Customer Reviews


6,696 Reviews
5 star:
 (4,129)
4 star:
 (930)
3 star:
 (272)
2 star:
 (152)
1 star:
 (1,213)
 
 
 
 
 
Average Customer Review
Share your thoughts with other customers
Create your own review
 
 

The most helpful favorable review
The most helpful critical review


1,304 of 1,502 people found the following review helpful
4.0 out of 5 stars O'Reilly Delivers, Unlike Most Reviews of the Book
It seems that most reviews of the book are by one of two types of reviewers: 1. the reviewer either loves or hates O'Reilly, or 2. the reviewer either loved or hated how it was written. Here is my take, leaving the personal feelings about the author aside, Killing Lincoln delivers on its mission. Many rip O'Reilly apart for it not being an in depth treatment of his...
Published on January 20, 2012 by history_bookworm

versus
2,282 of 2,797 people found the following review helpful
3.0 out of 5 stars It's been done, Mr. O'Reilly, and more accurately.
As someone who has studied Lincoln and books on the assassination since I was about 8 (that would be, sigh, about 50 years), I figured I'd give O'Reilly's book a try, assuming that since he had written it so shortly after some great Lincoln books (Abraham Lincoln: A Life, by Michael Burlingame; Blood on the Moon by Edward Steers) that there must be something unique about...
Published on October 3, 2011 by Anthony B. Ford


‹ Previous | 1 2670 | Next ›
Most Helpful First | Newest First

1,304 of 1,502 people found the following review helpful
4.0 out of 5 stars O'Reilly Delivers, Unlike Most Reviews of the Book, January 20, 2012
It seems that most reviews of the book are by one of two types of reviewers: 1. the reviewer either loves or hates O'Reilly, or 2. the reviewer either loved or hated how it was written. Here is my take, leaving the personal feelings about the author aside, Killing Lincoln delivers on its mission. Many rip O'Reilly apart for it not being an in depth treatment of his death and surrounding events. Here's a news flash: it's not supposed to be. It is not written as a doctoral dissertation on the subject nor is it intended to be. It is not intended to give every detail about what happened. It is intended to be an engaging read that follows the events surrounding Lincoln's last days. It is intended to be written from the perspective of putting the reader on the streets of D.C. during those days, putting you into Ford's Theater the night of the killing. In that regard it delivers. Here is my recommendation for this book: give this book to someone that you want to get interested in history. Give it to a student and let them see that history does not have to be boring. Give it to someone that loves novels, but hates non-fiction and let them discover how engaging and important history is and can be. On that level O'Reilly delivers.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No


395 of 475 people found the following review helpful
5.0 out of 5 stars Five Stars for O'Reilly -- But a nap for Steers, April 23, 2012
By 
Verified Purchase(What's this?)
I absolutely loved this book. First, since it seems to be an issue in the reviews, Mr. O'Reilly and I are opposites politically. I never watch his show. After reading the reviews, I bought, instead, Edward Steers' Blood on the Moon. I am sorry, I know it is well researched, and painstakingly accurate, but it didn't keep my attention. After several weeks, I was only at 17% in my Kindle when I decided to buy Bill O'Reilly's book. WOW! I could not put it down and read it in two sittings. You feel like you are right there watching the events. I have never experienced Civil War battles as I did these. I have never really known Abraham Lincoln before now. I have never fully appreciated the reasons behind the war. While reading, I was on the battlefield, I shared Mr. Lincoln's thoughts and feelings, I was there with the young doctor tending to Lincoln after he was shot, and I experienced John Wilkes Booth's pain as he attempted to escape after breaking his leg. This book is powerful. This book takes you there, and you will long remember the names and events. This is the best book I have read in a long time. Thank you, Mr. O'Reilly.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No


