The novel, Killing Lincoln, and author Bill O’Reilly have been berated by critics and reviewers due to its historical inaccuracies implanted throughout the read. Many are turned off by the false information given yet there are others who enjoy it because it adds a little kick to the book. I am one of those who believe that even though there are a plethora of errors in the novel, it is an enjoyable read.
The novel is an enjoyable and entertaining read, yet there are a vast number who do not believe so. Killing Lincoln has been banned from one of the Ford’s Theatre bookstores while the others still continue to sell it (Horowitz). In my opinion, I feel that is a little absurd. O’Reilly states that there were several meetings held in the oval office before the oval office was even constructed. Yes that is incorrect because it was not constructed until the Taft administration, but it is a minor detail. It does not take away from the bigger picture and importance of why the book was written in the first place. His next mistake was citing that the Ford Theatre was burned in 1862 instead of 1861. Does one year make that big of a difference to all those historians out there? The peephole in the state box door was carved by Harry Ford, manager of the Ford’s Theatre, not Booth but by stating that Booth had carved the peephole, it keeps the readers on their toes and more interested. It spices things up. That’s what books are meant to do. Attract and hook readers into the novel. That was O’Reilly’s goal. Not to just write another history book, but to write one that could be informational while entertaining at the same time even though that means making the slightest mistakes to keep it entertaining.
O’Reilly has many people attacking him for his errors. Christian Science Monitor's Jackie Hogan ambushes O’Reilly because she believes that he made Lincoln look like too good of a person instead of speaking the...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document