What do you think?
Rate this book
If I Did It: Confessions of the Killer
In 1994, Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown Simpson were brutally murdered at her home in Brentwood, California. O.J. Simpson was tried for the crime in a case that captured the attention of the American people, but was ultimately found not guilty of criminal charges. The victims' families brought a civil case against Simpson, and he was found liable for willfully and wrongfully causing the deaths of Ron and Nicole by committing battery with malice and oppression.
In 2006, HarperCollins announced the publication of a book, titled If I Did It, in which O.J. Simpson told how he hypothetically would have committed the murders. In response to public outrage that Simpson stood to profit from these crimes, HarperCollins canceled the book. A Florida bankruptcy court awarded the rights to the Goldmans in August 2007 to partially satisfy the unpaid civil judgment, which has risen to over $38 million with interest.
The Goldman family views this book as his confession and has worked hard to ensure that the public will read this book and learn the truth. This is the original manuscript approved by O.J. Simpson, with a subtitle added by the Goldman family and up to 14,000 words of additional commentary.
In 2006, HarperCollins announced the publication of a book, titled If I Did It, in which O.J. Simpson told how he hypothetically would have committed the murders. In response to public outrage that Simpson stood to profit from these crimes, HarperCollins canceled the book. A Florida bankruptcy court awarded the rights to the Goldmans in August 2007 to partially satisfy the unpaid civil judgment, which has risen to over $38 million with interest.
The Goldman family views this book as his confession and has worked hard to ensure that the public will read this book and learn the truth. This is the original manuscript approved by O.J. Simpson, with a subtitle added by the Goldman family and up to 14,000 words of additional commentary.
208 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 2006
About the author
O.J. Simpson
15 books44 followersFormer American football player and actor.
Mostly known for being the head suspect of a double-murder including his ex-wife.
In 2007, Simpson was arrested in Las Vegas, Nevada, and charged with armed robbery and kidnapping. He was granted parole on July 20, 2017, and then was granted early release from his parole by the Nevada Division of Parole and Probation in 2021.
Mostly known for being the head suspect of a double-murder including his ex-wife.
In 2007, Simpson was arrested in Las Vegas, Nevada, and charged with armed robbery and kidnapping. He was granted parole on July 20, 2017, and then was granted early release from his parole by the Nevada Division of Parole and Probation in 2021.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 1,524 reviews
April 10, 2017
What a weird, chilling, strange book. I very much am glad I got to experience this book without any money going to OJ. I still can't wrap my head around why he agreed to do this book if not for the desire to come clean, but in some asinine "fictional" way - this doesn't read like fiction. It reads like a narcissist admitting to something he should have admitted to a long time ago, and still finding ways to blame it on others and pretend it didn't actually happen.
My heart goes out to the Goldmans.
My heart goes out to the Goldmans.
January 7, 2016
I know it seems strange to give this book a 5-star review, but O.J. Simpson's book is compelling and bizarre. Simpson (with the assistance of a ghost writer) begins the book recounting how he met Nicole Brown when she was an 18-year-old waitress at a restaurant and while he was separated from his wife in his first marriage. It continues from there to the conclusion with Simpson's high-speed chase where he was arrested before he was to stand trial for the murder of his wife and Ron Goldman.
A couple of odd parts about the book: the book begins with an author's note that reads 'If I did it, this is what happened.' All subsequent events described after the author's note are supposed to be true except for the one chapter about the night of the murder. In that chapter, he attempts to separate the putative fiction from the reality with this brief sentence: "Now picture this--and keep in mind, this is hypothetical." From that point on, he tells how he sneaked into Nicole's house (they were living in different houses at the time) and killed Nicole and Ron Goldman with the help of an accomplice O.J. calls 'Charlie.'
Simpson is a very persuasive storyteller. When he writes about the problems he had had with Nicole, with her temper and her excessive drug use, I found myself sympathizing with him and believing his story. He downplayed the allegations that he abused Nicole or that he was jealous and that he wanted her back. He winds up looking like a basically honest guy who was trying to be a good father to his children and handle an ex-wife who was out of control. I will reserve sharing with you my judgment about Simpson's possible guilt or innocence, or the likelihood of Simpson's account with his life with Nicole out of respect for any readers out there who would be interested in reading this book.