2,282 of 2,797 people found the following review helpful
3.0 out of 5 stars It's been done, Mr. O'Reilly, and more accurately., October 3, 2011
By 
Anthony B. Ford (Phoenix, Arizona, USA) - See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)   
Verified Purchase(What's this?)
As someone who has studied Lincoln and books on the assassination since I was about 8 (that would be, sigh, about 50 years), I figured I'd give O'Reilly's book a try, assuming that since he had written it so shortly after some great Lincoln books (Abraham Lincoln: A Life, by Michael Burlingame; Blood on the Moon by Edward Steers) that there must be something unique about it. Unfortunately, I came away not really seeing what the new approach was. While it is supposedly written like a thriller, I find it to be prone to abbreviation and errors as noted by one of the one-star reviewers here (i.e. talking about the Oval Office, which was not built when Lincoln was president, but in 1909 when Taft was president, and a gross misrepresentation of how Mary Surratt was treated -- she NEVER wore a hood while imprisoned, and she was NEVER on the "Montauk", etc.). Throwing in a long-discredited conspiracy theory supposedly linking Secretary of War Edwin Stanton into the mix was completely unnecessary, unless the idea was to give readers already convinced that JFK was assassinated by space aliens something new to obsess over. A list of errors written by the Assistant Superintendent of the Ford's Theatre Historical Site, by no means complete, but enough for the NPS Eastern National bookstore at Ford's Theatre to avoid selling this book, may easily be found on the internet (I will be glad to give you the link if you can't find it). The Theatre gift shop IS selling it, but not the National Park Service store, due to inaccuracies. You will see many reviews here (five-star ones) stating that "this book was not written for historians." Does that mean that lousy research is just fine for the unwashed masses? Wouldn't the casual reader be served much better by reading information, whether or not it's entertaining -- and yes, it's an entertaining and easy read -- that had been verified by research? I just cannot understand the mindset of "it wasn't written for historians, so errors are just fine, as long as it gets people to read about history." Baloney.

What O'Reilly has going for him is a built-in audience who went out in droves to buy this book because he talked about it every day on The O'Reilly Factor. I watch him casually, and I figured, "Why not? One more book to add to my Lincoln collection (which is fairly large after fifty years)." As you should be able to see, my purchase of this book is verified at Amazon, and, in fact, I preordered it because the mention on the O'Reilly Factor got my interest. Unfortunately, it won't be up in the top tier of my Lincoln assassination material. It's OK for the casual reader who wants to learn something about the Lincoln assassination. It's too hurried and flies through things that need to be dealt with in a less perfunctory manner, I think. As O'Reilly notes in his show that Abraham Lincoln was the "gold standard" for the Presidency, I will say here that, for the "gold standard" of books written on the Lincoln assassination, no better work can be found than the book "Blood on the Moon," by Edward Steers -- you can see it here at Amazon at Blood on the Moon: The Assassination of Abraham Lincoln). If you only have one book on this subject, the Steers book is the book to have. If you just want to be up on the latest O'Reilly books, then get this one. It's not horrible, but it tells the reader nothing new, and oftentimes it tells the reader much LESS than he/she needs to know, and, as noted, sometimes incorrectly.

So, in summary, it was just OK, which is why I gave it an average rating. A few minor errors wouldn't have dropped it below four stars, but for a Lincoln researcher it would be considered a young person's primer. For someone seriously interested in the subject, get the Steers book and pass this one by. Just because O'Reilly has a multi-million person audience to whom he can hawk his wares, it doesn't mean it's great work. I hope people are not writing off an honest review because they think I'm picking on O'Reilly. The only POSSIBLE reason that this book took off so fast on the bestseller lists is because it was publicized on the O'Reilly Factor, not because it was so much better than any of the other books written about the Lincoln assassination. There has been much back-and-forth about this for some time. Dishonest people who didn't read the book but hate O'Reilly gave it one-star reviews without ever opening it. O'Reilly fans have an attack of the vapors at anything less than a five-star review. The purpose of this review was to inform, not to express ideology. I stand by this review. If you don't like it, that's fine, but don't attack me simply because you're sticking up for Bill O'Reilly (a futile wish, apparently). Again -- I watch The O'Reilly Factor. I am also a Lincoln scholar. Take this review at face value.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No


620 of 824 people found the following review helpful
5.0 out of 5 stars Don't bother reading.... THESE 1-STAR REVIEWS!, February 12, 2012
By 
K. Honeyager (San Antonio, TX) - See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)   
This review is from: Killing Lincoln: The Shocking Assassination that Changed America Forever (Kindle Edition)
I have no comment on the book, as I came here to read some of the reviews prior to purchase. Upon arrival to this page, I found it fascinating that a book could have almost as many 1-star reviews as 5-star reviews. Why, something must be amiss! Having nothing better to do on a dreary Sunday afternoon, I set out to count the number of Amazon Verified Purchases of the 1-star reviewers. Much to my surprise and dismay, there were only FOUR (yes, 4) Verified purchases out of 1,158 reviews. How could this be? Could it be that people just come here (having purchased the book from other sources, of course) to review the book to help out the Amazon faithful?

