Your Garage botysf16 Amazon Fashion Learn more Discover it PME Fire TV Stick Patriotic Picks Shop-by-Room Amazon Cash Back Offer WienerDog WienerDog WienerDog  Amazon Echo  Echo Dot  Amazon Tap  Echo Dot  Amazon Tap  Amazon Echo Starting at $49.99 All-New Kindle Oasis Segway miniPro

Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-25 of 37 posts in this discussion
Initial post: Nov 8, 2011 5:37:17 AM PST
Neaklaus says:
I notice the anti Lincoln/BIll O'Reilly crowd is trying to push the star rating of the "Killing Lincoln" book down with one star reviews. I guess they can't stand seeing a book by Bill O'Reilly and Martin Dugard being a hit with the American people. Lincoln did what he had to do to save the United States of America. Bill O' Reilly and Martin Dugard have a best seller on their hands and the left and the hateful cannot deal with it.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 8, 2011 1:17:09 PM PST
J. Taylor says:
O'Reilly is a dunce and his books are not a good read. His better days are behind him and his ratings will surely drop. The man is out of touch!

Posted on Nov 8, 2011 2:45:35 PM PST
esanta says:
Other than being an opinionated imbecile whose main characteristic is to shout at the top of his lungs in an attempt to drown out dissenting opinions, what is exactly Mr. O'Reilly's credential for writing a history book? Yeah, that's what I thought. All it takes is hearing his "demonstration" of the existence of god using the moon to know the man is an illiterate, ignorant blow hard.

Posted on Nov 8, 2011 8:17:04 PM PST
Neaklaus says:
So he dispareged your candidate is that any reason to behave like petulant children? These One star temper tantrums do not do you or your candidate any favors, and only serve to show you and him in a bad light.

Posted on Nov 8, 2011 9:15:20 PM PST
Nevadaeh says:
The below youtube audio link will tell everyone, everything, they need to know about Bill O'Lielly. I have not read the book because it will contain the same bull that drivels forth whenever he opens his mouth. A dunce, that fails the lesson when schooled by Dr. Paul. "When a true genius appears in this world you will know him by this sign, that all the dunces are in confederation against him." ~Jonathan Swift

Posted on Nov 15, 2011 5:13:46 PM PST
Nevadaeh says:
Where did I see the following quote, which fits Pinhead Chickenhawk O'Lielly perfectly? "Let's you and him go fight, I'll hold your coat."

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 19, 2011 10:36:49 AM PST
A critique of the book is in order. I found this book to be extremely informative and I too found it beneficial to have it follow a timeline where I was able to follow along as the writer intended. In so far as the comments above are nothing but trash talking to disparage the writer, I find this post irrelevant to the intended purpose of this forum. Mr. O'Rielley was a history teacher prior to entering the journalism field and as a TV Commentator. A degree man with distinction from Harvard suggests to this reader the adequate qualifications to have co-written this book 5 Stars

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 19, 2011 1:35:18 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Nov 19, 2011 1:40:14 PM PST
Nevadaeh- there will always be those that cannot conjure an original thought of their own and listen to a you tube video to have someone else think for them. Based upon your comments you are a follower that must have others to think for you.You cannot even spell the authors name correctly it is spelled as follows: O' Reilly. The book is 5 stars. This forum was created to allow readers to critique the book not for drivel from those who cannot think for themselves.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 24, 2011 5:02:07 PM PST
Read the book!!! You cannot change history, Bill O'rielly is merely reminding everyone of a critical time in history. Forget that Mr. O has anything to do with the book and READ IT, THAN AN ONLY THAN MAKE YOUR COMMETS

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 24, 2011 5:03:24 PM PST
Taylor have you ever considered that you may be out of touch! GROW UP

Posted on Nov 24, 2011 5:16:44 PM PST
It is amazing to me that people are so jealous they cannot give credit where credit is due. We need a little or maybe alot of the past brought back to memory so we all know where are roots are. People are so quick to pass judgement on others before they even can qualify what they are saying and why they are saying it. I read the book Killing Lincoln and I found it to be one of the best reads in a long time, regardless who made the book available to us. It is easy to read and understand. Mr. "O" is just trying to remind us about freedom and a mans dream that was cut short. Even if you are not a reader, read the book, you will be so glad that you did I guarantee that. I often tell my students learn about something you do not believe in or like and then make your comments and not before. It is like someone saying "I do not like the Catholic religion" well if you do not know anything about the Catholic reliegn how can you make a judgement on it, or any reliegn for that matter. But if you learn about it and have experienced that reliegn, now you can make your judgements.

Posted on Nov 25, 2011 11:37:17 AM PST
[Deleted by Amazon on Dec 10, 2011 5:47:57 AM PST]

Posted on Nov 25, 2011 11:37:18 AM PST
Amen to you Mary L. Czulewicz: Well said, articulated and easily understood. Anyone who attempts to denigrate this commentary will be recognized as one without an open mind and an overall inability to distinguish fact from fiction. I commend you for your clear and concise commentary.