I confess that I read this book out of curiosity, and I had assumed that the book was going to be awful, either in terms of writing or in terms of detail about the murders. The book was neither, surprisingly. But this was one of the strangest books I have ever read.
A couple of odd parts about the book: the book begins with an author's note that reads 'If I did it, this is what happened.' All subsequent events described after the author's note are supposed to be true except for the one chapter about the night of the murder. In that chapter, he attempts to separate the putative fiction from the reality with this brief sentence: "Now picture this--and keep in mind, this is hypothetical." From that point on, he tells how he sneaked into Nicole's house (they were living in different houses at the time) and killed Nicole and Ron Goldman with the help of an accomplice O.J. calls 'Charlie.'
Simpson is a very persuasive storyteller. When he writes about the problems he had had with Nicole, with her temper and her excessive drug use, I found myself sympathizing with him and believing his story. He downplayed the allegations that he abused Nicole or that he was jealous and that he wanted her back. He winds up looking like a basically honest guy who was trying to be a good father to his children and handle an ex-wife who was out of control. I will reserve sharing with you my judgment about Simpson's possible guilt or innocence, or the likelihood of Simpson's account with his life with Nicole out of respect for any readers out there who would be interested in reading this book.
I confess that I read this book out of curiosity, and I had assumed that the book was going to be awful, either in terms of writing or in terms of detail about the murders. The book was neither, surprisingly. But this was one of the strangest books I have ever read.
October 5, 2018
4,5 ★
For me, this book was all about how O.J.'s mind became notoriously affected by the murder of Nicole and Ron. Despite the consecutive debate about whether he's guilty or not, this book was extremely controversial and kinda bizarre in some parts of it. When he talks about his relationship with Nicole, all I could think about was "well, it's easy to say this when the other person from the couple is dead". He repeatedly blame Nicole for being too jealous, too moody and even too whiny by the time their marriage went downhill. I got a lot to think (and read) about before concluding what to believe in all this media circus around two victims and one of the world's most famous athletes. All in all, I do recommend the book if you promise me it won't be the only one you'll read about the case.
*
Para mim, esse livro foi sobre como a mente de O.J. Simpson se tornou notoriamente afetada pelo assassinato de sua ex-mulher e um amigo. Independente do cansativo debate sobre ele ser ou não culpado, esse livro foi extremamente controverso e meio bizarro em algumas partes. Quando ele fala sobre seu relacionamento com Nicole, tudo que eu conseguia pensar era "bom, é fácil dizer isso quando a outra pessoa do casal está morta". Ele repetidamente culpava Nicole por ser muito ciumenta, muito temperamental e até muito pegajosa/chorona quando o casamento já estava indo ladeira a baixo. Tenho muito o que pensar (e ler) sobre o caso antes de concluir no que acredito diante desse circo que a mídia criou ao redor de duas vítimas e um dos atletas mais famosos do mundo. Apesar dos pesares, eu recomendo o livro se você me prometer que ele não será o único que você lerá sobre o caso.
For me, this book was all about how O.J.'s mind became notoriously affected by the murder of Nicole and Ron. Despite the consecutive debate about whether he's guilty or not, this book was extremely controversial and kinda bizarre in some parts of it. When he talks about his relationship with Nicole, all I could think about was "well, it's easy to say this when the other person from the couple is dead". He repeatedly blame Nicole for being too jealous, too moody and even too whiny by the time their marriage went downhill. I got a lot to think (and read) about before concluding what to believe in all this media circus around two victims and one of the world's most famous athletes. All in all, I do recommend the book if you promise me it won't be the only one you'll read about the case.
