What do you think?
Rate this book
If I Did It: Confessions of the Killer
In 1994, Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown Simpson were brutally murdered at her home in Brentwood, California. O.J. Simpson was tried for the crime in a case that captured the attention of the American people, but was ultimately found not guilty of criminal charges. The victims' families brought a civil case against Simpson, and he was found liable for willfully and wrongfully causing the deaths of Ron and Nicole by committing battery with malice and oppression.
In 2006, HarperCollins announced the publication of a book, titled If I Did It, in which O.J. Simpson told how he hypothetically would have committed the murders. In response to public outrage that Simpson stood to profit from these crimes, HarperCollins canceled the book. A Florida bankruptcy court awarded the rights to the Goldmans in August 2007 to partially satisfy the unpaid civil judgment, which has risen to over $38 million with interest.
The Goldman family views this book as his confession and has worked hard to ensure that the public will read this book and learn the truth. This is the original manuscript approved by O.J. Simpson, with a subtitle added by the Goldman family and up to 14,000 words of additional commentary.
In 2006, HarperCollins announced the publication of a book, titled If I Did It, in which O.J. Simpson told how he hypothetically would have committed the murders. In response to public outrage that Simpson stood to profit from these crimes, HarperCollins canceled the book. A Florida bankruptcy court awarded the rights to the Goldmans in August 2007 to partially satisfy the unpaid civil judgment, which has risen to over $38 million with interest.
The Goldman family views this book as his confession and has worked hard to ensure that the public will read this book and learn the truth. This is the original manuscript approved by O.J. Simpson, with a subtitle added by the Goldman family and up to 14,000 words of additional commentary.
254 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 2006
About the author
O.J. Simpson
14 books37 followersFormer American football player and actor.
Mostly known from being the head suspect of a double-murder including his ex-wife.
Simpson is currently in jail for stealing sports memorabilia using a gun and told the media that he is afraid of being targeted by a white prison gang.
Mostly known from being the head suspect of a double-murder including his ex-wife.
Simpson is currently in jail for stealing sports memorabilia using a gun and told the media that he is afraid of being targeted by a white prison gang.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 1,243 reviews
October 5, 2018
4,5 ★
For me, this book was all about how O.J.'s mind became notoriously affected by the murder of Nicole and Ron. Despite the consecutive debate about whether he's guilty or not, this book was extremely controversial and kinda bizarre in some parts of it. When he talks about his relationship with Nicole, all I could think about was "well, it's easy to say this when the other person from the couple is dead". He repeatedly blame Nicole for being too jealous, too moody and even too whiny by the time their marriage went downhill. I got a lot to think (and read) about before concluding what to believe in all this media circus around two victims and one of the world's most famous athletes. All in all, I do recommend the book if you promise me it won't be the only one you'll read about the case.
*
Para mim, esse livro foi sobre como a mente de O.J. Simpson se tornou notoriamente afetada pelo assassinato de sua ex-mulher e um amigo. Independente do cansativo debate sobre ele ser ou não culpado, esse livro foi extremamente controverso e meio bizarro em algumas partes. Quando ele fala sobre seu relacionamento com Nicole, tudo que eu conseguia pensar era "bom, é fácil dizer isso quando a outra pessoa do casal está morta". Ele repetidamente culpava Nicole por ser muito ciumenta, muito temperamental e até muito pegajosa/chorona quando o casamento já estava indo ladeira a baixo. Tenho muito o que pensar (e ler) sobre o caso antes de concluir no que acredito diante desse circo que a mídia criou ao redor de duas vítimas e um dos atletas mais famosos do mundo. Apesar dos pesares, eu recomendo o livro se você me prometer que ele não será o único que você lerá sobre o caso.
For me, this book was all about how O.J.'s mind became notoriously affected by the murder of Nicole and Ron. Despite the consecutive debate about whether he's guilty or not, this book was extremely controversial and kinda bizarre in some parts of it. When he talks about his relationship with Nicole, all I could think about was "well, it's easy to say this when the other person from the couple is dead". He repeatedly blame Nicole for being too jealous, too moody and even too whiny by the time their marriage went downhill. I got a lot to think (and read) about before concluding what to believe in all this media circus around two victims and one of the world's most famous athletes. All in all, I do recommend the book if you promise me it won't be the only one you'll read about the case.
*
Para mim, esse livro foi sobre como a mente de O.J. Simpson se tornou notoriamente afetada pelo assassinato de sua ex-mulher e um amigo. Independente do cansativo debate sobre ele ser ou não culpado, esse livro foi extremamente controverso e meio bizarro em algumas partes. Quando ele fala sobre seu relacionamento com Nicole, tudo que eu conseguia pensar era "bom, é fácil dizer isso quando a outra pessoa do casal está morta". Ele repetidamente culpava Nicole por ser muito ciumenta, muito temperamental e até muito pegajosa/chorona quando o casamento já estava indo ladeira a baixo. Tenho muito o que pensar (e ler) sobre o caso antes de concluir no que acredito diante desse circo que a mídia criou ao redor de duas vítimas e um dos atletas mais famosos do mundo. Apesar dos pesares, eu recomendo o livro se você me prometer que ele não será o único que você lerá sobre o caso.
January 7, 2016
I know it seems strange to give this book a 5-star review, but O.J. Simpson's book is compelling and bizarre. Simpson (with the assistance of a ghost writer) begins the book recounting how he met Nicole Brown when she was an 18-year-old waitress at a restaurant and while he was separated from his wife in his first marriage. It continues from there to the conclusion with Simpson's high-speed chase where he was arrested before he was to stand trial for the murder of his wife and Ron Goldman.
A couple of odd parts about the book: the book begins with an author's note that reads 'If I did it, this is what happened.' All subsequent events described after the author's note are supposed to be true except for the one chapter about the night of the murder. In that chapter, he attempts to separate the putative fiction from the reality with this brief sentence: "Now picture this--and keep in mind, this is hypothetical." From that point on, he tells how he sneaked into Nicole's house (they were living in different houses at the time) and killed Nicole and Ron Goldman with the help of an accomplice O.J. calls 'Charlie.'
Simpson is a very persuasive storyteller. When he writes about the problems he had had with Nicole, with her temper and her excessive drug use, I found myself sympathizing with him and believing his story. He downplayed the allegations that he abused Nicole or that he was jealous and that he wanted her back. He winds up looking like a basically honest guy who was trying to be a good father to his children and handle an ex-wife who was out of control. I will reserve sharing with you my judgment about Simpson's possible guilt or innocence, or the likelihood of Simpson's account with his life with Nicole out of respect for any readers out there who would be interested in reading this book.
