The Authentic Life of Billy, the Kid: A Faithful and Interesting Narrativevolume 3

This is quite a work. A quasi-biography, a documentary and an adventure tale all rolled into one is the best I can do to try and classify it as something. Essentially, Garrett's book is generic - an oddity which caan only ever be a `one off' due entirely to the nature of the writers' relation to their subject. Garrett and, to a lesser degree, Upson, write as technicians of fact-conveyance rather than writers. I found that this actually served to whet my appetite to learn more as I read. When you're hearing about a legend straight from the mouth of the horse that was chasing him, the awe you feel overrides your contempt for shoddy writing style. Having said that, the book is just the right length and so is nowhere near as boring as the claims I had heard here and elsewhere prior to my buying and reading it. The writing, although nonchalantly functional most of the time, is kept tight which is necessary. To have imbued it with imaginative streaks and cosmetic touch-ups would have certainly destroyed the flow of what is, you'll soon find if you pick it up, a fast river of intrigue. Anyway, Upson has done quite a good job at injecting artistry in his sections so there is no really terrible lack of good writing here. Of course, Garrett's leaden, subdued delivery do deaden the thrills a little. It's interesting how he balances his attitude toward `The Kid' throughout the book. At times, he seems to speak admirably of him (allbeit apparently with a false tone sometimes); at others, he seems genuinely distanced from him, almost indifferent to whether or not their paths will actually cross. Biased? Of course it is. What do you expect? Even so, `The Authentic Life of Billy, the Kid' is made the definitive work on the topic because it, like the legend it examines, is a product of the same time. The best way to read it is with an analytical mind. By all means, challenge Garrett on his words when you feel he's deviating from his function as a chronicler - that is the point of reading this book a hundred and twenty years later. Unlike more recent biographers who would do exhaustive research based on documents, wide-sweeping second-hand information and historical `givens', it's best to go straight to those `givens' yourself and get to grips with them. Sheriff Garrett's book is a remarkable fountain of first generation facts and factoids and it commands the respect of academics and casual readers alike because of its durability. After all, just how many accounts of book length from the Old West survive today, especially those that receive serious scrutiny from a variety of disciplines. My only peeve lies in Garrett and Upson's ardent declarations regarding the aftermath of `The Kid's slaying. Why did they repeat themselves so many times that `The Kid' was dead and buried and `that was that'. It seems that Garrett was a little insecure in case he was challenged over the fate of his quarry. Whatever the case, the insecure tone he adopts in the last pages seems t

The introduction to this book by J.C. Dyke is good, and explains a lot; especially the last paragraph, wherein he says,"The reading (and study) of [this book] is essential to an understanding of that mythical hero, the Robin Hood of the Southwest, who was once just a bucktoothed, thieving, murderous little cowboy-gone-bad, Billy the Kid."Of course, the author, Pat Garrett, was not an unprejudiced reporter of events, for it was he who ended the life of William Bonney, also known as William Antrim (his foster father's surname). It is also interesting I think, in passing, to mention that Billy the Kid was not a product of the West, but a transplanted New Yorker.Elsewhere, you will read that Pat Garrett's writing effort is poor, and leaves much to be desired. He readily admits it. In his own words, he says, "I make no pretension to literary ability, but propose to give to the public in intelligible English, 'a round, unvarnished tale,' unadorned with superfluous verbiage."Garrett is motivated, he says, by an "impulse to correct the thousand false statements which have appeared in the newspapers and in yellow-covered cheap novels."And, there is no doubt at all that the stories of Billy's exploits were greatly exaggerated by an Eastern press eager for stories of gunplay and adventure on the Western frontier. Today's myth of Billy the Kid is largely descended from the pulp stories created by the inflamed minds of Eastern "journalists" and the latter-day Hollywood screen-writers who have made no attempt at all to portray the truth.Pat Garrett claims to have known Billy throughout the period known as the "Lincoln County Wars," and having listened to Bonney's reminiscences around campfires and says he has interviewed many persons since Bonney's death. That much would seem to be undisputed.Bonney was born in 1859, six years after the birth of another Southwestern hardcase, John Wesley Hardin. In fact, they were contemporaries and were raising hell at the same time. Bonney, however, died young at the age of 21, in 1881. Hardin died at the age of 42--twice Billy's age--in 1895. And, if the rumors are true, Hardin probably killed twice as many men. They both started young. Both are reputed to have had fearful tempers. Neither were killed in the face-to-face "quick draw" shootouts so dear to the hearts of Hollywood writers. Instead, both of their executioners used stealth to kill their quarries.According to Garrett, in Pete Maxwell's darkened bedroom, where he shot Billy to death, Billy was holding a butcher knife in one hand and drawing his double-action Colt "Lightning" revolver ("self-cocker") with the other, while asking in Spanish, "Quien es? Quien es?" ("Who is it? Who is it?") They were, again according to Garrett, at point blank range. The only other witness was Pete Maxwell. There are other versions to the story, including one which insists that Bonney was unarmed except for the knife, which h