*
Para mim, esse livro foi sobre como a mente de O.J. Simpson se tornou notoriamente afetada pelo assassinato de sua ex-mulher e um amigo. Independente do cansativo debate sobre ele ser ou não culpado, esse livro foi extremamente controverso e meio bizarro em algumas partes. Quando ele fala sobre seu relacionamento com Nicole, tudo que eu conseguia pensar era "bom, é fácil dizer isso quando a outra pessoa do casal está morta". Ele repetidamente culpava Nicole por ser muito ciumenta, muito temperamental e até muito pegajosa/chorona quando o casamento já estava indo ladeira a baixo. Tenho muito o que pensar (e ler) sobre o caso antes de concluir no que acredito diante desse circo que a mídia criou ao redor de duas vítimas e um dos atletas mais famosos do mundo. Apesar dos pesares, eu recomendo o livro se você me prometer que ele não será o único que você lerá sobre o caso.
March 6, 2015
This is WAY too fucking fascinating and fucked up not for me to write extensively about it in some other context.
SPOILER: He did it.
SPOILER: He did it.
August 10, 2021
He did it.
September 9, 2008
This book was so revolting that I stopped reading it after about the first 40 pages. OJ continued to assert that he was better than Nicole, and that after they had gotten divorced, she begged to get him back even though he was dating Paula what's-her-name, and that she wouldn't stop phoning him and trying to win him back. It was disgusting.
The prologue, written by the Goldman family, was equally foul. They wrote of their desire for vengeance, and while I understand that, seeing that OJ obviously murdered Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman, give it a rest. They just talked about how much money they stood to get from the proceeds of the book and the trials they kept going through and winning against OJ, and after 10 years, the $19 million that they had won had now turned into $38 million and they were angry that he hadn't paid them. I would be angry, too, but I'm not writing a book about it and telling everyone that I stand to get $38 million.
There was also a prologue written by the ghostwriter, who had met with OJ to get all of the details of the 'if I did it', which was supposed to be a thinly veiled 'confession'. I don't even understand how this man could have stood to be in OJ's presence and not wanted to vomit. OJ continued to assert his innocence and that IF he had done it, he wouldn't have been able to do it alone. After the book had been written, the ghostwriter claimed, he sent copies to OJ and OJ wanted him to remove the ENTIRE chapter on the murders, saying that he hated it and that it wasn't correct at all.
I was simply disgusted by the few pages that I read, and I don't recommend it to anyone with even the remotest shred of decency.
The prologue, written by the Goldman family, was equally foul. They wrote of their desire for vengeance, and while I understand that, seeing that OJ obviously murdered Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman, give it a rest. They just talked about how much money they stood to get from the proceeds of the book and the trials they kept going through and winning against OJ, and after 10 years, the $19 million that they had won had now turned into $38 million and they were angry that he hadn't paid them. I would be angry, too, but I'm not writing a book about it and telling everyone that I stand to get $38 million.
There was also a prologue written by the ghostwriter, who had met with OJ to get all of the details of the 'if I did it', which was supposed to be a thinly veiled 'confession'. I don't even understand how this man could have stood to be in OJ's presence and not wanted to vomit. OJ continued to assert his innocence and that IF he had done it, he wouldn't have been able to do it alone. After the book had been written, the ghostwriter claimed, he sent copies to OJ and OJ wanted him to remove the ENTIRE chapter on the murders, saying that he hated it and that it wasn't correct at all.
I was simply disgusted by the few pages that I read, and I don't recommend it to anyone with even the remotest shred of decency.
July 13, 2011
A strange concoction that tries to be a kind of "Hey, to be honest with you, I didn't do it, but supposing I did, Nicole, to tell you the truth, really drove me to it, she was such a slutty cokehead, but I loved her and could never kill her, and besides there's nothing to that domestic abuse shit, but even if there was, she was the heavy, not me, I'm all crippled with arthritis, to honest, but to sell this book here's a hypothetical scenario for your entertainment." That's what I got out of it. If you're doing research on criminal minds, or have a particular interest in the O.J. trial, then this book is could be very worth your while. I can understand why the Goldman family would want to see it in print. But as entertainment, it's a dud.
October 10, 2007
OJ is a delusional wanker. Does he really expect people to believe he had nothing to do with the murders? The answer is yes...yes he does. Throughout the book he tries to paint a picture of himself as the perfect ex-husband, someone who loved Nicole and could never have committed these crimes. Right. I didn't buy his innocence before and I sure as hell don't buy it now.
