NF Making a Killing "Killing Lincoln"

[Pat Young]

A few years ago I posted a chart of the bestselling history books of the year. Most were by Fox News personalities and Glenn Beck of The Blaze.

As you know, many academic history books only sell in the 1,000 to 5,000 copy range in their first year. Even popular histories do well if they sell 100,000 copies in their release year.

I was interested in this series in The NY Times to see that Bill O'Reilly's "Killing" history series does far better than even big name historians. According to the Times, "Killing the Rising Sun" sold 250,000 copies in its first week of sales. The Times says that the "Killing" books average 1.1 million books sold in their first year of publication.

Please, if you want to discuss this, leave out modern politics.

 

[Pat Young]

Oops, here is a link to The NY Times article. Scroll down to the discussion on publishing for info on his book sales.

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/04/...-books-philanthropy-speaking-engagements.html

 

[StephenColbert27]

I'm sure these sales will bring Mr. O'Reilly much solace during his much-needed vacation.

 

[brass napoleon]

A few years ago I posted a chart of the bestselling history books of the year. Most were by Fox News personalities and Glenn Beck of The Blaze.

As you know, many academic history books only sell in the 1,000 to 5,000 copy range in their first year. Even popular histories do well if they sell 100,000 copies in their release year.

I was interested in this series in The NY Times to see that Bill O'Reilly's "Killing" history series does far better than even big name historians. According to the Times, "Killing the Rising Sun" sold 250,000 copies in its first week of sales. The Times says that the "Killing" books average 1.1 million books sold in their first year of publication.

Please, if you want to discuss this, leave out modern politics.

Truly sickening.

 

[huskerblitz]

It's written for the general population (I've only read Killing Lincoln) and reads more like a novel than a history book.

Face facts...most historians are seen as stuffy, arrogant and lack any sort of flair as a writer. Most are simply boring. WE read them for the information, the gen pop wants to be entertained while they read.

 

[donna]

We have all the books but "Killing The Rising Son". My husband has read all of them. I have read "Killing Lincoln", "Killing Kennedy" and "Killing Patton". I found them enjoyable. I see why they are popular to the public.

 

[Patrick H]

I see why they are popular, too. I've enjoyed them--some more than others. I don't believe they are intended to be academic histories. I've got no problem with Mr. O'Reilly and his writing partner making a "killing" out of the "Killing" series. More power to him. I'd like to be equally successful.

 

[jackt62]

I read a few of them and while I wouldn't necessarily rely on the them for history lessons, they are enjoyable if read as thrillers.

 

[1stMS-Arty]

George Will didn't care much for "Killing Reagan"...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...1300d6-83e3-11e5-9afb-0c971f713d0c_story.html

 

[brass napoleon]

I read a few of them and while I wouldn't necessarily rely on the them for history lessons, they are enjoyable if read as thrillers.

And therein lies the rub. Most people who read them believe they're real history. In fact, Amazon.com says "Killing Lincoln is history that reads like a thriller." If instead they said that it was a thriller based on history, I would have no problem with it. But Americans seem to have no interest in reality anymore. Apparently it's just not exciting enough.

 

[huskerblitz]

And therein lies the rub. Most people who read them believe they're real history. In fact, Amazon.com says "Killing Lincoln is history that reads like a thriller." If instead they said that it was a thriller based on history, I would have no problem with it. But Americans seem to have no interest in reality anymore. Apparently it's just not exciting enough.

Because it's not. To make it interesting there will have to be some liberty taken in the writing which would tick off the purists. We can't have it both ways. If one wants something that is well written and interesting then the factual parts will begin to suffer. In a lot of ways it is like movies based on historical events. It will never appeal to all observers.

 

[brass napoleon]

Because it's not. To make it interesting there will have to be some liberty taken in the writing which would tick off the purists. We can't have it both ways. If one wants something that is well written and interesting then the factual parts will begin to suffer. In a lot of ways it is like movies based on historical events. It will never appeal to all observers.

I agree to an extent, although I believe a lot of true history really can be exciting, if one bothers to sort it all out. But beyond that, this is why I am a big fan of historical fiction - but only with the full understanding that it really is fiction. When authors start writing historical fiction and passing it off as fact, that's just plain deception, and when publishers publish it as fact, it's false advertising.

