GDG- Killing Lincoln

[CWMHTours at aol.com]

Well that's a pretty sad state of affairs.
 
It is one thing for a historian to write a book and to  overlook some minor 
details.
 
It is another thing for a book to be filled with errors or  contain made up 
conversations or character thoughts.   That's a bit  difference.
 
You wouldn't put Valley forge at Gettysburg would  you?
 
I'll have to do something about this.  But I don't know  what.
 
"Just  the facts, ma'am." Sgt. Joe Friday. Dragnet.

Your Most Obediant  Servant  

 
In a message dated 1/15/2012 10:59:12 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,  
Batrinque at aol.com writes:

Esteemed  GDG Member Contributes:


In a message dated 1/14/2012 8:25:44 P.M.  Eastern Standard Time,  
jlawrence at kc.rr.com writes:

The   publisher, on the publishing side of the house, had not listed this  
work  
as a history work.
In its own house.
No one has  refuted this simple  statement.
So, if the publishing side does not  count this as a "history"  
publication, 
all academic arguments are  void.

The publisher has also not listed "Killing Lincoln" on their  novels or  
literature and fiction pages.  The publisher is very  clearly and 
explicitly  
marketing the book as "history", so I think  we are fully justified in 
saying  
that Henry Holt and Company has  published the book as a work of history,  
regardless of its evident  flaws.  And for what it is worth, "Killing  
Lincoln" 
was on the  New York Times and Los Angeles Times nonfiction bestseller  
lists,  not as fiction.

Bruce  Trinque
Amston,  CT
----------------http://www.arthes.com/mailman/listinfo/gettysburg_arthes.com
  -to unsubscribe
http://arthes.com/pipermail/gettysburg_arthes.com/ for  Archives