I confess that I read this book out of curiosity, and I had assumed that the book was going to be awful, either in terms of writing or in terms of detail about the murders. The book was neither, surprisingly. But this was one of the strangest books I have ever read.
A couple of odd parts about the book: the book begins with an author's note that reads 'If I did it, this is what happened.' All subsequent events described after the author's note are supposed to be true except for the one chapter about the night of the murder. In that chapter, he attempts to separate the putative fiction from the reality with this brief sentence: "Now picture this--and keep in mind, this is hypothetical." From that point on, he tells how he sneaked into Nicole's house (they were living in different houses at the time) and killed Nicole and Ron Goldman with the help of an accomplice O.J. calls 'Charlie.'
Simpson is a very persuasive storyteller. When he writes about the problems he had had with Nicole, with her temper and her excessive drug use, I found myself sympathizing with him and believing his story. He downplayed the allegations that he abused Nicole or that he was jealous and that he wanted her back. He winds up looking like a basically honest guy who was trying to be a good father to his children and handle an ex-wife who was out of control. I will reserve sharing with you my judgment about Simpson's possible guilt or innocence, or the likelihood of Simpson's account with his life with Nicole out of respect for any readers out there who would be interested in reading this book.
I confess that I read this book out of curiosity, and I had assumed that the book was going to be awful, either in terms of writing or in terms of detail about the murders. The book was neither, surprisingly. But this was one of the strangest books I have ever read.
April 10, 2017
What a weird, chilling, strange book. I very much am glad I got to experience this book without any money going to OJ. I still can't wrap my head around why he agreed to do this book if not for the desire to come clean, but in some asinine "fictional" way - this doesn't read like fiction. It reads like a narcissist admitting to something he should have admitted to a long time ago, and still finding ways to blame it on others and pretend it didn't actually happen.
My heart goes out to the Goldmans.
My heart goes out to the Goldmans.
March 6, 2015
This is WAY too fucking fascinating and fucked up not for me to write extensively about it in some other context.
SPOILER: He did it.
SPOILER: He did it.
September 9, 2008
This book was so revolting that I stopped reading it after about the first 40 pages. OJ continued to assert that he was better than Nicole, and that after they had gotten divorced, she begged to get him back even though he was dating Paula what's-her-name, and that she wouldn't stop phoning him and trying to win him back. It was disgusting.
The prologue, written by the Goldman family, was equally foul. They wrote of their desire for vengeance, and while I understand that, seeing that OJ obviously murdered Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman, give it a rest. They just talked about how much money they stood to get from the proceeds of the book and the trials they kept going through and winning against OJ, and after 10 years, the $19 million that they had won had now turned into $38 million and they were angry that he hadn't paid them. I would be angry, too, but I'm not writing a book about it and telling everyone that I stand to get $38 million.
There was also a prologue written by the ghostwriter, who had met with OJ to get all of the details of the 'if I did it', which was supposed to be a thinly veiled 'confession'. I don't even understand how this man could have stood to be in OJ's presence and not wanted to vomit. OJ continued to assert his innocence and that IF he had done it, he wouldn't have been able to do it alone. After the book had been written, the ghostwriter claimed, he sent copies to OJ and OJ wanted him to remove the ENTIRE chapter on the murders, saying that he hated it and that it wasn't correct at all.
I was simply disgusted by the few pages that I read, and I don't recommend it to anyone with even the remotest shred of decency.
The prologue, written by the Goldman family, was equally foul. They wrote of their desire for vengeance, and while I understand that, seeing that OJ obviously murdered Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman, give it a rest. They just talked about how much money they stood to get from the proceeds of the book and the trials they kept going through and winning against OJ, and after 10 years, the $19 million that they had won had now turned into $38 million and they were angry that he hadn't paid them. I would be angry, too, but I'm not writing a book about it and telling everyone that I stand to get $38 million.
There was also a prologue written by the ghostwriter, who had met with OJ to get all of the details of the 'if I did it', which was supposed to be a thinly veiled 'confession'. I don't even understand how this man could have stood to be in OJ's presence and not wanted to vomit. OJ continued to assert his innocence and that IF he had done it, he wouldn't have been able to do it alone. After the book had been written, the ghostwriter claimed, he sent copies to OJ and OJ wanted him to remove the ENTIRE chapter on the murders, saying that he hated it and that it wasn't correct at all.
I was simply disgusted by the few pages that I read, and I don't recommend it to anyone with even the remotest shred of decency.
July 13, 2011
A strange concoction that tries to be a kind of "Hey, to be honest with you, I didn't do it, but supposing I did, Nicole, to tell you the truth, really drove me to it, she was such a slutty cokehead, but I loved her and could never kill her, and besides there's nothing to that domestic abuse shit, but even if there was, she was the heavy, not me, I'm all crippled with arthritis, to honest, but to sell this book here's a hypothetical scenario for your entertainment." That's what I got out of it. If you're doing research on criminal minds, or have a particular interest in the O.J. trial, then this book is could be very worth your while. I can understand why the Goldman family would want to see it in print. But as entertainment, it's a dud.
October 10, 2007
OJ is a delusional wanker. Does he really expect people to believe he had nothing to do with the murders? The answer is yes...yes he does. Throughout the book he tries to paint a picture of himself as the perfect ex-husband, someone who loved Nicole and could never have committed these crimes. Right. I didn't buy his innocence before and I sure as hell don't buy it now.
August 10, 2021
He did it.
October 14, 2015
First up, fascinating story. You would have to have been under a rock during the early 90s not to know this story, and the trial. Secondly, who on earth would write a book about "if I did it" when you received a not guilty criminal verdict (guilty civil though). Where were his advisers?!
But despite all this, I really wanted to read this book. Simpson is an egotist and I have to admit that I came to this book thinking that he did the crime. The book itself is very strangely written. He spends all of the book painting himself in a good light, and painting Nicole in a poor, obsessive, drug-addicted light. It is like he is setting himself up a defence for any resulting actions, or that he never did anything he as accused of. But then, he explains HOW HE KILLED NICOLE AND RON with Charlie in tow. It's simply a book of two halves - he was a nice guy who didn't do it, and then he explains how, even though he was a nice guy, he killed them! It was confusing and odd! Very odd!
So, in summary, I still think he did it. And I think this book is filled of rumblings of someone who got away with murder.
