Besides the criticism others have made in regards to the actual relationship between Sitting Bull and Bill Cody, whether it could rightly be considered a "friendship" or not, and the amount of speculative or inventive material with inadequate historical data to back up such conclusions—to say nothing of the fact that certain historical facts were misstated, as pointed out by one reviewer—the writing and editing is simply sophomoric. Just in the first two chapters the reader is reminded more than once that Sitting Bull and Bill Cody's name and nickname was linked to the buffalo. The reader is also reminded, again more than once, that Cody was perhaps the best horseman in the West and was responsible for killing buffalo "by the thousands," but by no means the leading killer. Authors ought to assume their readers are intelligent enough to remember these facts or conclusions without beating the proverbial horse.
The follow sentence is not only convoluted but illustrates some of the criticism expressed above—words or phrases highlighted with a star (*). "Once, he was a boy, not a superstar, not *named for the animal that he would kill by the thousands (others, for the record, killed more),* but just a boy who played with Indians on the Great Plains, *perhaps even members of Sitting Bulls's extended tribe* who would pass through territory near his home in Kansas as they followed the buffalo."
And then there is this sentence: "So too, by his own account, did he kill an Indian in his youth (and other later), while he was employed as a wagon train hand." Why the editorial parenthetical statement? Tell the reader about the other kills when we get to that part of his biography.
Another example: "Once he was just a boy, who helped his struggling family eke out a living on the frontier, as many children of the era did, engaged in tasks and acts that would now violate every child labor law on the books." Is this a history about the relationship of Bill Cody and Sitting Bull or a commentary on on modern child labor laws? Who cares? This is beside the point and bogs the writing down in useless sludge.
A final example of poor writing: "William Frederick 'Buffalo Bill' Cody was born near Le Claire, Iowa, on February 26, 1846." The reader is two chapters into the book and Stillman has already used Cody's moniker "Buffalo Bill" or his given name, "William F. Cody," multiple times. The reader knows we are reading about Bill Cody. Why use his full name and his nickname at this point in the narrative. If we are introducing his birth and family background then William Frederick Cody is sufficient, particular since he hasn't been given the nickname at this point.
These may seem like small or trivial writing issues, but over the course of 259 pages of narrative it wears the reader out—at least it did this reader.
On a positive note, and the reason for two stars: Stillman obviously did a tremendous amount of research. I just wish should would have employed it better and written a better book.