Karen Spears Zacharias

This disappointing true crime tale never quite comes together, as author Zacharias tries to balance the story of two separate murders with scientific investigation into the possibility that inherited traits may predispose some people to violent acts.

Zacharias takes as her case study a grandfather / grandson pair who collectively were responsible for two murders, an attempted murder, a kidnapping, and a rape, and who, although they briefly lived under one roof during the grandson’s childhood, had little or no contact beyond that brief period. Lincoln’s issues apparently surfaced in adulthood, when professional failures and alcohol-abuse issues destroyed his marriage. Chang grew up in an extremely repressive Fundamentalist Christian home that relentlessly controlled most emotional responses and isolated Chang and his sister from the society around them. Chang’s behavioral issues began to emerge in adolescence and came to a head after he went AWOL from the Marine Corps.

Zacharias frequently circles back from the acts of these two men to the "murder gene" notion cited in the title.
At the core of the question lie scientific studies suggesting that a malfunction of the MAOA gene may cause the build-up of certain brain chemicals that trigger or inhibit nerve impulses. If the gene is not functioning properly some researchers believe an excess of neurotransmitters such as dopamine, serotonin, and norepinephrine may accumulate in the system and this seems to predispose individuals to violence when under stress.

But Zacharias never presents any evidence that Lincoln and Chang shared such a gene, or even that they were ever tested for its presence.

Even more problematical is when Zacharias suggests that more MAOA study and early intervention with children carrying the defect could help these people deal with the tendency in positive ways. She is, however, woefully short on specifics. What agency, for instance, should be tasked with testing the genetic makeup of every newborn? Is such testing even possible within a culture that values privacy, let alone practical when looking at three million or so newborns per year in the U.S. alone? And if these children’s genetic makeup were to be determined to be problematical, what then? What kind of intervention is appropriate, and who would be responsible for putting it into action? Who would make the determination as to which children would be included? How does one maneuver a slippery slope that could lead to eugenics, or to the propping up of racial / ethnic prejudices? Would the funds and energy devoted to such a studies not be better spent on human services issues such as education, nutrition, and general health care (including mental health intervention)?

Big questions, and better suited to a bigger canvas than this one, which ends up concentrating largely on Chang’s crimes, committed in the small Oregon city of Pendleton in 2012, 40 years after Lincoln’s offenses in Michigan. The investigation into the murder of Amyjane Brandhagen and the devastating beating of another Pendleton woman a year later, provides a fascinating look into the difficulties faced by what is essentially a small police department, unaccustomed to dealing with crimes of this nature. Zacharias may have been better off focusing on this alone, and leaving the “murder gene” question to be handled on a broader scale.… (más)

After contacting all of the men who served with her father, Karen returns to Vietnam to visit where her father died. The death of her father affected the whole family in a negative way. The whole family would not talk about their feelings. She and her brother felt abandoned by her mother, she was working so hard to support the family. They both acted out, while the youngest child saw what her brother and sister did and chose not to cause their mother further grief. A very interesting read for those who grew up during the Vietnam era.… (más)

"Burdy didn't set out that morning aiming to get shot by the end of the day."

An opening line like that is almost certain to draw the reader in, but ultimately the shooting has little to do with the rest of the book. It's essentially a device to bring Burdy's friends and family to her bedside as she, delirious, relives a decades-old journey to deal with a family tragedy. It's not until the last few pages that the secrets she uncovered on this trip come forward to touch someone intimately affeted by them.

This sequel to "Mother of Rain" can be read as a stand-alone, but it definitely draws from the events in the earlier book. In that novel, a troubled young woman appears to be moving toward a life of happiness and normalcy, but ultimately is shattered by events beyond her control and takes her own life. The child she left is the "Rain" of the title.

Rain is now a young adult, and Burdy -- who has been involved with the family since before his birth, has discovered something astonishing and possibly devastating about the events that orphaned him. Her journey of discovery forms the flashback central core of the book, and her decision to share those discoveries with Rain brings the tale back to the present and more or less closes it. (I say more or less because there is definitely a door left open for another story to unspool.)

Burdy is an interesting character, and Zacharias has an unerring ear for the language patterns and folk beliefs of the people of Appalachia, where the framework story is set. But the extremely short chapters - averaging only two or three pages in length -- break up the rhythm of the tale, and the two climaxes -- what Burdy discovers on her flashback journey and how she chooses to reveal that discovery to Rain in the present, lack any real emotional punch. There's also a romance subplot that just sort of wanders off without resolution, which is always disturbing.

This is a quick, enjoyable read that doesn't demand much of the reader and delivers rewards in kind.… (más)

I have really mixed feelings about this one. I agree with most of her basic themes
1) that fear is rampant in our world, and that this fear undermines faith.
2) That fear-mongering is a way of life in our society
3) that too much fear is peddled in the name of God (hellfire & brimstone, natural disasters as "God's punishment," etc.)
4) that the prevailing fear among many Christians of those whom they percieve as being not like themselves -- an "us vs. them" mentality toward Muslims, homosexuals, "liberals" -- stands in the way of obedience to the command to love neighbor as self
5) that God is a God of love and grace who is with us in our trials and troubles, not a "Gotcha!" God looking to trip us up

There's more, and a lot of it is good. Unfortunately, Zacharias falls into some of the very pitfalls she warns us about. Mind you, I'm pretty much a liberal, but I can see that she's guilty of judging conservatives in the same way that the conservatives she's bashing are judging the liberals. I've notice that this is a common failing on both sides of the political divide. (A pastor I know once admitted, "I judge the judgmental people; that's my own sin.) I'm not a Dick Cheney fan, but seeing him lumped with Hitler and Stalin in one sentence was eyebrow-raising, to say the least.

I liked many of the examples she used. The title of the book is an over-arching example within the book -- the mother, held hostage at gunpoint by her religiously deranged son, who was asked by him, "Where's your Jesus now?" to which she replied, "He's right here." Some would be funny if they weren't so sad: the owner of ArmageddonBooks.com, who watches the news to gauge likely demand for his literature. "If things are bad for Israel, business is good. But if there is peace in the Middle East, I'm in trouble."

In all, there was a lot that was worthwhile, but the author got in her own way with a bit too much of a judgmental attitude toward those with whom she disagreed.… (más)