Until You're Mine, by Samantha Hayes

In this psychological thriller, someone is killing pregnant women, cutting the fetuses out of them and leaving them to bleed to death. The reader hears from three point-of-views. Claudia Morgan-Brown is the step-mother of two twin boys, soon-to-be mother of a baby girl, and working as a social-worker until the last possible moment. Her husband, James, is in the military and is about to be deployed. To help her with caring for the children and the house, the two have hired a nanny, Zoe. However, something about Zoe seems off to Claudia and, given that Claudia's husband's away and she has no adult but Zoe in the house, Claudia is beginning to worry about whether or not the new nanny can be trusted.. The more we hear from Zoe, the more it seems that Claudia might be right to worry. It becomes clear to the reader that her name is not Zoe and that her purposes for taking the job as a nanny are neither monetary or altruistic. The third point-of-view is that of the police officer in charge of the case, Lorraine. Her husband and her are going through a rough patch (brought on by his infidelity) and trying to hide it from their daughters. On top of that, she needs to hunt down the person who is slaughtering  pregnant women before that person kills again.
<P>The book is well-written. The author and editor have good spelling and grammar skills and there aren't any sentences that are phrased awkwardly. The book is suspenseful and it would take a genius to guess how things turn out. Although there are subtle clues to the killer's identity and why certain characters do what they do, they are very subtle and the reader is genuinely surprised by the way things unfold. The only thing I'd say could be improved is the connections between the different characters. It seems as if every single main character is connected in some way. While, for a story to work, there needs to be some connections, I feel that there are some ones that are needless in the case of this book. For instance, Lorraine's husband's one-night stand just happens to be with one of the view-point characters, whose sister just happens to have had an affair with the father of one of the murdered pregnant woman's child. I can see including maybe one of these connections, but both seem a bit extreme. Although both do contribute to why certain things unfold the way they do, there could have been alternative explanations that didn't involve as many coincidences. Other than that, though, it was a great book and I'd give it a 4 out of 5.

<P>: I received a copy of this book from the publisher through the Blogging For Books program in exchange for an honest review.

The Room, by Jonas Karlsson

In this (kind of bizarre) novel, the main character, Bjorn, moves to a new company. It immediately becomes clear that there is something odd about this man. He looks down on his coworkers and presumes to give them orders. He even thinks about ordering his boss around and these thoughts seem to come naturally to him. Bjorn doesn't seem to think that there's anything odd about this. After all, to his mind, he's far superior to everyone else in terms of talent and creativity and it's so obvious that even they must see it. Soon, Bjorn comes upon a room at the Authority (his company). It seems like a typical room in an office. Except it contains a mirror. While in the room, Bjorn begins to feel even more confident of himself and seems to work even better. However, it soon becomes apparent that the room only exists inside Bjorn's mind and that, when he thinks he's inside, he's really standing still and staring at the wall. This disturbs his coworkers to the point where they begin to demand he's fired. Bjorn believes that they are all lying and trying to drive him insane. He plans to get revenge by conducting such exquisite work that the head of the company has no choice but to cater to Bjorn's demands (which are to fire all those who have offended Bjorn).

<P>This book is quite thought provoking. While I suppose one has to entertain the thought that Bjorn might be correct and everyone else is lying about the room, given his personality, thought pattern, and the fact that, even according to Bjorn's own calculations, there is no space for the room to exist, the reader is certainly more inclined to take the view that Bjorn is mentally ill. He comes across as a cross between Dwight and Creed (for Office fans).  However, even after the reader reaches this conclusion, the book still makes one ponder about the definition of existence, mental illness, and society's treatment of the mentally ill. After all, Bjorn firmly believes in the room's existence and nothing seems able of piercing this delusion. Clearly it exists for him. Furthermore, even though he's most likely hallucinating and delusional, Bjorn seems able to go through his day to day life and his hallucination seems to even aid him in his work. However, his coworkers seem unable to accept him because of his mental illness. To be fair, I'd probably be creeped out by someone staring at a wall for long periods of time. At some points he even takes people into the room, which to them just involves them staring at the wall together. That would be unnerving for most people. Furthermore, his perception of his own superiority makes it difficult to like him. However, Bjorn doesn't hurt anyone, keeps to himself, and completes all his work (and sometimes other people's work). One has to wonder, given these circumstances, shouldn't his eccentricities be ignored? After all, he's fulfilling his contract and the side-effect of his mental illness doesn't seem to get in the way of anyone's well-being. In fact, the room seems to allow him to excel at work, benefiting the Authority. Why is it so hard to just ignore his mental illness? This book forces one to ponder these questions and offers no definitive answer. However, the lack of answers isn't as unsatisfying as one might imagine. In fact, I think the book wouldn't be as interesting if there was an ending that was wrapped up in a bow.

