“Killing Kennedy” wasn’t much of a revelation at all. Rehashing old stuff and ignoring the controversial stuff...unless bedding Marilyn was controversial.
In “Killing Lincoln”, though, he did a fine job with the information on John Wilkes Booth. That was put together well and was engaging.
He’s not the historian (his ghost writer?) that others are, but he is fairly engaging. (He’s no Allen Eckert or Jeff Shaara.)
Moreover, his sales can be directly tied to the fact that his books get hawked endlessly each weekday evening before millions of Americans. Grisham should be so lucky.
‘Nevertheless, if a lot of the “low information voter” types are reading these books, that’s a good thing.’
Exactly my thoughts! I have a BA in History (European) and would like my grandkids turned on to history by whatever means.
They were well written, but didn’t offer anything new that hadn’t already been discussed again and again.
...his next book should be titled ‘Killing Jim Bishop’...since Bishop just happened to write books on the exact same three luminaries as O’Reilly...by the way, all three of these books are recommended reading, highly informative, meticulously researched, and contain a personal element missing in the BOR tomes...