Lauren’s comment > Likes and Comments
1 like · Like
I'd also note, the reviewer in this case is the author of at least five books on the Lincoln assassination and he poses this question in his review - "If the authors made mistakes in names, places, and events, what else did they get wrong? How can the reader rely on anything that appears in ‘Killing Lincoln’?"
Keep in mind as well that the same mag had to retract on some books they raved ended up false. People seem to think that Bill wrote this book strictly for civil war raves and praise and as a source for stuff on Lincoln. It is like the people who use Ron Paul's book ashistorical sources which by the way suck. Any author who is not a historian or PHd in it will have mistakes. Heck even historians make mistakes. If you know the facts, give Bill a break. He is writing about a man he admires and goofed on a few things, NOT names and places. I have seen far FAR worse from PhD's and noted historians, i.e Gordon Wood, Judge Napolitano, Ed Bearss and so on. I read for entertainment not learning. as Stossel says, Give me a break
Well then it sounds like he should have made the genre "fan fiction". Had he done that, no one would have any problems.
I read all the comments and find it interesting how so many can criticise and yet offer nothing of hard evidence of their own. I am not defending the book, but it is so easy for so many who have not written a book to take pot shots at a novel. Just saying.
Using Salon as a source to attack an other about fiction is ironic since just about everything Salon publishes is in itself fiction
I didn't view it as totally factual! But it is a good read. The shooting of Lincoln is fact. The War of The Rebellion took place, a fact. I liked the book.
back to top
date
newest »
newest »
message 1:
by
Lauren
(new)
Dec 30, 2011 03:00PM
I'd also note, the reviewer in this case is the author of at least five books on the Lincoln assassination and he poses this question in his review - "If the authors made mistakes in names, places, and events, what else did they get wrong? How can the reader rely on anything that appears in ‘Killing Lincoln’?"
reply
|
flag
Keep in mind as well that the same mag had to retract on some books they raved ended up false. People seem to think that Bill wrote this book strictly for civil war raves and praise and as a source for stuff on Lincoln. It is like the people who use Ron Paul's book ashistorical sources which by the way suck. Any author who is not a historian or PHd in it will have mistakes. Heck even historians make mistakes. If you know the facts, give Bill a break. He is writing about a man he admires and goofed on a few things, NOT names and places. I have seen far FAR worse from PhD's and noted historians, i.e Gordon Wood, Judge Napolitano, Ed Bearss and so on. I read for entertainment not learning. as Stossel says, Give me a break
Well then it sounds like he should have made the genre "fan fiction". Had he done that, no one would have any problems.
I read all the comments and find it interesting how so many can criticise and yet offer nothing of hard evidence of their own. I am not defending the book, but it is so easy for so many who have not written a book to take pot shots at a novel. Just saying.
Using Salon as a source to attack an other about fiction is ironic since just about everything Salon publishes is in itself fiction
I didn't view it as totally factual! But it is a good read. The shooting of Lincoln is fact. The War of The Rebellion took place, a fact. I liked the book.