January 24, 2008
Go right out and get this book because you will be donating to very good causes (battered women's programs) led by the Goldman family. You also won't believe what OJ's ghost writer tells him to his face. You'll get more insight into the Hollywood celebrity lifestyle than you may want, but you'll end up with a much broader perspective of "why he did it", not "if, I did it". Insightful and chilling. I'm glad the Goldmans wrestled with agony of publishing this book.
October 14, 2015
First up, fascinating story. You would have to have been under a rock during the early 90s not to know this story, and the trial. Secondly, who on earth would write a book about "if I did it" when you received a not guilty criminal verdict (guilty civil though). Where were his advisers?!
But despite all this, I really wanted to read this book. Simpson is an egotist and I have to admit that I came to this book thinking that he did the crime. The book itself is very strangely written. He spends all of the book painting himself in a good light, and painting Nicole in a poor, obsessive, drug-addicted light. It is like he is setting himself up a defence for any resulting actions, or that he never did anything he as accused of. But then, he explains HOW HE KILLED NICOLE AND RON with Charlie in tow. It's simply a book of two halves - he was a nice guy who didn't do it, and then he explains how, even though he was a nice guy, he killed them! It was confusing and odd! Very odd!
So, in summary, I still think he did it. And I think this book is filled of rumblings of someone who got away with murder.
(my ebook copy was riddled with mistakes and errors; not sure whether this is the same for the print version)
But despite all this, I really wanted to read this book. Simpson is an egotist and I have to admit that I came to this book thinking that he did the crime. The book itself is very strangely written. He spends all of the book painting himself in a good light, and painting Nicole in a poor, obsessive, drug-addicted light. It is like he is setting himself up a defence for any resulting actions, or that he never did anything he as accused of. But then, he explains HOW HE KILLED NICOLE AND RON with Charlie in tow. It's simply a book of two halves - he was a nice guy who didn't do it, and then he explains how, even though he was a nice guy, he killed them! It was confusing and odd! Very odd!
So, in summary, I still think he did it. And I think this book is filled of rumblings of someone who got away with murder.
(my ebook copy was riddled with mistakes and errors; not sure whether this is the same for the print version)
September 17, 2022
Just had to laugh at OJ's lies
March 27, 2017
Only someone who brutally murdered two people and got away with it would have the arrogance to write a book detailing how he did it. The book is comprised of only eight chapters, sandwiched between a lengthy introduction by the Goldman family, followed by a preface by O.J.'s ghost writer and ending with an afterword by Dominick Dunne. The first five chapters are delusional and self-serving, with O.J. making himself out to be just this poor sap who had the misfortune of falling in love with an erratic, unstable woman. But because she was the mother of his children, and because he's such a good guy, even after she asked for the separation and the divorce, he continued to be the bigger man; the positive, supportive influence in her life, always remaining the steady voice of reason, regardless of how abusive or irrational she became. Chapter Six is his thinly veiled "hypothetical" confession, described in revealing detail, the night the murders took place, and it's just plain eerie. Chapter Seven includes the interrogation, which doesn't fully make sense, and raises some flags; and in Chapter Eight, O.J. makes himself the victim, describing the infamous police chase, how the media vilified him, and how he felt like the "battered husband or boyfriend".
It's hard to rate this book, which is part fact, largely fiction. The fictional chapters were difficult to stomach in far different ways than Chapter Six. The section written by his ghost writer Pablo Fenjves is quite insightful, and he does a great job of capturing the author's narcissistic "voice" throughout. And if you're having difficulty understanding why the Goldmans moved forward with publishing this book after publicly trying to derail it, read their introduction. Regardless of what you thought at the time, it cannot be denied that there is no way O.J. could know such details, or even imagine them, unless he was actually there.
It's hard to rate this book, which is part fact, largely fiction. The fictional chapters were difficult to stomach in far different ways than Chapter Six. The section written by his ghost writer Pablo Fenjves is quite insightful, and he does a great job of capturing the author's narcissistic "voice" throughout. And if you're having difficulty understanding why the Goldmans moved forward with publishing this book after publicly trying to derail it, read their introduction. Regardless of what you thought at the time, it cannot be denied that there is no way O.J. could know such details, or even imagine them, unless he was actually there.
