The current canning of Bill O'Reilly brings has made me think about his writing. No one "culture war" garabge like A BOLD FRASH PEICE OF (IN)HUMANITY or PINHEAD AND PATRIOTS (guess which he is), no I'm speaking about his historical (sort of) works.
Ok, lets get it over with...BILL O'REILLY IS NOT A HISTORIAN. No he is not. Neither is Rush Limbaugh or any of these other clowns. I say this in such an angry tone because (at the time of this writing) O'Reilly is number 4 in the history (non-fiction) category on Amazon. This bothers me because, well, see the capitalized rant above.
No Bill O'Reilly is not a historian. He is polemicist who occasionally tries to wax moronic on historical issues. This wouldn't be such a problem if his hell-for leather James Patterson like narratives were presented as fiction or even as politics. But no, he wants to be seen in the history section. I have no doubt his get off on the idea of wandering into his local Barnes & Noble sauntering over to the history shelves and seeing his KILLING...WHOEVER title lined up along side Doris Kearns Goodwin, David McCullough, Bruce Catton, Jon Meacham and the hundreds of other historians who would not (or at least should not) cross the street to spit on Mr. O'Reilly.
Here is my review of his books. They are readable, certainly. They are largely accurate. Or at least, they are not inaccurate. But there's a difference. The books are littered with unnecessary salacious content (such as John Wilkes Booth's 'girlfriend' supposedly "stepping out" with Robert Todd Lincoln), details which no historical scholar worth his/her salt would spend time speaking about.
But worse yet, he omits clearly pertinent facts, for the simple and sleazy reason that they don't fit into his personal narrative. (An example of this can be found in KILLING PATTON where he fails completely to mention the supposedly heroic general's rampant history of anti-Semitism.)
Real scholars or historians do not omit facts. No responsible book on Washington or Jefferson fails to mention the fact that they were slave owners. No responsible study of Andrew Jackson fails to mention his policy of Indian Removal. They may filter these facts through the lens of context. But the facts are always there.
And there is the crux. O'Reilly, may call himself a historian, but he is not a scholar, he is an opinionist. And no historian of repute or responsibility can be an opinionist.
So...let's get to work folks. He's off the airwaves. Let's get him off the shelves.
Peace Out!
Ok, lets get it over with...BILL O'REILLY IS NOT A HISTORIAN. No he is not. Neither is Rush Limbaugh or any of these other clowns. I say this in such an angry tone because (at the time of this writing) O'Reilly is number 4 in the history (non-fiction) category on Amazon. This bothers me because, well, see the capitalized rant above.
No Bill O'Reilly is not a historian. He is polemicist who occasionally tries to wax moronic on historical issues. This wouldn't be such a problem if his hell-for leather James Patterson like narratives were presented as fiction or even as politics. But no, he wants to be seen in the history section. I have no doubt his get off on the idea of wandering into his local Barnes & Noble sauntering over to the history shelves and seeing his KILLING...WHOEVER title lined up along side Doris Kearns Goodwin, David McCullough, Bruce Catton, Jon Meacham and the hundreds of other historians who would not (or at least should not) cross the street to spit on Mr. O'Reilly.
Here is my review of his books. They are readable, certainly. They are largely accurate. Or at least, they are not inaccurate. But there's a difference. The books are littered with unnecessary salacious content (such as John Wilkes Booth's 'girlfriend' supposedly "stepping out" with Robert Todd Lincoln), details which no historical scholar worth his/her salt would spend time speaking about.
But worse yet, he omits clearly pertinent facts, for the simple and sleazy reason that they don't fit into his personal narrative. (An example of this can be found in KILLING PATTON where he fails completely to mention the supposedly heroic general's rampant history of anti-Semitism.)
Real scholars or historians do not omit facts. No responsible book on Washington or Jefferson fails to mention the fact that they were slave owners. No responsible study of Andrew Jackson fails to mention his policy of Indian Removal. They may filter these facts through the lens of context. But the facts are always there.
And there is the crux. O'Reilly, may call himself a historian, but he is not a scholar, he is an opinionist. And no historian of repute or responsibility can be an opinionist.
So...let's get to work folks. He's off the airwaves. Let's get him off the shelves.
Peace Out!
Comments
Post a Comment