海角大神

He鈥檚 done it again. Bill O鈥橰eilly, host of Fox News鈥檚 鈥淭he O鈥橰eilly Factor,鈥� self-described 鈥渃hampion bloviator,鈥� and chronicler of presidential assassinations including the bestselling 鈥淜illing Lincoln,鈥� just released another presidential thriller.

鈥淜illing Kennedy: The End of Camelot,鈥� co-written with Martin Dugard, chronicles the 1963 assassination of President John F. Kennedy with all the suspense and drama of a popular thriller (and, by some accounts, few of the citations of a history book).

鈥淜illing Kennedy鈥� seems destined to enjoy the same success as 鈥淜illing Lincoln,鈥� which sold more than 2 million copies since its release a year ago. 鈥淜ennedy鈥� hit shelves this Tuesday and is already #2 on Amazon鈥檚 bestseller list, above even J.K. Rowling鈥檚 鈥淭he Casual Vacancy.鈥�

Of course, everything about O鈥橰eilly, including his literary success, draws controversy. Some historians, including a deputy superintendent at Ford鈥檚 Theatre, found errors in O鈥橰eilly鈥檚 鈥淜illing Lincoln鈥� as well as a serious shortage of documentation. (At one point, Ford鈥檚 Theatre, site of the assassination, even refused to carry the book.)

In an interview with USA Today, O鈥橰eilly called the errors 鈥減icayune鈥� and attributed the criticism to jealousy. 鈥淭hese guys toil in obscurity their whole lives and a punk like me comes along and sells 2 million copies. They鈥檙e not happy.鈥�

Any wonder he invites controversy?

With this trademark confidence, O鈥橰eilly describes 鈥淜illing Kennedy鈥� as 鈥渉istory that鈥檚 fun to read鈥� in a 鈥減opulist way. No pinheaded stuff, just roar it through!鈥�

Co-author Dugard, O鈥橰eilly told USA Today, did most of the research, leaving the writing to O鈥橰eilly, whose approach is to make history accessible with thriller-like foreshadowing, dramatic details, and a you-are-there present tense. Along the way, complain his critics, he takes literary liberties with history, as in this line that describes a 1962 party in which Kennedy and Marilyn Monroe rendezvous: 鈥淭here is an intimacy in their movements that leaves no doubt they will be sleeping together tonight."

(Though there is no source for this in the book itself, for the record, O鈥橰eilly claims this line is based on an article in the British tabloid, 鈥淒aily Mail,鈥� confirmed by a federal agent who was at the party.)

Historians cringe at O鈥橰eilly鈥檚 lack of citation and occasional 鈥渓iterary liberties,鈥� but to his credit, the Fox News host and former high school history teacher says he writes popular history 鈥渢o get people engaged with their country.鈥� Few history books are fun to read, he tells USA Today. 鈥淓ven the really good ones, by Robert Caro and these guys 鈥� I mean, they鈥檙e brilliant guys, but to get through 800 pages, you either have to be retired or on vacation for six weeks.鈥�

(Caro鈥檚 fourth book on Lyndon Johnson, 鈥淭he Passage of Power,鈥� is 712 pages with 79 pages of footnotes. O鈥橰eilly鈥檚 鈥淜illing Kennedy鈥� is 325 pages with seven pages of sources.)

鈥淜illing Kennedy鈥� deals with the former President鈥檚 professional and personal life, including his many extramarital affairs. Perhaps its most intriguing subject, however, is not Kennedy, but Lee Harvey Oswald, who O鈥橰eilly calls 鈥�.鈥�crazy, and I mean crazy.鈥�

O鈥橰eilly doesn鈥檛 solve the mystery of Kennedy鈥檚 assassination in 鈥淜illing Kennedy,鈥� or find evidence of a conspiracy, but he doesn鈥檛 rule it out.

鈥淚 know that Oswald killed Kennedy,鈥� he tells USA Today. 鈥淣ow, was he pushed? Encouraged to do it by outsiders? Possibly. Possibly. Was he sitting down with Fidel Castro? No.鈥�

鈥淜illing Kennedy鈥� may not receive the academic accolades of a Caro tome, but it will get history 鈥� however flawed in its retelling 鈥� into the hands of many more people.

We can鈥檛 help but think that鈥檚 a good thing. What do you think?

Husna Haq is a Monitor correspondent.