What do You think about The Big Con: The Story Of The Confidence Man (1999)?
Best known these says as the source material for the movie "The Sting", this book is chock full of information about how con men ran their rackets in the early part of the 20th century. It's all in there, from short cons to the big cons like the wire, the mitt store, the pay-off, and loads of other exciting-sounding tricks to part a sucker and his money. The author gives plenty of detail, and makes it clear that nearly every con asked the mark to make some sort of personal breach of ethics, like taking advantage of a gambling system, trying to cheat a dying man out of his wealth, or in some way trying to make a quick buck. So you shouldn't feel too sorry for the countless people who lost to these professionals.
—Jim
Good stuff, though certainly a bit dated--the book was originally published in 1940, and Maurer was following cons that were at their peak in the teens and twenties. His writing's a touch stiff, as well--you'd think these guys never used a contraction. But the heart of it is still good--or rotten, depending on how you're looking at it. The psychology con men capitalize on is just the same as ever it was--if a mark's got larceny in his heart, then he's as ripe for a con today as he was in the 20s. As a bonus, you pick up enough antiquated con man argot that you could sound like you walked out of The Sting. Recommended for those with a fascination with crime, especially grift, but not in the first line--this is something for those who want to add a bit of depth and history to their understanding of the subject.
—Noah Stacy
A wonderful work and a fine period piece (it was originally published in 1940) that is as much a linguistic examination of the patois of the grifter in the early part of the 20th century as it is a sociological examination of the class and kind of criminal. Maurer's sympathies are squarely and firmly with the con men here and, as such, he manages to see their targets as deserving marks rather then victims. The author conveniently ignores Ponzi and his ilk and the depictions skirt into the realms of racism and sexism (the accounts are FIRMLY Anglo-centric). It is, however, as a linguistic treatise that The Big Con shines! Linguistics were Maurer's primary field of study and this close examination of such a minute sub-strata of the English language, especially given the small time frame examined (some fifty years or so) is fascinating.
—Chris