(my ebook copy was riddled with mistakes and errors; not sure whether this is the same for the print version)
But despite all this, I really wanted to read this book. Simpson is an egotist and I have to admit that I came to this book thinking that he did the crime. The book itself is very strangely written. He spends all of the book painting himself in a good light, and painting Nicole in a poor, obsessive, drug-addicted light. It is like he is setting himself up a defence for any resulting actions, or that he never did anything he as accused of. But then, he explains HOW HE KILLED NICOLE AND RON with Charlie in tow. It's simply a book of two halves - he was a nice guy who didn't do it, and then he explains how, even though he was a nice guy, he killed them! It was confusing and odd! Very odd!
So, in summary, I still think he did it. And I think this book is filled of rumblings of someone who got away with murder.
(my ebook copy was riddled with mistakes and errors; not sure whether this is the same for the print version)
January 24, 2008
Go right out and get this book because you will be donating to very good causes (battered women's programs) led by the Goldman family. You also won't believe what OJ's ghost writer tells him to his face. You'll get more insight into the Hollywood celebrity lifestyle than you may want, but you'll end up with a much broader perspective of "why he did it", not "if, I did it". Insightful and chilling. I'm glad the Goldmans wrestled with agony of publishing this book.
July 12, 2016
I will post a full review after I recover from reading this book. For now, all I will say is that this book is the worst and the ugliest case of a character assassination I've read or heard about in my life. I would have never read this book if the proceeds of this book would've still be going to OJ Simpson. I admire Goldmans for not giving up the fight for justice.
Full review to come...
Full review to come...
September 17, 2022
Just had to laugh at OJ's lies
March 27, 2017
Only someone who brutally murdered two people and got away with it would have the arrogance to write a book detailing how he did it. The book is comprised of only eight chapters, sandwiched between a lengthy introduction by the Goldman family, followed by a preface by O.J.'s ghost writer and ending with an afterword by Dominick Dunne. The first five chapters are delusional and self-serving, with O.J. making himself out to be just this poor sap who had the misfortune of falling in love with an erratic, unstable woman. But because she was the mother of his children, and because he's such a good guy, even after she asked for the separation and the divorce, he continued to be the bigger man; the positive, supportive influence in her life, always remaining the steady voice of reason, regardless of how abusive or irrational she became. Chapter Six is his thinly veiled "hypothetical" confession, described in revealing detail, the night the murders took place, and it's just plain eerie. Chapter Seven includes the interrogation, which doesn't fully make sense, and raises some flags; and in Chapter Eight, O.J. makes himself the victim, describing the infamous police chase, how the media vilified him, and how he felt like the "battered husband or boyfriend".
It's hard to rate this book, which is part fact, largely fiction. The fictional chapters were difficult to stomach in far different ways than Chapter Six. The section written by his ghost writer Pablo Fenjves is quite insightful, and he does a great job of capturing the author's narcissistic "voice" throughout. And if you're having difficulty understanding why the Goldmans moved forward with publishing this book after publicly trying to derail it, read their introduction. Regardless of what you thought at the time, it cannot be denied that there is no way O.J. could know such details, or even imagine them, unless he was actually there.
It's hard to rate this book, which is part fact, largely fiction. The fictional chapters were difficult to stomach in far different ways than Chapter Six. The section written by his ghost writer Pablo Fenjves is quite insightful, and he does a great job of capturing the author's narcissistic "voice" throughout. And if you're having difficulty understanding why the Goldmans moved forward with publishing this book after publicly trying to derail it, read their introduction. Regardless of what you thought at the time, it cannot be denied that there is no way O.J. could know such details, or even imagine them, unless he was actually there.
April 29, 2016
He definitely did it.
May 8, 2016
Only read this book if you have a strong gag reflex, because the desire to barf will be intense.
February 8, 2018
What a pompous, arrogant prick
July 15, 2011
The book was scrapped for publishing as the Goldman's faught for the rights to O.J.'s book. They won. There is a foreword from Mr. Goldman, Ron's dad and also from the "ghost writer". There is an afterword from Mr. Dominick Dunne who himself mourned his daughter's murder at the hand's of her boyfriend.
This book confirms that O.J. Simpson is a narcissistic sociopath. Most of the book is simply OJ explaining how he was the perfect husband and father who was married to a controlling abusive woman. As he described their crumbling marriage he began to lay the blame for the failing marriage more directly at the feet of Nicole.
To me, this was very much a confession. He describes the way he felt after killing the two people. He describes the anger that only the killer would feel. And the way he phrases the description of the feelings is what one would think a killer of his personality type would feel. I don't think Simpson could have made up those feelings. I don't think he has that capability. He is not that creative. He is not a mental giant. He is a physical person, not a mental person.
Why did he write this book? Because he was there the night Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown Simpson died. He saw what happened.
This book confirms that O.J. Simpson is a narcissistic sociopath. Most of the book is simply OJ explaining how he was the perfect husband and father who was married to a controlling abusive woman. As he described their crumbling marriage he began to lay the blame for the failing marriage more directly at the feet of Nicole.
To me, this was very much a confession. He describes the way he felt after killing the two people. He describes the anger that only the killer would feel. And the way he phrases the description of the feelings is what one would think a killer of his personality type would feel. I don't think Simpson could have made up those feelings. I don't think he has that capability. He is not that creative. He is not a mental giant. He is a physical person, not a mental person.
Why did he write this book? Because he was there the night Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown Simpson died. He saw what happened.
November 10, 2010
Okay , I DID IT!!! And here is how...but wait, I didn't really do it. I am so glad the Goldman Family fought for the rights of this book.
March 5, 2018
Uhm, wow, where to start, what to say? Maybe like this, with the pure technical side: the writing style is good, it's an easy read with a good flow, so, kudos to ghostwriter Pablo F. Fenjves (who also added a very intersting foreword; actually, all the extra texts surrounding O.J.'s "actual report" are interesting, since they offer a lot of what was going on behind the scenes of this book's genesis).
That being said, if you're interested in the general topic - the O.J. murder case and/or true crime in general, if you remember what went on back then, the abuse, the murder, the trial - this might be a book for you. I say might because on the one hand, this is completely disturbing and appalling - at the same time, it's weirdly fascinating, in a "shake your head and bang it against the wall because the author really claims this as his truth"-kind of way. I'm still not sure if I feel made fun of as reader or am just confused because O.J. really thought anybody would swallow all of this...?
I'm not the one to judge characters of people I don't know. However: even if I came from the moon, had never heard of O.J. and Nicole and Ron before and read this book, I'd knew this makes little to no sense. Painting a picture of oneself as some holy martyr only to then speculate how said person would commit a brutal double murder - hypothetically speaking? WTF?? Why would an innocent person (who - if we continue this fairy tale - lost his divorced yet still beloved wife, was wrongfully judged by literally everybody and their sister, was wrongfully put on trial and narrowly escaped the death penalty) tell such a tale? WHAT?
