Scan barcode
A review by renee_reads_books
If I Did It: Confessions of the Killer by The Goldman Family
dark
medium-paced
2.0
I finished “(If) I Did It,” the OJ Simpson confession, while watching the Phillies last night and I don’t know which was more painful. Pretty sure no one needs to be reminded about what OJ Simpson did to his ex-wife, but this book is his “hypothetical” confession. You might remember where you were when you watched the verdict come back in the Trial of the Century (7th grade math class here).
The only backstory you need is that in 2007, Ron Goldman’s family was able to secure the rights to OJ’s book, If I Did It, and it killed the deal with HarperCollins. They published it with Beaufort Books under their names, referring to him only as “The Killer.”
The beginning is an essay from the Goldmans and it’s a little tedious, talking about how mean Denise Brown is and how Oprah screwed them over, etc. They explain why they published it and the money they hoped to get back what they were owed from the civil case.
Then there’s a prologue from the ghost writer.
The bulk of the book is the original manuscript of If I Did It. I don’t know what the ghostwriter did besides tape OJ telling his story and write exactly what came out with no editing. It was laughably bad. I have never seen the phrase “yada yada yada” used so many times (not in quotes) in any book that claims to take itself seriously.
He repeats the same points over and over, insisting that he wasn’t perfect but he was the voice of reason and Nicole was abusive to him and how her friends were bad influences and he didn’t want them around his kids. Basically the point was “Nicole bad, OJ good.”
Now, I read Faye Resnick’s books years and years and years ago. It’s also naturally very biased. I weirdly have more respect for Faye though because at least she owns her shit more than OJ does. I believe that Nicole was doing a lot of drugs and hooking up with a lot of people. I believe she was drinking a lot. I believe she had a temper. I believe there were issues and lots of drama in her group because now they’re the Real Housewives of Beverly Hills crowd. But the degree to which OJ uses all of that to engage in victim blaming and basically implying that she deserved it and he did it for her own good is just… well, I guess it’s not really that surprising.
There is also this weird mention of someone named Charlie who is with him during the murders. He’s the only person in the book that isn’t introduced with a full name. Very little is said about him, and he’s never mentioned again. He never comes up during the trial. Maybe Charlie is the “hypothetical” part of this book.
And at the end, as he’s surrendering to the police, he’s like, “you were right, Nic. There was no couple like us.”
The dialog is terrible.
The highlight of this book, for me, was the essay by Dominick Dunne after OJ’s story ends. Dunne’s essay was the best-written and most coherent part of the book (no disrespect to the Goldmans, but they aren’t captivating writers). It concludes with an essay by a lawyer, which I had to skim because it was so in the weeds and not saying anything new or interesting (I will grant that this book is from 2008, but still).
I do believe he did it and I think this book is hypothetical insofar as he is trying to paint a better picture of himself and say that if he did it, he doesn’t remember because he blacked out and “woke up” to discover dead bodies in front of him and blood all over. He’s a smug bastard.
So anyway, everyone in this story is awful and the writing is very bad. 2/5 because I still found it mildly entertaining.
The only backstory you need is that in 2007, Ron Goldman’s family was able to secure the rights to OJ’s book, If I Did It, and it killed the deal with HarperCollins. They published it with Beaufort Books under their names, referring to him only as “The Killer.”
The beginning is an essay from the Goldmans and it’s a little tedious, talking about how mean Denise Brown is and how Oprah screwed them over, etc. They explain why they published it and the money they hoped to get back what they were owed from the civil case.
Then there’s a prologue from the ghost writer.
The bulk of the book is the original manuscript of If I Did It. I don’t know what the ghostwriter did besides tape OJ telling his story and write exactly what came out with no editing. It was laughably bad. I have never seen the phrase “yada yada yada” used so many times (not in quotes) in any book that claims to take itself seriously.
He repeats the same points over and over, insisting that he wasn’t perfect but he was the voice of reason and Nicole was abusive to him and how her friends were bad influences and he didn’t want them around his kids. Basically the point was “Nicole bad, OJ good.”
Now, I read Faye Resnick’s books years and years and years ago. It’s also naturally very biased. I weirdly have more respect for Faye though because at least she owns her shit more than OJ does. I believe that Nicole was doing a lot of drugs and hooking up with a lot of people. I believe she was drinking a lot. I believe she had a temper. I believe there were issues and lots of drama in her group because now they’re the Real Housewives of Beverly Hills crowd. But the degree to which OJ uses all of that to engage in victim blaming and basically implying that she deserved it and he did it for her own good is just… well, I guess it’s not really that surprising.
There is also this weird mention of someone named Charlie who is with him during the murders. He’s the only person in the book that isn’t introduced with a full name. Very little is said about him, and he’s never mentioned again. He never comes up during the trial. Maybe Charlie is the “hypothetical” part of this book.
And at the end, as he’s surrendering to the police, he’s like, “you were right, Nic. There was no couple like us.”
The dialog is terrible.
The highlight of this book, for me, was the essay by Dominick Dunne after OJ’s story ends. Dunne’s essay was the best-written and most coherent part of the book (no disrespect to the Goldmans, but they aren’t captivating writers). It concludes with an essay by a lawyer, which I had to skim because it was so in the weeds and not saying anything new or interesting (I will grant that this book is from 2008, but still).
I do believe he did it and I think this book is hypothetical insofar as he is trying to paint a better picture of himself and say that if he did it, he doesn’t remember because he blacked out and “woke up” to discover dead bodies in front of him and blood all over. He’s a smug bastard.
So anyway, everyone in this story is awful and the writing is very bad. 2/5 because I still found it mildly entertaining.