New O'Reilly Children's Book

[LincolnMan]

Could it be said that since Jim Bishop did his work- a lot of research about Lincoln has been done-and that for an author today to commit some of the factual errors that O'Reilly did is rather inexcusable?

[wsanto]

I've spent the day canvassing the internet for a list of the factual errors in Killing Lincoln. Most of the articles are from the left blogosphere and are celebrating O'Reilly as inept and the book as a laughable pile of trash. They site the National Parks Service employee that banned the book at Ford's Theater and Ed Steer's review in North and South. I've been unable to read Mr. Steer's review or find another substantial list of inaccuracies. The lists that I have found seems mostly trivial and site inaccuracies that seem mostly irrelevant to the major elements of the story.

Now I am not a historian so I have a much, much lower standard. But I have read Steers and Kauffman and others; and, it seems to me, that they present the assassination with different assumptions and theories (usually presented by them as fact) from the evidence and facts that they had to work with. There seems to be a lot of disagreement between these esteemed historians and between the other members of this Board concerning these events. As a layman, i am wondering why O'Reilly's interpretation of these events is any less relevant. Is it because he is a conservative commentator on a conservative news channel? Could any of this criticism be exaggerated by the political bias of the critics?

[Rob Wick]

Of course I can only speak for myself, but I can assure you (speaking as one who is definitely left of center) that if Al Franken had written this book, I would feel the same. For me it has absolutely nothing to do with O'Reilly's politics.

You mention that you haven't read Ed's review of the book. Here it is.

Best
Rob

[brtmchl]

I have read Killing Lincoln and I enjoyed it. I don't believe it to be the best, or even top 5 books on the subject. I will say that it was an easy read, it barely took me a few days to finish. Which sometimes is a good thing. I liked the timelines, it was very easy to understand, it was more of a cliff's notes. When I bought it I wasn't looking for it to be the affinitive book on Booth or Lincoln, I was just interested in a different point of view. I do believe because of the simplicity of the book that it could attract people to further educate themselves on the subject. There are so many great books written that once people have a basic understanding ( which I believe O'Reilly gives ) I really think they would want to tackle more. I think The only real criticism I have on the book is that he states it is truth. "No Spin", but he delved right into alot of conspiracies about Stanton and Baker but kept backing off. If you are going to go there, go there. I don't think hinting at it, then backing off multiple times just to say that you don't want to go into conspiracies makes you anymore credible. If that was what he believes, then it might have been fun to here it.

[wsanto]

(01-05-2013 02:53 PM)Rob Wick Wrote:  Of course I can only speak for myself, but I can assure you (speaking as one who is definitely left of center) that if Al Franken had written this book, I would feel the same. For me it has absolutely nothing to do with O'Reilly's politics.

You mention that you haven't read Ed's review of the book. Here it is.

Best
Rob

Thanks for the link. It is a very well argued critique by an historian I greatly admire. But it does highlight my belief that Mr. Steers is so convinced of his conclusions as a historian he views other points of view as factually incorrect.

He highlights some factual inaccuracies regarding the treatment of Mary. He reads these inaccuracies as an attempt by the author to gain sympathy for Mary and question her guilt. He is convinced Mary was guilty as charged (I agree) but other authors have postulated that she was less involved and overcharged and mistreated. This is not an invention put forth by Bill O'Reilly (even though Killing Lincoln implicates Mary pretty convincingly). There are other controversial elements to the assassination (as highlighted on this board)--the guilt of Mudd, Booth's escape, his broken leg, etc. Almost all authors take a position on these points and present their opinion as the facts of the case.

Basically, I believe O'Reilly, due to his controversial television persona, has been put to a higher standard than over authors on the subject and, with the aid of his enemies, his book has been too widely panned for inaccuracies that are mostly trivial to the wider story.

[Laurie Verge]

I think that wsanto and brtmchl have made some valid points, and I certainly agree that Killing Lincoln is an easy read. However, I have two main complaints: 1) As best as I can tell, it took O'Reilly and his co-author all of six months to "research" and write this book. Most reputable authors take a great deal longer. I would love to see their research files because I suspect that they might cover one document box?

In conjunction with that statement comes 2) From what I could tell by reading the book and then seeing their version of Notes, they did not have to do extensive research because they depended on previously published works (many of them very recent) to build their work. It may not have been cut and paste of words, but it came close to being cut and paste of ideas already established by others. Along the same lines, they also made the same errors that others have made on even basic information. In essence, he did not present his positions - he created a composite of other people's positions.

I was so disappointed because I expected something much better. I am not a fan of Bill O'Reilly's personality, but I lean enough to the right to agree with some of his modern views. Therefore, I expected a much more politically-oriented and well-researched manuscript from him. He could have still made it an easy read, but one with less repetition of others' works and fewer errors. When he continued some of the errors in his children's version - after having been panned for them already - that really irritated me because I am naturally more interested in children learning the correct history. Despite the repetition of mistakes, however, I did like the children's version better because of the great graphics.

PS: We do sell the adult book in the Surratt gift shop -- when we can convince someone to buy it!

[wsanto]

(01-07-2013 05:03 PM)Laurie Verge Wrote:  I think that wsanto and brtmchl have made some valid points, and I certainly agree that Killing Lincoln is an easy read. However, I have two main complaints: 1) As best as I can tell, it took O'Reilly and his co-author all of six months to "research" and write this book. Most reputable authors take a great deal longer. I would love to see their research files because I suspect that they might cover one document box?

In conjunction with that statement comes 2) From what I could tell by reading the book and then seeing their version of Notes, they did not have to do extensive research because they depended on previously published works (many of them very recent) to build their work. It may not have been cut and paste of words, but it came close to being cut and paste of ideas already established by others. Along the same lines, they also made the same errors that others have made on even basic information. In essence, he did not present his positions - he created a composite of other people's positions.

I was so disappointed because I expected something much better. I am not a fan of Bill O'Reilly's personality, but I lean enough to the right to agree with some of his modern views. Therefore, I expected a much more politically-oriented and well-researched manuscript from him. He could have still made it an easy read, but one with less repetition of others' works and fewer errors. When he continued some of the errors in his children's version - after having been panned for them already - that really irritated me because I am naturally more interested in children learning the correct history. Despite the repetition of mistakes, however, I did like the children's version better because of the great graphics.

PS: We do sell the adult book in the Surratt gift shop -- when we can convince someone to buy it!

I can see your point Laurie. I can also understand the frustration of other authors that view this as O'Reilly co-opting their work and research and making a killing on it by marketing it to his built in television audience. And the more original books are much better at informing the reader on the subject (Blood on the Moon) and, in my opinion, are even more entertaining to read. (Manhunt).

[Gene C]

I will give O'Reilly credit for saying the profits for the book were given to charity, among them I believe is the
Wounded Warriers.

[JB Banning]

Gene C.
O'Reilly donates all the money he makes by selling stuff including his books on his website. Last year that amounted to $750,000.00. I don't know about the profit he gets from selling his books in book stores.
Joe

[Gene C]

Thanks JB for setting me straight. Well folks, the spin stops here too.