After having traversed 116 pages of one star reviews to count up those Verified purchases, I really didn't feel like doing the same for the 5-star ratings, but in the interest of science I set out to do the count. Well, after finding SIX Verified purchases on only the first page of 5-star reviews, I got occupied (whoops - I meant lazy) and decided that statistically, it just made more sense to trust those 5-star reviewers whom I knew actually purchased the book.

I would appreciate it if Amazon could add a filter to the review page so that one could see the ratings from Amazon Verified Purchases only. Perhaps then the ratings might actually be meaningful.

Thank you to all the 1-star reviewers who took the time to perform the selfless act of coming to Amazon's web site, creating a login, and posting your review. However, I can't shake this nagging feeling that perhaps you really didn't come here to review the book, but maybe had some other agenda. Eh, it's probably just me. I'm sure nobody else feels that way.

Anyway, I'll post a review of the book after I actually read it (which you'll be able to tell from the Amazon Verified Purchase).
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No


357 of 483 people found the following review helpful
1.0 out of 5 stars Riddled with factual errors, January 22, 2012
I like O'Reilly and watch his program regularly, which is why I'm really disappointed at the huge number of factual errors throughout this book. In addition to the many errors other reviewers have documented, such as Grant and Lincoln meeting in the Oval Office, which wasn't built until 1909, I'll add these:

Pg 210 "Rather than give Peanut John the shiny nickel the boy had hoped for..."

Sorry, but the first nickel was minted in 1866. In 1865 the 5 cent coin was a small silver coin called the Half Dime.

Pg 197 Describing the home of Secretary Seward, O'Reilly says "Tragedy paid a visit to the building in 1859, when a congressman shot his mistress's husband on a nearby lawn. The Husband, Philip Barton Key......"

Um, not quite. The congressman was Daniel Sickles, who would later become a famous General at Gettysburg. He killed Key, who was his WIFE's lover, NOT his mistress's husband.

Big difference, and an inexcusable error in a "history book", written by a history teacher.

Pg 264 Describing Lincoln's funeral train "In what will be called the greatest funeral in the history of the United States, thirty million people will take time from their busy lives to see this very special train...."

Really? 30 million people? Let's see, there were 31 million people in the 1860 Census, which included the southern states, slaves, and also the western states like California.

So apparently, every man, woman, and child in the United States, including all the southern states and California, must have made their way to one of the cities in MD, PA, NY, OH, IN or IL, where the train stopped, and paid their respects to Lincoln.

This error is just laughable.

If the research was this sloppy, it makes me wonder what other "facts" he got wrong or didn't bother to check.

Again, I like O'Reilly but this is inexcusable, and his credibility is diminished. I'm giving the history teacher an "F".
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No


9 of 10 people found the following review helpful
2.0 out of 5 stars Average at it best., October 6, 2012
By 
Joe-Fix-It (Williamson, NY) - See all my reviews
Here is my three word summary about KILLING LINCOLN; It's very pedestrian. Nothing special about the writing or the history. The simple truth is that O'Reilly is a celebrity journalist who put his thumb print on an obscure historians story. Martha Stewart could have mimicked such success by borrowing from your mothers apple pie recipe. But I'm as dumb as everyone else in believing that these people know what's best for us (when really the best thing they know how to do is capitalize on their fame to make a fortune). That said, I found that the best part of the book was not about Lincoln but rather Lee and Grant. In that regard it piqued my interest to read more nonfiction. I intend to read LEE - THE LAST YEARS by Charles Flood and GRANT by Jean Smith unless somebody has a better suggestion. Alas if it was O'Reilly's objective to inspire us to pursue history, then he succeeded. However if you're looking for entertainment, then I'd suggest reading something written by a novelist not a celebrity.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No


44 of 58 people found the following review helpful
3.0 out of 5 stars Not much new, January 18, 2012
By 
drifter yank (Richmond, VA USA) - See all my reviews
I was given this book as a gift. It was okay but nothing special. I wrote a paper on Lincoln's assassination in high school years ago, so I had reasonable background knowledge. Based on that, I guess not much new has surfaced in the past fifty years.