The mind, it boggles and just doesn't stop. A weird book this is. An okay read, fascinating in a strange, almost pervert way, but mainly weird.
That being said, if you're interested in the general topic - the O.J. murder case and/or true crime in general, if you remember what went on back then, the abuse, the murder, the trial - this might be a book for you. I say might because on the one hand, this is completely disturbing and appalling - at the same time, it's weirdly fascinating, in a "shake your head and bang it against the wall because the author really claims this as his truth"-kind of way. I'm still not sure if I feel made fun of as reader or am just confused because O.J. really thought anybody would swallow all of this...?
I'm not the one to judge characters of people I don't know. However: even if I came from the moon, had never heard of O.J. and Nicole and Ron before and read this book, I'd knew this makes little to no sense. Painting a picture of oneself as some holy martyr only to then speculate how said person would commit a brutal double murder - hypothetically speaking? WTF?? Why would an innocent person (who - if we continue this fairy tale - lost his divorced yet still beloved wife, was wrongfully judged by literally everybody and their sister, was wrongfully put on trial and narrowly escaped the death penalty) tell such a tale? WHAT?
The mind, it boggles and just doesn't stop. A weird book this is. An okay read, fascinating in a strange, almost pervert way, but mainly weird.
February 1, 2018
Spoiler - He Did It.
Seriously devoured this in one sitting ... It is a completely narcissistic delusional way for "the killer" to continue to get attention. I am a True Crime fan and remember watching this unfold in the 1990's and followed the trial closely. I am a HUGE fan of Fred Goldman and the entire Goldman family. The way they fought for the memory of their son is heartbreaking and amazing.
I felt revitalized by the Foreward that spent time explaining that the story was originally pitched in an effort to financially support "the killer" and to "set him up for retirement. The Goldman and Brown families by this time had won a judgement against the estate of "the killer" and as a result they were able to remind "the killer" that there are consequences to his actions.
I can't believe I am going to recommend it but the ghost writer did a great job and I was reminded of the crazy days surrounding the murder of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman. WOW.
Edited to add: A portion of the proceeds will be donated to the Ron Goldman Foundation for Justice.
Seriously devoured this in one sitting ... It is a completely narcissistic delusional way for "the killer" to continue to get attention. I am a True Crime fan and remember watching this unfold in the 1990's and followed the trial closely. I am a HUGE fan of Fred Goldman and the entire Goldman family. The way they fought for the memory of their son is heartbreaking and amazing.
I felt revitalized by the Foreward that spent time explaining that the story was originally pitched in an effort to financially support "the killer" and to "set him up for retirement. The Goldman and Brown families by this time had won a judgement against the estate of "the killer" and as a result they were able to remind "the killer" that there are consequences to his actions.
I can't believe I am going to recommend it but the ghost writer did a great job and I was reminded of the crazy days surrounding the murder of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman. WOW.
Edited to add: A portion of the proceeds will be donated to the Ron Goldman Foundation for Justice.
June 27, 2014
While I support the efforts of the Goldman and Brown families to bring this book to publication and to bring the truth to light, I don't want to read the sick words of a vicious killer.
I sleep better at night knowing that this evil man is behind bars, albeit not for the murders he committed.
I sleep better at night knowing that this evil man is behind bars, albeit not for the murders he committed.
Read
October 13, 2013Reposted with permission from BirdBrian
if you see the hydra, repost with the hydra on top
Censorship sucks, AND it often doesn't even work
Let's get this part out of the way first: I thought the book was poorly written. I thought the grammar was at times awkward, and some of the things said were illogical. I found spelling errors on pages 4, 92, and 9024.
"If I Did It". Kinda clever what he did there, isn't it? The whole premise of the book is a hypothetical, so it isn't really an admission of wrongdoing- even though it describes step by step exactly how O.J. would have committed the crime he was accused of... you know, "if" he did it.
Like most people in America, I followed this trial with interest, and I feel confident based on what I learned that O.J. Simpson is guilty of Nicole Simpson and Ron Goldman's murders.
My understanding is that O.J. wrote this book to get money to help pay his legal bills from the trial, although most of the money now goes to the Goldman family, because they won a civil case against him. So as I see it, this book was written to help a murderer- who eluded justice- to further profit from his crime ("further" beyond whatever murderous bloodlust of the moment it satisfied.)
That makes me really dispise this author's behavior.
But of course we all know that I can't just come out and trash the book based on how I feel about the author's behavior. That would violate GoodReads' Terms of Service.
Of course If I didn't read the book, and I posted a 1 star review of it anyhow, I'm not entirely sure how GoodReads would know this. And If I wanted to write an excoriating review that appeared to be "about the book", I could skim the brief description on the book's page for a few central points and themes, couldn't I? I could find a few names to drop, and probably cobble together a review that sounded like I had read the book. (If I didn't read the book, but of course I totally did.)
Naturally, I'd have to keep the review "about the book". I'd have to say the writing was bad, things didn't make sense, it was boring, etc, etc. But it would be easy enough to do, If I felt strongly enough about it.
So what's my point?
My point is that back in the GoodReads "Before Censorship Era" (BCE), I could have written a nasty review about the author, and put it on a shelf called "authors who profit from murder". I could have openly admitted that I never read the book, and readers could take that into consideration when they read my review. GoodReaders would see my honest opinions for what they are, and they could make their own mind up about whether my thoughts on the author are justified, and whether they agree, and whether they should avoid the book. Reviews from the BCE were more likely to be open and honest, even if they were exceedingly negative.
Now we are in the Censorship Era (CE). If I feel strongly about a book based on its author, there's no way of stopping me from writing a terrible review about it; I just have to keep some rules in mind, to escape detection. With 20 million users on the site, it seems unlikely that GR could realistically track down and identify all the reviews which appear to be about the book, but which are really driven by other motives. Not going to happen. It is an ironclad certainty that reviews like that WILL be posted in the future, and they WILL escape official detection.
The thing is, with all of the honesty of the BCE lost, how is anybody to know which reviews are reliable, and which ones are effectively wolves in sheeps' clothing? GoodReads' new policies (or old policies with new implementation practices) doesn't eradicate "because-of-the-author" reviews; it merely drives them underground. And in doing so, it makes ALL reviews suspect.
