Killing Reagan by O'Reilly - Page 2

dooBdoo · ‎06-27-2010

In all fairness, these books aren't scholarly historical tomes (definitely not the best of theological references) but rather are a mix of history and fiction (or speculation and opinion), there has been quite a bit of criticism of them, and some of it has come from the fact that too often the fact/fiction/speculation/opinion lines are blurred in the texts. For "history" books they're written rather quickly, particularly the more recent books, in contrast with actual history books that require much more in-depth research even with large teams working behind the scenes. They're certainly popular, but considered to be "history lite" and not completely factual. I don't think anyone should be unduly bothered by this, however, as long as we're aware of it... even some the wonderful Ken Burns documentaries have the same criticism as far as the mix of fact and fantasy/imagination and the sometimes-blurred lines.

Few things reveal your intellect and your generosity of spirit—the parallel powers of your heart and mind—better than how you give feedback.~Maria Popova

RetRN · ‎10-01-2013

@Irish1210 wrote:
I have not yet read any of these books...............however, I have heard only superb comments on all of them : )

I have read all of his books and enjoyed them.

tansy · ‎01-02-2011

@ValuSkr wrote:
What's with O'Reilly's obsession with "killing?" 😕

I was curious about that, too, @ValuSkr.

Pearlee · ‎06-11-2011

@ValuSkr wrote:
What's with O'Reilly's obsession with "killing?" 😕

@ValuSkr I don't know that it's an obsession, which you are implying from all the titles. The first one was a big smash hit and sold extremely well. Perhaps the publisher just carried on that theme hoping others would sell well, which they have. We really don't know that O'Reilly has any obsession at all with "killing."

Was the first Killing Lincoln? I can't remember now, but if so, that was certainly a very appropriate title.

ValuSkr · ‎03-15-2014

@Pearlee wrote:
@ValuSkr wrote:
What's with O'Reilly's obsession with "killing?" 😕
@ValuSkr I don't know that it's an obsession, which you are implying from all the titles. The first one was a big smash hit and sold extremely well. Perhaps the publisher just carried on that theme hoping others would sell well, which they have. We really don't know that O'Reilly has any obsession at all with "killing."

Was the first Killing Lincoln? I can't remember now, but if so, that was certainly a very appropriate title.

Well, they are catchy titles, I'll give you that much. Killing Kennedy, Lincoln, Jesus, Reagan, Patton, England, the SS. Who wouldn't want to read those, Americans enjoy both history and violence.

World Traveler · ‎02-02-2015

@ValuSkr wrote:
What's with O'Reilly's obsession with "killing?" 😕

@ValuSkr He is very interested in history, and he has zeroed in on people who were killed, not people who died of natural causes. Although I don't particularly like the titles of his books, I understand why he titled them that way. He gives a lot of background information on the people who killed the person who is the subject of his titles.

World Traveler · ‎02-02-2015

@Pearlee wrote:
@Graciesmom wrote:
I read Killing Kennedy and LOVED it ...
@Graciesmom I read that one, because I remember the assassination so vividly. While it was fast reading and interesting so in that sense I liked it, because I didn't learn much of anything new, I certainly didn't love it.

@Pearlee It is obvious what she means....she enjoyed reading the book, not the act of violence. Some authors have a way of making the subject matter interesting, not only because of their research, but the way they present the material.

Personally, I had a hard time putting the book down; the writing was that good to me. Therefore, I would have to agree with @Graciesmom, I loved the book and intend to read the rest of his Killing books.