April 29, 2016
He definitely did it.
May 8, 2016
Only read this book if you have a strong gag reflex, because the desire to barf will be intense.
July 12, 2016
I will post a full review after I recover from reading this book. For now, all I will say is that this book is the worst and the ugliest case of a character assassination I've read or heard about in my life. I would have never read this book if the proceeds of this book would've still be going to OJ Simpson. I admire Goldmans for not giving up the fight for justice.
Full review to come...
Full review to come...
February 8, 2018
What a pompous, arrogant prick
July 15, 2011
The book was scrapped for publishing as the Goldman's faught for the rights to O.J.'s book. They won. There is a foreword from Mr. Goldman, Ron's dad and also from the "ghost writer". There is an afterword from Mr. Dominick Dunne who himself mourned his daughter's murder at the hand's of her boyfriend.
This book confirms that O.J. Simpson is a narcissistic sociopath. Most of the book is simply OJ explaining how he was the perfect husband and father who was married to a controlling abusive woman. As he described their crumbling marriage he began to lay the blame for the failing marriage more directly at the feet of Nicole.
To me, this was very much a confession. He describes the way he felt after killing the two people. He describes the anger that only the killer would feel. And the way he phrases the description of the feelings is what one would think a killer of his personality type would feel. I don't think Simpson could have made up those feelings. I don't think he has that capability. He is not that creative. He is not a mental giant. He is a physical person, not a mental person.
Why did he write this book? Because he was there the night Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown Simpson died. He saw what happened.
This book confirms that O.J. Simpson is a narcissistic sociopath. Most of the book is simply OJ explaining how he was the perfect husband and father who was married to a controlling abusive woman. As he described their crumbling marriage he began to lay the blame for the failing marriage more directly at the feet of Nicole.
To me, this was very much a confession. He describes the way he felt after killing the two people. He describes the anger that only the killer would feel. And the way he phrases the description of the feelings is what one would think a killer of his personality type would feel. I don't think Simpson could have made up those feelings. I don't think he has that capability. He is not that creative. He is not a mental giant. He is a physical person, not a mental person.
Why did he write this book? Because he was there the night Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown Simpson died. He saw what happened.
March 13, 2018
Pulled this out and reread it after watching the long buried interview version. I bought it originally because the proceeds went to the Goldmans, plus I added it to my large OJ book collection, that I have for whatever perverted reason. I had forgotten just what a bunch of self-serving crap this is. Poor OJ! He was just a good guy, married to that horrible drug addled floozy who beat him up all the time! And just because he had little affairs now and then, didn't she understand that "temptations of the flesh" are everywhere when you are OJ? What a shrew she was! It's just a credit to him that he put up with her as long as he did before she finally just drove him to slitting her throat. He TOLD her...for crying out loud, what did she expect? And then he got all that bad press, and he looked BAD when he showed up in court the first time because he hadn't had any sleep that night! Those pesky guards! Someone does need to tell OJ, though, that in a "hypothetical" situation you can't keep forgetting what happened, because you are just making it up. You cannot "hypothetically" not remember..if you say that, people might think you recounting something that really DID happen. Sigh sigh sigh.
November 10, 2010
Okay , I DID IT!!! And here is how...but wait, I didn't really do it. I am so glad the Goldman Family fought for the rights of this book.
February 1, 2018
Spoiler - He Did It.
Seriously devoured this in one sitting ... It is a completely narcissistic delusional way for "the killer" to continue to get attention. I am a True Crime fan and remember watching this unfold in the 1990's and followed the trial closely. I am a HUGE fan of Fred Goldman and the entire Goldman family. The way they fought for the memory of their son is heartbreaking and amazing.
I felt revitalized by the Foreward that spent time explaining that the story was originally pitched in an effort to financially support "the killer" and to "set him up for retirement. The Goldman and Brown families by this time had won a judgement against the estate of "the killer" and as a result they were able to remind "the killer" that there are consequences to his actions.