The GoodReads of BCE had some nasty author-reader blowups, but for the most part the reviews everybody had such bad feelings about were easy to identify, and they didn't call the integrity of other reviews into question. In the GoodReads of the CE, EVERY review is suspect. You can't tell which is honest and which is an imposter.
It cheapens the value of reviews and thus of the site. While GoodReads/Amazon doesn't care about the free expression of ideas, or building a community of readers, you can bet they care about the value of the site, because that affects revenue.
So what has GoodReads achieved by censoring reviewers? It appears they have reduced the value of their own product (i.e. their precious "author packages"), and they have not prevented even a single reviewer from posting negative, because-of-the-author reviews, including of books the reviewer hasn't read.
As I stated in the caption to the image at the top of this review: not only does censorship suck, but it often doesn't even work.
if you see the hydra, repost with the hydra on top
Censorship sucks, AND it often doesn't even work
Let's get this part out of the way first: I thought the book was poorly written. I thought the grammar was at times awkward, and some of the things said were illogical. I found spelling errors on pages 4, 92, and 9024.
"If I Did It". Kinda clever what he did there, isn't it? The whole premise of the book is a hypothetical, so it isn't really an admission of wrongdoing- even though it describes step by step exactly how O.J. would have committed the crime he was accused of... you know, "if" he did it.
Like most people in America, I followed this trial with interest, and I feel confident based on what I learned that O.J. Simpson is guilty of Nicole Simpson and Ron Goldman's murders.
My understanding is that O.J. wrote this book to get money to help pay his legal bills from the trial, although most of the money now goes to the Goldman family, because they won a civil case against him. So as I see it, this book was written to help a murderer- who eluded justice- to further profit from his crime ("further" beyond whatever murderous bloodlust of the moment it satisfied.)
That makes me really dispise this author's behavior.
But of course we all know that I can't just come out and trash the book based on how I feel about the author's behavior. That would violate GoodReads' Terms of Service.
Of course If I didn't read the book, and I posted a 1 star review of it anyhow, I'm not entirely sure how GoodReads would know this. And If I wanted to write an excoriating review that appeared to be "about the book", I could skim the brief description on the book's page for a few central points and themes, couldn't I? I could find a few names to drop, and probably cobble together a review that sounded like I had read the book. (If I didn't read the book, but of course I totally did.)
Naturally, I'd have to keep the review "about the book". I'd have to say the writing was bad, things didn't make sense, it was boring, etc, etc. But it would be easy enough to do, If I felt strongly enough about it.
So what's my point?
My point is that back in the GoodReads "Before Censorship Era" (BCE), I could have written a nasty review about the author, and put it on a shelf called "authors who profit from murder". I could have openly admitted that I never read the book, and readers could take that into consideration when they read my review. GoodReaders would see my honest opinions for what they are, and they could make their own mind up about whether my thoughts on the author are justified, and whether they agree, and whether they should avoid the book. Reviews from the BCE were more likely to be open and honest, even if they were exceedingly negative.
Now we are in the Censorship Era (CE). If I feel strongly about a book based on its author, there's no way of stopping me from writing a terrible review about it; I just have to keep some rules in mind, to escape detection. With 20 million users on the site, it seems unlikely that GR could realistically track down and identify all the reviews which appear to be about the book, but which are really driven by other motives. Not going to happen. It is an ironclad certainty that reviews like that WILL be posted in the future, and they WILL escape official detection.
The thing is, with all of the honesty of the BCE lost, how is anybody to know which reviews are reliable, and which ones are effectively wolves in sheeps' clothing? GoodReads' new policies (or old policies with new implementation practices) doesn't eradicate "because-of-the-author" reviews; it merely drives them underground. And in doing so, it makes ALL reviews suspect.
The GoodReads of BCE had some nasty author-reader blowups, but for the most part the reviews everybody had such bad feelings about were easy to identify, and they didn't call the integrity of other reviews into question. In the GoodReads of the CE, EVERY review is suspect. You can't tell which is honest and which is an imposter.
It cheapens the value of reviews and thus of the site. While GoodReads/Amazon doesn't care about the free expression of ideas, or building a community of readers, you can bet they care about the value of the site, because that affects revenue.
So what has GoodReads achieved by censoring reviewers? It appears they have reduced the value of their own product (i.e. their precious "author packages"), and they have not prevented even a single reviewer from posting negative, because-of-the-author reviews, including of books the reviewer hasn't read.
As I stated in the caption to the image at the top of this review: not only does censorship suck, but it often doesn't even work.
May 21, 2016
Where to start with this? I had a really hard time rating this book. I didn't want to give it one star, even though it made me sick at times to read it. But it also didn't deserve 5 stars for the same reason. I can safely say I was ok with this book because of the mind boggling fact OJ Simpson gave such a detailed chilling account of his crime under the guise of what "could" have happened. I also had a difficult time with how to shelve it. I consider it non-fiction, an accurate, if bumbling and ego driven story of how Simpson deluded himself into believing he was the victim in the marriage with Nicole Simpson (he just loved her SO much, she was messed up!) and then "possibly" killed his ex wife and an innocent bystander. I was one of the millions who knew he got away with murder and admit I cheered when he went to jail for armed robbery in Vegas. I consider it justice late served. The story behind how this joke of a book got published is as interesting and amazing as the story contained within its pages. I am glad the Goldman's won their suit against OJ and the publishers and were able to control who this book was released. Their touches, the introduction and forward (by a very confused and non-sympathetic ghostwriter who states right off the bat he believed Simpson guilty himself), to the tiny type on the cover of the word "If" so it looks like the book is titled "I Did It," a more accurate title of this chilling confession by a very notorious killer.
March 13, 2018
Pulled this out and reread it after watching the long buried interview version. I bought it originally because the proceeds went to the Goldmans, plus I added it to my large OJ book collection, that I have for whatever perverted reason. I had forgotten just what a bunch of self-serving crap this is. Poor OJ! He was just a good guy, married to that horrible drug addled floozy who beat him up all the time! And just because he had little affairs now and then, didn't she understand that "temptations of the flesh" are everywhere when you are OJ? What a shrew she was! It's just a credit to him that he put up with her as long as he did before she finally just drove him to slitting her throat. He TOLD her...for crying out loud, what did she expect? And then he got all that bad press, and he looked BAD when he showed up in court the first time because he hadn't had any sleep that night! Those pesky guards! Someone does need to tell OJ, though, that in a "hypothetical" situation you can't keep forgetting what happened, because you are just making it up. You cannot "hypothetically" not remember..if you say that, people might think you recounting something that really DID happen. Sigh sigh sigh.