The pending DNA comparison of Booth's vertebrae and that of relatives is one new development, however. I think it is highly unlikely that Booth was not killed as recorded in history. There are always a lot more conspiracy theories than there are conspiracies.

Some of the details in the book were quite interesting and made events seem more vivid. The book does not contain footnotes, so it was impossible to tell whether these were real or just filler added for the story.

The book contains several typos. I have seen this in other new books recently. With spell-check and all the other electronic tools available today it would seem there would be no such errors. This speaks poorly of modern publishers and the publishing process.

At the time of my review, 88% of the 2758 reviews are either 5 stars or 1 and about equally split between these. I have not read any of the other reviews but it is obvious something else is going on here, probably because of the author's background. I find Amazon reviews very useful for evaluating products before purchase. It is a shame to see people attempt to use them as a political tool rather than their intended purpose.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No


11 of 13 people found the following review helpful
2.0 out of 5 stars Firearms mistakes rampant, February 7, 2012
This book is a pleasant read, but I still can't understand why the author chooses to ignore well-known facts and substitute his own fabrications. He describes the small pistol Booth used as "brass," when in fact it had a steel barrel set in a wooden stock. Many pictures of it exist, and it sits in a museum in Washington. And the part about Booth taking target practice a few days before the assassination was ludicrous; this pistol was meant to be fired from a foot or two away from the target, or in Lincoln's case, six inches behind his head. Hardly any need for target practice. I have read many factual books on this event and the aftermath; making up even small details that are so well documented just serves no purpose and tarnishes the book in my opinion.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No


40 of 53 people found the following review helpful
2.0 out of 5 stars Killing history might be a better title., January 17, 2012
Many have noted the historical inaccuracies. The book is interesting to read - up to a point. For me the reading experience was spoiled by the dubious authenticity on several levels. If one claims that there are unanswered questions about the possible involvement of Secretory of War Stanton in the assassination of Lincoln, one better have more than some purported missing pages in Booth's diary. And one better have citations, of which there were none. Even historical fiction often has citations for specific historical information.

Other egregious examples....

Lincoln's office was in what is now known as the Lincoln Bedroom. It is a square room and was never known as the "Oval Office." That term was first used in 1909 for the first of several Oval Offices in the West Wing, which was finished in 1901.

A claim is made that baskets of fruit were sent to the White House with fruit which had been injected with poison and that the fruit was tested before Lincoln could safely eat it. This is an astounding claim to make without citation. How was the fruit injected with poison, what kind of poison and how was it tested? Testing fruit for poisons is a challenge in the 21st century, let alone the 1860s.

Claims are made about the imprisonment of Mary Surratt aboard the Montauk shackled and hooded. This is simply a false claim and one easily checked.

There is just no excuse for calling a book historical and making these kinds of errors. As I noted, even most historical fiction writers try to be historically accurate about well documented historical fact.

It is interesting that several reviewers stated that they learned things in this book which they had not learned in history class or from other history books and that this was praiseworthy. Of course if one just makes up stuff it will not be something found in other history books. Maybe we need a new category for books about history - in addition to the standard categories of History and Historical Fiction we should have one for books like this one: History Made More Interesting
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No


24 of 31 people found the following review helpful
1.0 out of 5 stars killing lincoln inaccurate, May 6, 2013
What I began to notice after a while was the lack of accuracy regarding the firearms involved in the event. I'm sure all the gun experts have already picked apart the book, but here's what I found. The Deringer Booth used was not "made of brass". There is no brass at all on the gun. You don't tamp a bullet AND a percussion cap down the barrel when loading. The bullet was ordinary lead--not Britannia metal. The pistol was .41 caliber, not .44. Also, no mention was made of patching the ball, necessary when loading a rifled muzzle-loading arm which this was. Booth was shot by Boston Corbett using a Colt 1860 Army Model cap and ball revolver of .44 caliber--not a rifle. On another subject, Custer was surrounded and killed by several Sioux tribes, not just Oglala, in addition to Cheyenne and Arapaho warriors. I bought the book having read and heard raves about it. I would have expected much more in the way of research and historical accuracy. When you find so many glaring inaccuracies, it makes you wonder about all the rest of the book.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No


‹ Previous | 1 2670 | Next ›
Most Helpful First | Newest First

Details

Search these reviews only
Rate and Discover Movies
Send us feedback How can we make Amazon Customer Reviews better for you? Let us know here.