I can't believe I am going to recommend it but the ghost writer did a great job and I was reminded of the crazy days surrounding the murder of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman. WOW.
Edited to add: A portion of the proceeds will be donated to the Ron Goldman Foundation for Justice.
Seriously devoured this in one sitting ... It is a completely narcissistic delusional way for "the killer" to continue to get attention. I am a True Crime fan and remember watching this unfold in the 1990's and followed the trial closely. I am a HUGE fan of Fred Goldman and the entire Goldman family. The way they fought for the memory of their son is heartbreaking and amazing.
I felt revitalized by the Foreward that spent time explaining that the story was originally pitched in an effort to financially support "the killer" and to "set him up for retirement. The Goldman and Brown families by this time had won a judgement against the estate of "the killer" and as a result they were able to remind "the killer" that there are consequences to his actions.
I can't believe I am going to recommend it but the ghost writer did a great job and I was reminded of the crazy days surrounding the murder of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman. WOW.
Edited to add: A portion of the proceeds will be donated to the Ron Goldman Foundation for Justice.
March 5, 2018
Uhm, wow, where to start, what to say? Maybe like this, with the pure technical side: the writing style is good, it's an easy read with a good flow, so, kudos to ghostwriter Pablo F. Fenjves (who also added a very intersting foreword; actually, all the extra texts surrounding O.J.'s "actual report" are interesting, since they offer a lot of what was going on behind the scenes of this book's genesis).
That being said, if you're interested in the general topic - the O.J. murder case and/or true crime in general, if you remember what went on back then, the abuse, the murder, the trial - this might be a book for you. I say might because on the one hand, this is completely disturbing and appalling - at the same time, it's weirdly fascinating, in a "shake your head and bang it against the wall because the author really claims this as his truth"-kind of way. I'm still not sure if I feel made fun of as reader or am just confused because O.J. really thought anybody would swallow all of this...?
I'm not the one to judge characters of people I don't know. However: even if I came from the moon, had never heard of O.J. and Nicole and Ron before and read this book, I'd knew this makes little to no sense. Painting a picture of oneself as some holy martyr only to then speculate how said person would commit a brutal double murder - hypothetically speaking? WTF?? Why would an innocent person (who - if we continue this fairy tale - lost his divorced yet still beloved wife, was wrongfully judged by literally everybody and their sister, was wrongfully put on trial and narrowly escaped the death penalty) tell such a tale? WHAT?
The mind, it boggles and just doesn't stop. A weird book this is. An okay read, fascinating in a strange, almost pervert way, but mainly weird.
That being said, if you're interested in the general topic - the O.J. murder case and/or true crime in general, if you remember what went on back then, the abuse, the murder, the trial - this might be a book for you. I say might because on the one hand, this is completely disturbing and appalling - at the same time, it's weirdly fascinating, in a "shake your head and bang it against the wall because the author really claims this as his truth"-kind of way. I'm still not sure if I feel made fun of as reader or am just confused because O.J. really thought anybody would swallow all of this...?
I'm not the one to judge characters of people I don't know. However: even if I came from the moon, had never heard of O.J. and Nicole and Ron before and read this book, I'd knew this makes little to no sense. Painting a picture of oneself as some holy martyr only to then speculate how said person would commit a brutal double murder - hypothetically speaking? WTF?? Why would an innocent person (who - if we continue this fairy tale - lost his divorced yet still beloved wife, was wrongfully judged by literally everybody and their sister, was wrongfully put on trial and narrowly escaped the death penalty) tell such a tale? WHAT?
The mind, it boggles and just doesn't stop. A weird book this is. An okay read, fascinating in a strange, almost pervert way, but mainly weird.
June 27, 2014
While I support the efforts of the Goldman and Brown families to bring this book to publication and to bring the truth to light, I don't want to read the sick words of a vicious killer.
I sleep better at night knowing that this evil man is behind bars, albeit not for the murders he committed.
I sleep better at night knowing that this evil man is behind bars, albeit not for the murders he committed.