August 6, 2016
OJ's confession - pure and simple. He's insipid and vane. He's narcissistic. He's so full of $h1t. It's painful to read and he paints himself as the victim. He is so guilty.
July 4, 2019
If I Did It is, undoubtedly, a confession, despite the claims that the murder account is purely "hypothetical" and "fictional". There is no actual reason as to why Simpson would write, publish, and promote a "fictional" account of the double murders he was trialed for. But the very fact that he did, and above all, truly believed the greater mass of people would believe in his innocence after reading this book, is absolutely bizarre.
A bulk of this book is a detailed history of O.J and Nicole's relationship, while the infamous Bronco chase, arrests, murders, and interrogations are the very last few chapters. Or, in other words, this is simply a telling of how O.J believed that he was definitely a perfect father; a perfect husband; a perfect man, at the very least, who married a drug addict, adulterer, abusive, controlling, mentally unstable woman. O.J writes this with the knowledge that nothing can be confirmed because the woman in which he slanders and victim-blames is dead.
I've always been interested in true crime, particularly the psychology behind them. I don't bat an eye when watching documentaries about serial killers, or viewing their forensics and crime scene photos. But after reading this, I felt dirty. No matter if you believe this man is innocent or guilty, the ways in which O.J reads off as an extreme narcissistic sociopath is chilling. The most awful (and laughable) attempt at sympathy-gaining is when he said the nurse "took lots of blood" and "filled up four or five glass vials"! In comparison to the amount of blood at the crime scene, I felt like I needed to take a shower for a week straight. Goodness.
I can only hope that the Goldman and Brown families feel at least an ounce of justice from their additions and rights to this book. I'm glad that they fought for this powerful, strange story. It is not incredibly well-written, but I'd recommend this to anyone mildly intrigued by the case.
I just feel grossed out that Simpson is now, 25 years later, prancing around on Twitter and declaring that he has some "getting even to do". I need another shower.
A bulk of this book is a detailed history of O.J and Nicole's relationship, while the infamous Bronco chase, arrests, murders, and interrogations are the very last few chapters. Or, in other words, this is simply a telling of how O.J believed that he was definitely a perfect father; a perfect husband; a perfect man, at the very least, who married a drug addict, adulterer, abusive, controlling, mentally unstable woman. O.J writes this with the knowledge that nothing can be confirmed because the woman in which he slanders and victim-blames is dead.
I've always been interested in true crime, particularly the psychology behind them. I don't bat an eye when watching documentaries about serial killers, or viewing their forensics and crime scene photos. But after reading this, I felt dirty. No matter if you believe this man is innocent or guilty, the ways in which O.J reads off as an extreme narcissistic sociopath is chilling. The most awful (and laughable) attempt at sympathy-gaining is when he said the nurse "took lots of blood" and "filled up four or five glass vials"! In comparison to the amount of blood at the crime scene, I felt like I needed to take a shower for a week straight. Goodness.
I can only hope that the Goldman and Brown families feel at least an ounce of justice from their additions and rights to this book. I'm glad that they fought for this powerful, strange story. It is not incredibly well-written, but I'd recommend this to anyone mildly intrigued by the case.
I just feel grossed out that Simpson is now, 25 years later, prancing around on Twitter and declaring that he has some "getting even to do". I need another shower.
August 5, 2010
[This review also appears on FingerFlow.com, a site for review and discussion of creative works.]
Being a preteen when the events described in this book took place, I probably went into this book with a hazier recollection of the facts than other readers. Even so, it was clear to me that O. J. is relating his skewed view of the events, with a heavy prejudice towards himself. If you knew nothing about the facts, you might actually believe the picture he paints of himself: as a very sensible, family-oriented, patient man; almost flawless, but willing to accept and repent for the minor infractions that he let slip (like in 1989, when he "grabbed" Nicole too forcefully and ended up being convicted of spousal abuse for it). He also doesn't miss any chances to describe Nicole as ill-tempered, obsessive, pedantic, violent... and a drug user to boot.
O. J. includes some actual transcripts from the court case and seems to have gone to some trouble elucidating a back-story to fit the facts that turn up in the transcripts. For example, he explains right before one of Nicole's 911 call transcripts that someone on the set of Naked Gun 33 1/3 told him that Nicole "parties hard" with a "rough crowd." Apparently, that got him worried about his kids and angry enough to confront her about her drug use.
Despite the absurdity and poor writing of his account, I found myself eagerly anticipating the moment of the murder (does that make me a sick person?). O. J. invents an acquaintance named Charlie who dropped by unexpectedly one evening and told O. J. some gossip about Nicole that set him off to the point of dropping everything to go scream at her. Charlie, in my opinion, was O. J's conscience; first, he tried to prevent O. J. from going to Nicole's condo in the first place, then refused to allow O. J. to take the knife in his car with him (why did O. J. have that knife in his car, hmm?). Charlie later tried to cool off O. J. in Nicole's courtyard, but for some inexplicable reason, brought the knife from the car with him. At this point, O. J. grabbed the knife, blanked out for a moment and then realized he was covered in blood with two bodies at his feet. For all his confusion, he seemed to be of sound enough mind to remove his bloody clothing and force Charlie to make his clothes and the murder weapon disappear. The most absurd part, of course, was O. J's temporary amnesia about the climatic moment; he even wonders how he could have missed witnessing the murders when he was standing right there!
In any case, I think If I Did It is a poor title because O. J. never conjectures what it would have been like if he did commit the murders. Nor is I Did It an apt title because he never does admit that he did anything but be an all-around good guy.
And for those wondering why O. J. didn't commit suicide during the Bronco car chase: hearing Dan Rather report that O. J. had a long history with the police department as a domestic abuser made him angry enough to want to stay alive so he could get the truth out there. It only took him over a decade to finally tell his side of it.
Being a preteen when the events described in this book took place, I probably went into this book with a hazier recollection of the facts than other readers. Even so, it was clear to me that O. J. is relating his skewed view of the events, with a heavy prejudice towards himself. If you knew nothing about the facts, you might actually believe the picture he paints of himself: as a very sensible, family-oriented, patient man; almost flawless, but willing to accept and repent for the minor infractions that he let slip (like in 1989, when he "grabbed" Nicole too forcefully and ended up being convicted of spousal abuse for it). He also doesn't miss any chances to describe Nicole as ill-tempered, obsessive, pedantic, violent... and a drug user to boot.
O. J. includes some actual transcripts from the court case and seems to have gone to some trouble elucidating a back-story to fit the facts that turn up in the transcripts. For example, he explains right before one of Nicole's 911 call transcripts that someone on the set of Naked Gun 33 1/3 told him that Nicole "parties hard" with a "rough crowd." Apparently, that got him worried about his kids and angry enough to confront her about her drug use.
