychological profile of the person. Instead of accomplishing that, though, in any meaningful way, Douglas perpetrates a sort of freehand poetic literary criticism on the so-called Manifesto. He completely fails to gain any insight into Unabomber's own statement of policy in "Industrial Society and Its Future". On page fifty-three, Douglas boils down his view by claiming simply that the Unabomber's fixation on wood and nature "...probably served as his rationale for setting the bombs off, his substitute for whatever deeper psychological problems had actually caused him to commit the crimes. A lot of violent terrorist activity is the result of political beliefs, but at the same time, I've never seen a violent terrorist yet who I didn't feel had deep psychological problems and a serious character disorder." Oh, yeh. Lest we forget, Douglas goes on: Unabomber "diabolical" too.

Douglas essentially claims that the Unabomber's activity is irrational and eludes sensible thought. That is Douglas' most egregious fundamental flaw. If he's serious in that claim, then he is less insightful than he himself seems to think he is. On the other hand, Douglas' apparent perspicasity in his craft leads me to think that he has another goal in mind: distributing disinformation to the segment of the citizenry who haven't yet bothered to read, consider, and ponder Unabomber's veritable position. That can be accomplished only by directly encountering "Industrial Society and Its Future", not the perverted and oblique interpretation of it which Douglas works so stridently to champion under a charade of sophisticated psychoanalysis.

Basically, and to his credit, Unabomber provides an analysis of the sociology of technology. His central point is that being human and organization-dependent technology are inherently antagonistic and mutually exclusive entities. This basic tension provides the battleground for a choice: remaining human or allowing everyone to be psychologically, physiologically, and anatomically re-engineered in increments to fit the needs of the aloof and impersonal organizations that determine the course of industrial society; instead of allowing humans to put an upward limit on the intrusion into the psychological sphere that is demanded by the ever-increasing velocity and volume of conveniences that ultimately, and ever more quickly, become indispensable for the functioning of society and any given individual's participation therein. (E.g., ATM, FAX, refridgeration, pharmaceuticals, genetic recombination, etc.)

A careful reading of Unabomber's own words is very much worthwhile. He's talking about us, you and me, not some creature on another world.

And let us not forget what Douglas carelessly sweeps under the rug: Theodore Kaczysnki was arrested in the course of the execution of a speciously expedited search warrant that originated by his brother, David, ratting him out. The government's role in the story should be considered under the optic of a triple treachery: the government policing agencies, fraternal back-stabbing, and Douglas' attempt to obfuscate the truth about Unabomber's quite rational motivations as articulated in "Industrial Society and Its Future". Read Unabomber before you read anything about him.

The book was intersting, but a bit to brief for my liking. The actual story of the Unabomber life took less than 150 pages. The book details each of his bombings and suggests the reasoning behind the target and M.O. Douglas also takes you through his thoughts in the investigation. Many readers feel Douglas is a bit arrogant in his writing. I do not agree with that opinion, nor do I feel this book is written that way.

The rest of the book was not very interesting outside of the inclusion of the full manifesto of the Unabomber. The manifesto contains nothing shocking, but contains what you might expect an outsider hermit radical to say. I'm sure there are better books about the Unabomber than this, so I suggest you try a more detailed account.

I had never heard of John Douglas until one day my sister told me about this great book she was reading. She gave me a copy of 'Obession'. Now I am hooked ! What great reading all of his books are, from start to finish. I am now a fan. Looking forward to more books from this author.