James Patterson's new book: "The House of Kennedy"

[James DiEugenio]

I didn't ask you a name.  Just how high up.

I finished my review of the book Patterson read but did not write.

It is truly a horrendous piece of work.  Not even a hatchet job, more like a machete.

The woman he credits on the front worked for Murdoch and the tabloid New York Post.  And the book is written like that.

To write so many chapters about JFK today and to never mention Vietnam, that is stunning.  And it tells you what this was about.

Edited April 22, 2020 by James DiEugenio

[David Andrews]

15 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

I didn't ask you a name.  Just how high up.

 

Sorry - feeling out of sorts today.  Does it show much?

Edited April 21, 2020 by David Andrews

[James DiEugenio]

Yes Dave.

Hope you didn't lose more of your pension.

Just look at what is happening to the oil guys.  They have to pay people to take it off their hands.

Poor Jerry Jones.

[Ron Bulman]

5 hours ago, David Andrews said:

Sorry - feeling out of sorts today.  Does it show much?

Hopefully no fever or a dry cough. 

[James DiEugenio]

Hopefully he still has his pension.

[David Andrews]

I lost my pension a long time ago.

[James DiEugenio]

Oh, didn't know that Dave.  Sorry.

One  thing about being in education in California is we have an agency that provides a pretty decent pension, better than Social Security.  Although, what is happening on the DJIA does worry me even about that.

[Joseph McBride]

Looking at some pages of the "Patterson" book on the Amazon site, I see the book is written

in the present tense, like a film or TV treatment. That figures in light

of the TV series plan. Although I am a recovering screenwriter

and have read many screenplays and still read them with pleasure for research

purposes, I have a mental block that's hard to overcome against reading books written in

the present tense, possibly because it makes them seem like screenplays. In a book

that purports to be historical, present tense subtly reduces credibility because it

makes it seem as if the story is being hyped as "happening now" to jazz it up.

Edited April 22, 2020 by Joseph McBride

[James DiEugenio]

Yes, it was written in what one could call "tabloid newspaperese".

I only mentioned that in passing, because Fagen, the alleged co writer used to work for the New York Post. Therefore, I think she probably wrote it, or at least the first draft.

But really, I suspect, that this book was really put together at Little, Brown. Which is a really big company.  When you see my review, this book is not really a hatchet job.  Its really written with a machete. And that does not just apply to the subjects at hand, but also to Sirhan and Oswald. There is no real reason to do what they did to those two men, especially in this day and age.  Except to indulge oneself in a huge propaganda, mind control barrage.  Why Patterson went along with it, is really the question.  No wonder Stephen King pokes fun at him.

Edited April 22, 2020 by James DiEugenio

[James DiEugenio]

Here is my review.  The book, like most MSM efforts on the Kennedys, is utter rubbish. 

It even manufactures stuff to make the cases against Sirhan and Oswald.

And what it does with the whole Bay of Pigs affair is so off the wall, you will smile.

FInally, how does one write about the JFK career and presidency and not mention  Vietnam?

Calling this a hatchet job is too kind.  It was done with a machete.  Trashbin.  Thaks for mentioning it Doug.

 

https://kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-reviews/the-house-of-kennedy-by-james-patterson-and-cynthia-fagen