Customer Reviews

The Authentic Life of Billy the Kid (Western Frontier Library)

5 star:		(3)
4 star:		(2)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(5)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

Although I enjoyed the book very much, I won't write a thousand-word rehash. I lived in BTK country in New Mexico and have been to all the locales mentioned in the book. I could almost smell the dry cottonwoods and taste the dust. It's still hard for me to imagine how much inhospitable territory those folks covered on horseback. The book is a good addition to others I have even though the publisher chose a cover that shows BTK incorrectly as "left-handed" from the old mirror-imaged ferrotype.

Some previous review(s) were right on: it IS much more interesting for me to read historical accounts by someone who was actually there - in this case, right in the very middle of the history. I found the vernacular language appropriate and interesting in itself. Readers that complained about the grammar, style, or rhythm of the book revealed their ignorance of those writing characteristics common in 1800's. Rather than reading this book, perhaps they would have preferred a modern movie with shorter, more simplistic lines and copious computer graphics explosions.

This is quite a work. A quasi-biography, a documentary and an adventure tale all rolled into one is the best I can do to try and classify it as something. Essentially, Garrett's book is generic - an oddity which caan only ever be a `one off' due entirely to the nature of the writers' relation to their subject.

Garrett and, to a lesser degree, Upson, write as technicians of fact-conveyance rather than writers. I found that this actually served to whet my appetite to learn more as I read. When you're hearing about a legend straight from the mouth of the horse that was chasing him, the awe you feel overrides your contempt for shoddy writing style.

Having said that, the book is just the right length and so is nowhere near as boring as the claims I had heard here and elsewhere prior to my buying and reading it. The writing, although nonchalantly functional most of the time, is kept tight which is necessary. To have imbued it with imaginative streaks and cosmetic touch-ups would have certainly destroyed the flow of what is, you'll soon find if you pick it up, a fast river of intrigue. Anyway, Upson has done quite a good job at injecting artistry in his sections so there is no really terrible lack of good writing here.

Of course, Garrett's leaden, subdued delivery do deaden the thrills a little. It's interesting how he balances his attitude toward `The Kid' throughout the book. At times, he seems to speak admirably of him (allbeit apparently with a false tone sometimes); at others, he seems genuinely distanced from him, almost indifferent to whether or not their paths will actually cross.

Biased? Of course it is. What do you expect? Even so, `The Authentic Life of Billy, the Kid' is made the definitive work on the topic because it, like the legend it examines, is a product of the same time. The best way to read it is with an analytical mind. By all means, challenge Garrett on his words when you feel he's deviating from his function as a chronicler - that is the point of reading this book a hundred and twenty years later. Unlike more recent biographers who would do exhaustive research based on documents, wide-sweeping second-hand information and historical `givens', it's best to go straight to those `givens' yourself and get to grips with them. Sheriff Garrett's book is a remarkable fountain of first generation facts and factoids and it commands the respect of academics and casual readers alike because of its durability. After all, just how many accounts of book length from the Old West survive today, especially those that receive serious scrutiny from a variety of disciplines.

My only peeve lies in Garrett and Upson's ardent declarations regarding the aftermath of `The Kid's slaying. Why did they repeat themselves so many times that `The Kid' was dead and buried and `that was that'. It seems that Garrett was a little insecure in case he was challenged over the fate of his quarry. Whatever the case, the insecure tone he adopts in the last pages seems to somehow lend strength to the camp of `Flat Earthers' who claim that Billy the Kid survived into the next century....cue Brushy Bill Roberts......

This book starts out slow and dry. It didn't get exciting until Pat Garrett started to take over the story. This doesn't occur until about midway through the book. Don't expect this to be a screenplay for the movies Young Guns and Young Guns II. The book isn't that exciting but it does introduce you to an interesting character profile of Billy the Kid. Personally I feel that the first half of the book is fiction that is read for pure entertainment and the second half covers the real story of the Kid. I would recommend this book if you are interested in the Kids story and you want to read every angle of his story.

The introduction to this book by J.C. Dyke is good, and explains a lot; especially the last paragraph, wherein he says,"The reading (and study) of [this book] is essential to an understanding of that mythical hero, the Robin Hood of the Southwest, who was once just a bucktoothed, thieving, murderous little cowboy-gone-bad, Billy the Kid."

Of course, the author, Pat Garrett, was not an unprejudiced reporter of events, for it was he who ended the life of William Bonney, also known as William Antrim (his foster father's surname). It is also interesting I think, in passing, to mention that Billy the Kid was not a product of the West, but a transplanted New Yorker.

