November 20, 2006

Doesn't the O.J. Simpson book represent "a decision... to get such a book written and to get him to cooperate with it"?

Christopher Hitchens thinks so:
Of the many things I can remember about the trial... one detail that sticks in my mind was the incidental disclosure that Simpson can barely read or write. This is, in other words, not just a decision to publish "his" book. It is a decision, which must have been taken some time ago, to get such a book written and to get him to cooperate with it. The title is, of course, illiterate to start with ("If I Did It, Here's How It Happened" rather than "If I Had Done It, Here's How I Would Have") as well as an admission (because, however modified or qualified, the "Here's How It Happened" still stands on its own) but both of those offenses are quite possible in today's publishing. It would still be mildly interesting to know who cooked up the idea and who did the inducement and the ghosting. The only thing that definitely didn't happen, rather like his ongoing search for the real killer, was Simpson bringing in a manuscript and submitting it for publication.

15 comments:

Goesh said...

If people are stupid enough to read 'his' book, then he deserves to be laughing all the way to the bank, money in hand.

George said...

Of course he didn't write it.

I pay someone to write all my talkback entries.

I can't imagine anything so vulgar as actually doing one's one typing.

I'm sure the whole text was dreamed up by some Hollywood script person. I'm sure Orenthal contributed some key ideas and plot points, but, really, who has the time for all that wordy punctuating.

Pogo said...

Re: "I can't imagine anything so vulgar as actually doing one's one typing."

I'm assuming you're being sarcastic, Geoorge. Hitchens is pointing out that Simpson is illiterate and could not have written this alone. Hence, the horror that someone would sit down with an unrepentant and vicious murderer to detail his disgusting and lurid crime, no matter the pain it would inflict on those family members still alive, merely for a few bucks.

Simpson is a disgusting man. And Fox is equally disgusting for doing this.

Bruce Hayden said...

O.J. isn't the first, and won't be the last to have a book about them ghost written. Most of us don't have the writing ability to write a book that someone else would willinging buy and wade through. I know I don't.

But Hitchens, despite the claim that he is in a perpetual alchoholic stupor, again points out critical facts.

The other thing that I would be interested in learning was how Simpson expects to keep the proceeds out of reach of the Goldmans. I have heard that the proceeds are to go to his kids. But would that work? Even if some of them are also creditors of his (but others are not)?

Of course, the "right" thing to do would be to write a lot of books like this, engage in other money making projects, etc., instead of just playing a lot of golf, in order to pay off those who have judgments against him (notably, the Goldmans).

George said...

Pogo-

I wuld rspnd at lngth, but am hvng my lips btoxed n m hvng trbl dictating.

tata..

Paul Zrimsek said...

Simpson is surely out there right now trying to track down the guy who really did write it.

Meade said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Meade said...

Some possible clues to finding Simpson's true ghost writer:

> equally lacking conscience
> equally manipulative and parasitic
> equal amount of superficial charm
> equal need for stimulation
> equally adept at lying and deceiving
> equally callous and without empathy
> equally prone to blaming others

and...

> slightly less illiterate

Steve Donohue said...

Terrell Owens?

R C Dean said...

What's wrong with Fox bringing this into the light of day?

I mean, the "alleged" perpetrator of a double murder, who got off after a spectacular trial, "virtually" confesses, and that's not news?

What am I missing here?

Pogo said...

RC, Fox isn't merely reporting it, they're selling the damn book themselves. SO it's not a news story, it's a staged media event designed to cash in on his evil act.

There's a difference between telling the story and being part of it.

David Killoren said...

I don't see what's illiterate about the title. Isn't "If I Did It, Here's How It Happened" a grammatically-correct indicative conditional? "If I Had Done It, Here's How I Would Have" is also fine, but it's a subjunctive conditional, which is a different thing.

Meade said...

Because he has already claimed that he couldn't possibly have done it, if I did it expresses a subjunctive mood, calling for the conditional auxiliary would have before the verb happened.

Meade said...

And now the whole sordid deal has been quashed.
via the irrepressible Amba

David Killoren said...

Meade,

No, there are true indicative conditionals with false antecedents.

Compare:

If Oswald didn't kill JFK, then someone else did. [Indicative conditional]

If Oswald hadn't killed JFK, then someone else would have. [Subjunctive conditional]

Assuming Oswald did kill JFK, both conditionals have false antecedents. Yet both conditionals might well be perfectly true. Also notice that the two conditionals express different things.