Killing Lincoln question

I love this - "Civil War Magazine" will not give this book a pass as far as accuracy is concerned.

http://www.salon.com/2011/11/12/secon...

I guess it doesn't matter though, does it? People are still buying it and believing it. No one wants truth when they can settle for demagoguery!

I am not a Bill O'Reilly fan to say the least, but the book was very entertaining even if some of it was fictional. I thought the detail in the book was great pertaining to the war and how it was settled, the detail of discussions between Lincoln and family or comrades. I also liked the detail of the conspiracy and the shooting of Lincoln. It is a good read even if there are some fictional or imagined details in the book.

Maybe some dislike of the author has caused bias in such a caustic review??

I was thinking exactly this. This book is much fiction as non-fiction.

It is historical fiction. It does have mistakes, but is still a good read. Even Shaara books have a few errors as do those historians that write books

So far this book is great! I haven't been able to put it down. You're right even Shaara has issues sometimes getting the facts straight. With this particular book I'd be willing to argue its more about the journey and gaining interest than about the hardcore facts. As a history graduate student I do appreciate promoting history to the masses an Bill does just that.

Liked the book in general; only factual error that I caught myself was misidentifying Phillip Barton Key to make him the wronged party when he was shot by Sickles. That alone caused me to wonder what other errors might have been in the text if a throwaway line was wrong.

Um reading it now, and really taken aback by how much of it is dramatized, including dialogue and inner thoughts of persons that can't be known for certain. O'Reilly in several cases gives us Booth's inner thoughts. That is fiction. We don't know.
Another thing that got me was the claim that Booth almost assassinated Lincoln at his second inaugural, by physically attacking him. Well, not unless he could fly. There is a famous picture with both in it, but they are separated by some distance and a balcony. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia...

Wish my copy was here; it is loaned out. I understood that careful research went into the writing. As I looked back on book site... the authors referred to it as an "historical narrative." I do wish, however, there had been no errors, but are all other histories on this subject 100%? Will be glad to get my book back so I can look thru it. # of acres owned by someone sure was not of big interest to me. The year of Ford's Theater fire should have been caught by proofreaders. It did accomplish the goal....to have history read like a thriller.

The so called misinformation is on things like how many acres Dr. Samuel Mudd’s farm comprised. How many times “Our American Cousin” was performed at the theater. If minor things like that would make you dislike the book then you have missed the entire point of the book. As for the Oval Office as we know it was not built until 1909 but there were other rooms one in particular that were ovals rooms that the presidents used as an office which could be what Mr. O’Reilly is referring to as the Oval office.

I did a review on this book long ago. But would add that the White House was known as the Executive Mansion at that time. And it is correct, there was no Oval Office. I do a play on Lincoln's faith as seen through John Hay's eyes & experiences. Check out my web site @ www.lincolntogo.net