<P>Overall, I'd give this book a 5 out of 5.

<P>Disclosure: I received a copy of this book from the publisher through the Blogging For Books program in exchange for an honest review.

Inside the Criminal Mind, by Stanton Samenow

Inside the Criminal Mind, by Stanton Samenow, seeks to take the reader inside the mind of a criminal, explaining how they do (and do not) think. In it, he overturns many stereotypes that our society holds about criminals.
The book argues that poverty does not cause good, rational people to turn into criminals. There are those who are wealthy that are criminals and there are those who are impoverished that are criminals. Statistics show that, in times of financial distress for the country, crime rates actually tend to go down. As a result, it cannot be argued that criminals are a result of poverty.
The author makes the claim that parents do not turn their children into criminals. Instead, children are born with a type of personality and, while they can be taught to make better choices of how to handle that personality, sometimes they resist all attempts at management by others. It is often thought that criminals result from households that are too strict, abusive, or too lenient. However, the author relates that, in his experience, how children respond to certain situations depends on their choices. Most of the abused do not turn into abusers. While abuse an neglect can harm one's development, if a person is abused and turns into an abuser, it is because that person chose to abuse others. For every criminal who was abused, there is at least one law-abiding citizen that was abused, as well. He cites several examples of parents who reached out to him for help, after they tried everything to rein in their children, to no avail. Often, children with criminal personality will lie to manipulate their families, flat out refuse to accept punishments, and make everyone around them miserable. When questioned about their choices, they will blame everyone but themselves.
In dealing with the stereotype that crime is a result of peer pressure, Sameow points out that those who are honest, law-abiding people tend to avoid hanging out with delinquents and, should they fall in with the wrong crowd, sooner or later extricate themselves from the situation. He points out that many criminals, when questioned, are critical of the habits of law-abiding citizens, and would rather have friends who are criminals than hang out with the right crowd.
Schools and trouble getting a job are not at fault because criminals often reject these things. Students with criminal minds are often disruptive in class, drop out, and/or simply don't apply themselves. Criminals with jobs often don't show up for work, demonstrate hostility towards coworkers, steal from their employers, and behave in other ways that jeopardize their employment.
Samenow then goes into detail about how criminals do think. He claims that criminals blame everyone and everything but themselves for their crimes. They view others as either useful to them or getting in their way. They commit crimes for their own benefit and without empathy for or thought of anyone else.
The author tackles the issue of rehabilitation by claiming that, in order to rehabilitate a criminal, one needs to teach them empathy, guilt, selflessness, and dedication, skills that they did not have in the first place. He cites high recidivism rates and points out that, just because a criminal is not rearrested, does not necessarily mean that he/she has reformed, as it is possible that he/she just got better at getting away with their crimes. He does believe habilitation is possible, but that it requires a complete change in the way a criminal thinks and that current rehabilitation practices do not ensure that this takes place. Instead, he argues that habilitation can be done by criminals becoming responsible in every aspect of their lives, challenging decisions and thinking patterns that they used to have, and having a zero-tolerance policy for slipping up.
This book is well-written, provides several examples, and is written by a man who has studied and worked with criminals. It provides credible assertions and backs them up. However, I feel as if it talks more about a specific type of criminal than all criminals. Certainly his conclusions can be applied to most criminals in developed countries, where the majority of the population is not in constant danger of starvation and homelessness. However, I do believe that there are cases where people are pushed to crime by poverty and circumstance beyond their control. Yes, they do have to make a choice and yes, many face similar situations and choose to follow the law. However, I think that there are millions of people in the world that go hungry and do not have adequate shelter (some even in developed nations). Samenow does state that the average person can be put in situations where they may commit crimes but that they will extricate themselves from the situation as soon as possible. I cannot help but think, though, that this statement makes the assumption that situations always end. What about the people who face hunger and homelessness day in and day out with no foreseeable end? Who live their whole lives without the option to extricate themselves from the situation? I remember reading a case where reporters spent a day interviewing a boy in one third world nation and, upon realizing that they had kept him from his job (rummaging in a trash heap for items that his family could use or sell), they offered to take him shopping. He asked them what shopping was. I don't know many criminals and certainly not many people who live in abject poverty. However, knowing that the drive to survive is the strongest drive humans have, I cannot help but feel that there are many people in these situations who might not want to steal, but who may resort to crime in order to survive. I'd imagine that these people are very different from the criminal described by Samenow and that, while they do make choices, it is not out of a lack of empathy or out of lack of morals, but out of a need to survive. Perhaps if I traveled the world and studied different types of criminals, I'd change my mind. However, as it is, I cannot help but partially disagree with Samenow. As a result, I give this book a four out of five.
Disclosure: I received a copy of this book from the publisher through the Blogging For Books program in exchange for an honest review.