 

[Bruce Vail]

Bruce Catton and David McCulloch have been criticized as "popularizers" with no real historical or academic chops. So O'Reilly is in good company in that respect.

I've never read any of O'Reilly's books so I'm not really qualified to comment further.

 

[Bruce Vail]

How long will it be before we see an article in one of bigger political magazines/websites entitled "Killing O'Reilly"?

 

[huskerblitz]

I agree to an extent, although I believe a lot of true history really can be exciting, if one bothers to sort it all out. But beyond that, this is why I am a big fan of historical fiction - but only with the full understanding that it really is fiction. When authors start writing historical fiction and passing it off as fact, that's just plain deception, and when publishers publish it as fact, it's false advertising.

Yes, if you can find a writer who can present it as exciting, but that's few and far between as far as academics writing books. That is where the issues mainly lie. And O'Reilly does admit to writing his series as 'thrillers'. I don't think he has anything to really be ashamed of. Most of the 'errors' that he has been tagged with a small and frankly inconsequential to the overall purpose of his book. So he got the year wrong for the date of Ford's Theater burning. The judge did the same thing on my divorce decree and it caused me a lot more heartburn than his slip did to anyone.

Just be happy that people are picking up something based in history. It's it better than the alternative?

 

[huskerblitz]

I agree to an extent, although I believe a lot of true history really can be exciting, if one bothers to sort it all out. But beyond that, this is why I am a big fan of historical fiction - but only with the full understanding that it really is fiction. When authors start writing historical fiction and passing it off as fact, that's just plain deception, and when publishers publish it as fact, it's false advertising.

I do understand your point. Historians just need to become better writers and that will solve a lot of it. I read a novel in half the time it takes me to read a non-fiction primarily because the writing is simply better and there is more of a flow. If history professors would only get married to English professors then maybe we can finally get a well-written history book!

 

[Bee]

"Killing Lincoln is history that reads like a thriller." If instead they said that it was a thriller based on history, I would have no problem with it.

Are these books out of bounds on factual content? For instance, would one need to re-learn any of the content like they would if they mistook the Killer Angels as history? (rather than the fiction that the author readily presented it as)

 

[brass napoleon]

Are these books out of bounds on factual content? For instance, would one need to re-learn any of the content like they would if they mistook the Killer Angels as history? (rather than the fiction that the author readily presented it as)

I only read the first chapter of Killing Lincoln, at the request of a friend who was interested in knowing how factual it was, and I found several factual errors, including a couple of whoppers (not just a matter of getting dates wrong). Now maybe he does better elsewhere, but I have no interest in wasting my time to find that out. As far as I'm concerned, the one chapter of O'Reilly that I've read was historical fiction. Well-written historical fiction, indeed, but historical fiction nonetheless, that should be represented as such.

 

[Pat Young]

Are these books out of bounds on factual content? For instance, would one need to re-learn any of the content like they would if they mistook the Killer Angels as history? (rather than the fiction that the author readily presented it as)

Ed Steers, who has devoted much of his life to the assassination, has written a bit about Killing Lincoln.
http://lincoln-assassination.com/15...oreillys-killing-lincoln-review-by-ed-steers/

 

[WJC]

A few years ago I posted a chart of the bestselling history books of the year. Most were by Fox News personalities and Glenn Beck of The Blaze.

As you know, many academic history books only sell in the 1,000 to 5,000 copy range in their first year. Even popular histories do well if they sell 100,000 copies in their release year.

I was interested in this series in The NY Times to see that Bill O'Reilly's "Killing" history series does far better than even big name historians. According to the Times, "Killing the Rising Sun" sold 250,000 copies in its first week of sales. The Times says that the "Killing" books average 1.1 million books sold in their first year of publication.

Please, if you want to discuss this, leave out modern politics.

The success of Mr. O'Reilly and Mr. Beck shows there is a market for historical works that are are well written in plain, popular English, easy to read, factual. So long as that last characteristic- factual- is met, I heartily endorse their efforts.
If that's what it takes to get more people interested in our history, more power to them!