Despite the absurdity and poor writing of his account, I found myself eagerly anticipating the moment of the murder (does that make me a sick person?). O. J. invents an acquaintance named Charlie who dropped by unexpectedly one evening and told O. J. some gossip about Nicole that set him off to the point of dropping everything to go scream at her. Charlie, in my opinion, was O. J's conscience; first, he tried to prevent O. J. from going to Nicole's condo in the first place, then refused to allow O. J. to take the knife in his car with him (why did O. J. have that knife in his car, hmm?). Charlie later tried to cool off O. J. in Nicole's courtyard, but for some inexplicable reason, brought the knife from the car with him. At this point, O. J. grabbed the knife, blanked out for a moment and then realized he was covered in blood with two bodies at his feet. For all his confusion, he seemed to be of sound enough mind to remove his bloody clothing and force Charlie to make his clothes and the murder weapon disappear. The most absurd part, of course, was O. J's temporary amnesia about the climatic moment; he even wonders how he could have missed witnessing the murders when he was standing right there!
In any case, I think If I Did It is a poor title because O. J. never conjectures what it would have been like if he did commit the murders. Nor is I Did It an apt title because he never does admit that he did anything but be an all-around good guy.
And for those wondering why O. J. didn't commit suicide during the Bronco car chase: hearing Dan Rather report that O. J. had a long history with the police department as a domestic abuser made him angry enough to want to stay alive so he could get the truth out there. It only took him over a decade to finally tell his side of it.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
February 26, 2016
The story behind the publication of this book is almost as interesting as the book itself. The foreword is written by the family of Ron Goldman, the man that O.J. murdered along with his ex-wife Nicole.
O.J. Simpson was going to publish this book for profit. He's couched it as a hypothetical explanation of how the murders "might" have happened, but this book is an actual confession. I believe that every word of his confession is true, apart from his insistence that it is hypothetical. Rightly enough, the possible publication of this book, and the profits Simpson would have made from the murders through it, incensed the family of his victims.
Public outrage halted its publication for a long time. Then, the Goldman family began to pursue ownership of the book in order to satisfy the $40 million judgment that they hold against Simpson for murdering their son; a $40 million judgment of which Simpson has paid nothing. He swore, in fact, that he would never pay the Goldmans a dime for murdering Ron, even though the civil court found him liable and responsible for his death.
The Goldmans bought the rights to the book from the bankruptcy court that Simpson tried to use to shield his assets from them. They were then faced with a dilemma: in order to "maximize the asset" that they had received from the bankruptcy court, which they were ordered to do, they would have to publish and promote the book.
The genius thing that they did, though, was to repackage it, along with an explanation as to how they'd acquired it and why they had to publish it, as an actual confession to the murders, which is exactly how it reads, anyway. They minimized the presence of the "If" in the title, and the cover now looks like it just says "I Did It."
And I truly believe that he did, in fact, murder his ex-wife and Ron Goldman. The description of the night of their deaths that he gives is just too perfect for him to have not been present. His inclusion of the ubiquitous accomplice, referred to as "Charlie," is likely a load of bull, but the rest reads as an exact replay of what happened.
However, that chapter (and the ones by the family of Ron Goldman, the ghostwriter, and Dominick Dunne) are really the only ones of any interest, mostly because he spends the rest of the entire book blaming Nicole for her own murder, as well as slandering her character and listing who he was having sex with and when. He claims that she was the violent one, she was the one having mood swings and doing drugs and having inappropriate relationships, she was the one who wanted him back. It's revolting, and nothing but pure rationalization from a killer who has never had to answer for the double homicide.
I applaud the family of Ron Goldman for continuing to fight to hold him accountable for the death of their son, and I hope that they someday find some measure of peace.
TL;DR: A fascinating look at the night O.J. Simpson killed Nicole Simpson and Ron Goldman. If you've ever wondered if he actually did it, read this. Then you'll know.
O.J. Simpson was going to publish this book for profit. He's couched it as a hypothetical explanation of how the murders "might" have happened, but this book is an actual confession. I believe that every word of his confession is true, apart from his insistence that it is hypothetical. Rightly enough, the possible publication of this book, and the profits Simpson would have made from the murders through it, incensed the family of his victims.
Public outrage halted its publication for a long time. Then, the Goldman family began to pursue ownership of the book in order to satisfy the $40 million judgment that they hold against Simpson for murdering their son; a $40 million judgment of which Simpson has paid nothing. He swore, in fact, that he would never pay the Goldmans a dime for murdering Ron, even though the civil court found him liable and responsible for his death.
The Goldmans bought the rights to the book from the bankruptcy court that Simpson tried to use to shield his assets from them. They were then faced with a dilemma: in order to "maximize the asset" that they had received from the bankruptcy court, which they were ordered to do, they would have to publish and promote the book.
The genius thing that they did, though, was to repackage it, along with an explanation as to how they'd acquired it and why they had to publish it, as an actual confession to the murders, which is exactly how it reads, anyway. They minimized the presence of the "If" in the title, and the cover now looks like it just says "I Did It."
And I truly believe that he did, in fact, murder his ex-wife and Ron Goldman. The description of the night of their deaths that he gives is just too perfect for him to have not been present. His inclusion of the ubiquitous accomplice, referred to as "Charlie," is likely a load of bull, but the rest reads as an exact replay of what happened.
However, that chapter (and the ones by the family of Ron Goldman, the ghostwriter, and Dominick Dunne) are really the only ones of any interest, mostly because he spends the rest of the entire book blaming Nicole for her own murder, as well as slandering her character and listing who he was having sex with and when. He claims that she was the violent one, she was the one having mood swings and doing drugs and having inappropriate relationships, she was the one who wanted him back. It's revolting, and nothing but pure rationalization from a killer who has never had to answer for the double homicide.
I applaud the family of Ron Goldman for continuing to fight to hold him accountable for the death of their son, and I hope that they someday find some measure of peace.
TL;DR: A fascinating look at the night O.J. Simpson killed Nicole Simpson and Ron Goldman. If you've ever wondered if he actually did it, read this. Then you'll know.
January 9, 2015
Four stars in support of the victims, not OJ.