Elsewhere, you will read that Pat Garrett's writing effort is poor, and leaves much to be desired. He readily admits it. In his own words, he says, "I make no pretension to literary ability, but propose to give to the public in intelligible English, 'a round, unvarnished tale,' unadorned with superfluous verbiage."

Garrett is motivated, he says, by an "impulse to correct the thousand false statements which have appeared in the newspapers and in yellow-covered cheap novels."

And, there is no doubt at all that the stories of Billy's exploits were greatly exaggerated by an Eastern press eager for stories of gunplay and adventure on the Western frontier. Today's myth of Billy the Kid is largely descended from the pulp stories created by the inflamed minds of Eastern "journalists" and the latter-day Hollywood screen-writers who have made no attempt at all to portray the truth.

Pat Garrett claims to have known Billy throughout the period known as the "Lincoln County Wars," and having listened to Bonney's reminiscences around campfires and says he has interviewed many persons since Bonney's death. That much would seem to be undisputed.

Bonney was born in 1859, six years after the birth of another Southwestern hardcase, John Wesley Hardin. In fact, they were contemporaries and were raising hell at the same time. Bonney, however, died young at the age of 21, in 1881. Hardin died at the age of 42--twice Billy's age--in 1895. And, if the rumors are true, Hardin probably killed twice as many men. They both started young. Both are reputed to have had fearful tempers. Neither were killed in the face-to-face "quick draw" shootouts so dear to the hearts of Hollywood writers. Instead, both of their executioners used stealth to kill their quarries.

According to Garrett, in Pete Maxwell's darkened bedroom, where he shot Billy to death, Billy was holding a butcher knife in one hand and drawing his double-action Colt "Lightning" revolver ("self-cocker") with the other, while asking in Spanish, "Quien es? Quien es?" ("Who is it? Who is it?") They were, again according to Garrett, at point blank range. The only other witness was Pete Maxwell. There are other versions to the story, including one which insists that Bonney was unarmed except for the knife, which he had used to cut off a chunk of beef from a hanging carcass outside, because he was hungry.

My question is this: it is undisputed that he was holding the knife, and the reason for which he had it. So, where was the beef? It is unlikely that he ate it raw, or stuck it in a pocket. Probably he was holding it in his other hand, intending to cook it. In which case, if he had a revolver tucked in his waistband, he must have had to drop the beef to fetch his revolver.

It is probably of little importance; a Billy Bonney armed with a butcher knife, at close quarters, would still have needed killing. But, did he make the fatal mistake of coming to a gunfight armed only with a knife?

I think that this is an important book, if for no other reason than the relationship that existed between the author and William Bonney. I recommend it. My version is in the hard cover.

Joseph Pierre

'...I have made some omissions of what was clearly irrelevant. The style has been clarified and somewhat modernized...' says the editor, Maurice Fulton. If that's what you want, fine, but personally, I prefer to decide for myself what is 'irrelevant', and as for the archaic style, that is part of the interest of historic texts. So I prefer editors to keep their distance, and not meddle too much.

The second problem with this edition is that it dates from 1927 and so does not incorporate the latest research. There are editions on the market, including the 1994 Indian Head Books edition, that are simply reprints of this 1927 Fulton edition, so be warned. Fortunately there are many other later, unabridged and more authoritative editions available and so, if you want to read Garrett's book, you might want to hunt down one of those.
[PeterReeve]

A quirky account of the old west. I enjoyed it. The last few pages are blasts against Garretts critics and are especially entertaining.

Twelve decades after Billy the Kid's death in 1881, books, movies, and essays about this western outlaw are still popular. And they all go back to one source: The Authentic Life of Billy, the Kid, published in 1882 by the man who killed Billy, Sheriff Pat Garrett. There are plenty of flaws with this version, but it is still a fun read about one of the most fascinating characters in the Old West.

Some very interesting facts are in this book. However, the book is dry and boring. So much work went into putting this book together, that it's a shame there wasn't a ghostwriter working with Mr. Garrett to capture the emotions and the urgency in what could have been a fascinating book. I'm afraid I only got halfway through this book, before I gave up. I hate to walk away from a book without finishing it... but there was no way I could finish this story.

Unfortunately, this book could have been much better, because it has authenticity: it was written by the man who killed The Kid. But Garrett's style of writing is horrible; it is an irregular narrative, without any talent. Sometimes it looks like a diary, sometimes it looks like written in a rush. I has absolutely no emotion about himself or the Kid and practicaly no in-depth research. It added most of the legends now surrounding the Kid.

A shame that Mr. Garrett had absolutely no writing talent at all, because the book could be good, dealing about one of the greatest legendsof all times.