Posted on Nov 30, 2011 7:18:45 PM PST
The issue at hand is leadership. The book is an accurate account of the type of leadership we had in one of our Presidents. He knew he was unpopular with some but was not afraid to make the tough decision even though it may have not been the politically correct decision. Lincoln knew that there were some that we're conspiring to take his life but it did not detract him from going to Richmond at the end of the war, or riding around Washinton in an open carriage, or going to a play in a public place where he was vulnerable. He did these things because he was going to lead, make decisions and live his life.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 3, 2011 3:31:48 PM PST
noemad says:
Amazon should mandate that reviews can only be written by members who have purchased the product from Amazon. Most 1-star reviews for Killing Lincoln are from people with only one posted review (for this book). Some of these people also gave other O'Reilly books 1-star "reviews." One person gave a 1-star review to Killing Lincoln, the book AND the audio version. C'mon! If you haven't read it, seen it, heard it, or used it, don't write a review (negative or positive) for it.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 5, 2011 9:40:05 AM PST
Christina says:
I say this very respectfully, so please do not misunderstand, but Mr. O'Reilley, as a former History professional, should have known to include citations in his monograph. Or, at the very least, he should have included a detailed bibliography. How can anyone respond to his scholarship if they do not know his sources? He may be completely correct in all of the details of his work, but we cannot know that he is correct if we cannot see his sources. I have seen others who have commented that the inclusion of such sources would detract from the "thriller-like" nature of the book. However, other authors of historical non-fiction have successfully combined thrilling plot lines with detailed documentation (e.g, Erik Larson). I greatly appreciate Mr. O'Reilley's attempt to interest the public in Lincoln and the controversy surrounding his assassination. However, no professional historian would be able to publish a historical monograph without proper citation. Thus, Mr. O'Reilley's degree from Harvard should have no bearing on whether or not he can cite his sources.

Posted on Dec 5, 2011 9:16:59 PM PST
Neaklaus says:
Christina, With all due respect I think you misunderstand the intent of this book. It was not meant to be a scholarly work "written by some great expert for the edification of other great experts". It was intended to tell the story of the last two weeks of Lincoln's life in the manner of a mystery story. Except that this story is all true.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 14, 2011 1:23:43 AM PST
Thus, Mr. O'Reilley's degree from Harvard should have no bearing on whether or not he can cite his sources.

Similarly to Ted Kazinscki's degree should have no bearing upon his morality

Posted on Dec 18, 2011 3:24:52 PM PST
I agree with Mr.Craig. Most of the 1 star reviews are from people that haven't read the book or even plan to either.

Posted on Dec 23, 2011 12:02:31 PM PST
Nevadaeh says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 17, 2012 12:24:09 PM PST
Herby says:
Historically accurate does not mean uninteresting. There are plenty of historical fiction books which are interesting reading but still historically accurate about actual historical events in the otherwise fictional story. And they often have citations. How does the book become more interesting by getting wrong the detail about the nonexistent Oval Office? I can forgive "the getting inside his head" methodology in the interest of making it a more interesting mystery story. But I fail to see how getting facts wrong and failing to cite sources make for a more interesting read. When one takes on a subject as big as Lincoln one should expect to be held accountable for getting things wrong. And if he got such easily checked details like the Oval Office wrong what else did he get wrong? Most Lincoln buffs know that Lincoln's office was in what is now known as the Lincoln Bedroom. I also fail to see how including citations would make the book less interesting. For me citations and footnotes make a book like this more interesting, not less. For example, a footnote informing the reader that Lincoln's office is today the Lincoln Bedroom would be interesting to even most casual readers. Dumbing down history to make history more interesting to the less historically literate masses does both history and the masses a disservice.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 17, 2012 12:37:13 PM PST
Herby says:
And O'Reilly, as a former history teacher and political pundit and commentator with his own TV show, should have known that the West Wing of the White House was not built until 1901 and the Oval Office which it contains was not built until 1909. He should also have known that the Lincoln Bedroom is so named because it in fact was Lincoln's White House office.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 29, 2012 11:48:03 AM PST
Porcelain says:
He also should never have confused Edwin Stanton and Edward Bates when introducing Stanton into the book. That was bad!

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 29, 2012 11:51:37 AM PST
Porcelain says:
But when compared to other books on the assassination this one ranks low. Start with Lloyd Lewis' treatment published in the 1920's and make your own judgements.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 6, 2012 9:15:17 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Feb 6, 2012 9:16:58 AM PST
Herby says:
I guess I must be one of the anti Lincoln/Bill O'Reilly crowd because I gave the book 2 stars. Reviews are not about popularity of the author or the subject of the book, or at least they should not be. I am a big Lincoln fan so I reject your claim that a poor review means anti-Lincoln. As for O'Reilly, I am not a fan but that didn't stop me from reading the book and finding it interesting reading. However I could not get past some of the really glaring historical inaccuracies for a book which purports to be historically accurate. O'Reilly and Dugard could have avoided all of this by providing proper citation for historical claims. I fault Dugard more than O'Reilly because he was supposed to be the one doing the historical research. The basic narrative written by O'Reilly is actually written in an interesting way, although I am not a big fan of the technique of putting actual thoughts into the heads of historical figures - there are more elegant ways to accomplish the same thing. Lincoln wrote a lot down and so did Booth actually. And there was testimony from Booth co-conspirators and acquaintenances which could have shed light on Booth's thoughts. It is not true that historically accurate means hard to read. Proper citations give the reader the opportunity to read more about events which interest them. For this reason even writers of historical fiction usually try to get basic historical facts correct and often provide citations. A well written historical fiction is a good way to learn history and enjoy the process. I think O'Reilly and Dugard missed an opportunity. The problem is that once it is clear that a book has a lot of inaccuracies the reader cannot be sure what to make of the other parts of the book, because how does one know what is accurate and what is not? In spite of that, the authors may have performed a useful service in inspiring readers to read one or more of the many really good Lincoln histories or historical fiction works which are out there.
‹ Previous 1 2 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in


This discussion

Participants:  21
Total posts:  37
Initial post:  Nov 8, 2011
Latest post:  Apr 1, 2013

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 8 customers

Search Customer Discussions
This discussion is about