This book was fascinating to me, as a peek inside the delusions and idiosyncrasies of a truly twisted, and homicidal, mind. I read it removed, seeing it for what it was as a semi-confession/oh-shit-maybe-I-should-have-thought-about-this-more-before-signing-on/I'm-going-to-have-the-last-word type deal. From a literary perspective, to me it is always an enjoyably jarring and a unique experience to read a book with an unreliable narrator. While reading, although I started with full confidence that OJ had committed this horrific crime, I found myself beginning to question his character for the good. Perhaps their relationship truly wasn't as simplified as we all believe or perhaps Nicole really had been more difficult toward him than the press had ever let on. But it wasn't long before the holes in his stories began to surface, even those which weren't outlined in the prologue. His recollection of a Cabo trip in which the Jenners (Bruce and Christye) were supposed to join him and Nicole...only months before her death. Despite the fact that Bruce Jenner had remarried twice in that time, and was married to Kris for about 3 years at this point. OJ's assertions that he was not upset about certain events, but then only sentences later describing his own rage about the very same incident. His convictions that he and Nicole were THROUGH! But then describing bringing her chicken soup when she was sick the very next day. His accusations of her drug use which should be evidenced in toxicology reports, but are not. And on and on I could go...
It's a book that shows you what the mind of a liar looks like. How muddled and confused it is, and yet how fervently it needs you to believe its validity, perhaps so it can believe itself. Truly fascinating and chilling.
I took off one star for the Goldman's introduction. No disrespect to the family, I understand completely why they would publish this book and fully support them. To me, their introduction read very long and I skimmed most of its repetitive sentences looking for new information. An editor in not such an uncomfortable position would have got it down to maybe 2-3 pages, instead of 12. The prologue by Fenjves was very insightful and well-written and the memory of it echoed in my mind about the glaring holes in his story as I read, keeping me from giving OJ's version too much clout. I wish the afterword had shown more of these sentiments, fact-checking, etc so that anyone who might have been left with questions and had not noticed some of the discrepancies might be clarified.
Also, I considered the spelling and grammar errors important in that this was supposed to be an undoctored manuscript. Without them, I might have questioned whether the Goldman's or publishers might have tampered with the work before publishing. It's raw quality gives it its credentials.
This book was fascinating to me, as a peek inside the delusions and idiosyncrasies of a truly twisted, and homicidal, mind. I read it removed, seeing it for what it was as a semi-confession/oh-shit-maybe-I-should-have-thought-about-this-more-before-signing-on/I'm-going-to-have-the-last-word type deal. From a literary perspective, to me it is always an enjoyably jarring and a unique experience to read a book with an unreliable narrator. While reading, although I started with full confidence that OJ had committed this horrific crime, I found myself beginning to question his character for the good. Perhaps their relationship truly wasn't as simplified as we all believe or perhaps Nicole really had been more difficult toward him than the press had ever let on. But it wasn't long before the holes in his stories began to surface, even those which weren't outlined in the prologue. His recollection of a Cabo trip in which the Jenners (Bruce and Christye) were supposed to join him and Nicole...only months before her death. Despite the fact that Bruce Jenner had remarried twice in that time, and was married to Kris for about 3 years at this point. OJ's assertions that he was not upset about certain events, but then only sentences later describing his own rage about the very same incident. His convictions that he and Nicole were THROUGH! But then describing bringing her chicken soup when she was sick the very next day. His accusations of her drug use which should be evidenced in toxicology reports, but are not. And on and on I could go...
It's a book that shows you what the mind of a liar looks like. How muddled and confused it is, and yet how fervently it needs you to believe its validity, perhaps so it can believe itself. Truly fascinating and chilling.
I took off one star for the Goldman's introduction. No disrespect to the family, I understand completely why they would publish this book and fully support them. To me, their introduction read very long and I skimmed most of its repetitive sentences looking for new information. An editor in not such an uncomfortable position would have got it down to maybe 2-3 pages, instead of 12. The prologue by Fenjves was very insightful and well-written and the memory of it echoed in my mind about the glaring holes in his story as I read, keeping me from giving OJ's version too much clout. I wish the afterword had shown more of these sentiments, fact-checking, etc so that anyone who might have been left with questions and had not noticed some of the discrepancies might be clarified.
Also, I considered the spelling and grammar errors important in that this was supposed to be an undoctored manuscript. Without them, I might have questioned whether the Goldman's or publishers might have tampered with the work before publishing. It's raw quality gives it its credentials.
September 4, 2021
bullshit.
i have to give it to oj simpson: he's one of the most convincing liars i've ever encountered. although this book is written in a very strange way, with all accounts except for the night of nicole brown's murder being supposedly true, you hardly notice it because of the actual content. whoever helped him write this (because he sure as hell didn't do it himself) did a brilliant job of creating an enthralling story. the book paints oj as a responsible, down-to-earth, confident man and nicole as a young, exciting woman who slowly lost her lovability and sanity to anger. she's shown to be neurotic, aggressive wife who drove oj (the poor victim!) halfway to the brink of madness: and it's written in such an infuriating way that you almost forget that it's all full of shit until the last few chapters, when you start to realise that this man is a raging narcissist.
from the very start, oj downplays his fault in the failure of their marriage, trying to paint nicole as a manipulative bitch for calling the police when he hit her. it is stated multiple times that she was always the one who came swinging first, and that she hit him on a regular basis, but the truth is that there is no way for us to know exactly what went on for their 17 years of marriage behind closed doors. at the end of the day, it doesn't matter to me whether nicole was a wonderful person or truly was the horrible woman he portrayed her as, because she ended up dead and i'm certain that he did it.
i have to give it to oj simpson: he's one of the most convincing liars i've ever encountered. although this book is written in a very strange way, with all accounts except for the night of nicole brown's murder being supposedly true, you hardly notice it because of the actual content. whoever helped him write this (because he sure as hell didn't do it himself) did a brilliant job of creating an enthralling story. the book paints oj as a responsible, down-to-earth, confident man and nicole as a young, exciting woman who slowly lost her lovability and sanity to anger. she's shown to be neurotic, aggressive wife who drove oj (the poor victim!) halfway to the brink of madness: and it's written in such an infuriating way that you almost forget that it's all full of shit until the last few chapters, when you start to realise that this man is a raging narcissist.
from the very start, oj downplays his fault in the failure of their marriage, trying to paint nicole as a manipulative bitch for calling the police when he hit her. it is stated multiple times that she was always the one who came swinging first, and that she hit him on a regular basis, but the truth is that there is no way for us to know exactly what went on for their 17 years of marriage behind closed doors. at the end of the day, it doesn't matter to me whether nicole was a wonderful person or truly was the horrible woman he portrayed her as, because she ended up dead and i'm certain that he did it.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 1,243 reviews