Read
October 13, 2013Reposted with permission from BirdBrian
if you see the hydra, repost with the hydra on top
Censorship sucks, AND it often doesn't even work
Let's get this part out of the way first: I thought the book was poorly written. I thought the grammar was at times awkward, and some of the things said were illogical. I found spelling errors on pages 4, 92, and 9024.
"If I Did It". Kinda clever what he did there, isn't it? The whole premise of the book is a hypothetical, so it isn't really an admission of wrongdoing- even though it describes step by step exactly how O.J. would have committed the crime he was accused of... you know, "if" he did it.
Like most people in America, I followed this trial with interest, and I feel confident based on what I learned that O.J. Simpson is guilty of Nicole Simpson and Ron Goldman's murders.
My understanding is that O.J. wrote this book to get money to help pay his legal bills from the trial, although most of the money now goes to the Goldman family, because they won a civil case against him. So as I see it, this book was written to help a murderer- who eluded justice- to further profit from his crime ("further" beyond whatever murderous bloodlust of the moment it satisfied.)
That makes me really dispise this author's behavior.
But of course we all know that I can't just come out and trash the book based on how I feel about the author's behavior. That would violate GoodReads' Terms of Service.
Of course If I didn't read the book, and I posted a 1 star review of it anyhow, I'm not entirely sure how GoodReads would know this. And If I wanted to write an excoriating review that appeared to be "about the book", I could skim the brief description on the book's page for a few central points and themes, couldn't I? I could find a few names to drop, and probably cobble together a review that sounded like I had read the book. (If I didn't read the book, but of course I totally did.)
Naturally, I'd have to keep the review "about the book". I'd have to say the writing was bad, things didn't make sense, it was boring, etc, etc. But it would be easy enough to do, If I felt strongly enough about it.
So what's my point?
My point is that back in the GoodReads "Before Censorship Era" (BCE), I could have written a nasty review about the author, and put it on a shelf called "authors who profit from murder". I could have openly admitted that I never read the book, and readers could take that into consideration when they read my review. GoodReaders would see my honest opinions for what they are, and they could make their own mind up about whether my thoughts on the author are justified, and whether they agree, and whether they should avoid the book. Reviews from the BCE were more likely to be open and honest, even if they were exceedingly negative.
Now we are in the Censorship Era (CE). If I feel strongly about a book based on its author, there's no way of stopping me from writing a terrible review about it; I just have to keep some rules in mind, to escape detection. With 20 million users on the site, it seems unlikely that GR could realistically track down and identify all the reviews which appear to be about the book, but which are really driven by other motives. Not going to happen. It is an ironclad certainty that reviews like that WILL be posted in the future, and they WILL escape official detection.
The thing is, with all of the honesty of the BCE lost, how is anybody to know which reviews are reliable, and which ones are effectively wolves in sheeps' clothing? GoodReads' new policies (or old policies with new implementation practices) doesn't eradicate "because-of-the-author" reviews; it merely drives them underground. And in doing so, it makes ALL reviews suspect.
The GoodReads of BCE had some nasty author-reader blowups, but for the most part the reviews everybody had such bad feelings about were easy to identify, and they didn't call the integrity of other reviews into question. In the GoodReads of the CE, EVERY review is suspect. You can't tell which is honest and which is an imposter.
It cheapens the value of reviews and thus of the site. While GoodReads/Amazon doesn't care about the free expression of ideas, or building a community of readers, you can bet they care about the value of the site, because that affects revenue.
So what has GoodReads achieved by censoring reviewers? It appears they have reduced the value of their own product (i.e. their precious "author packages"), and they have not prevented even a single reviewer from posting negative, because-of-the-author reviews, including of books the reviewer hasn't read.
As I stated in the caption to the image at the top of this review: not only does censorship suck, but it often doesn't even work.
if you see the hydra, repost with the hydra on top
Censorship sucks, AND it often doesn't even work
Let's get this part out of the way first: I thought the book was poorly written. I thought the grammar was at times awkward, and some of the things said were illogical. I found spelling errors on pages 4, 92, and 9024.
"If I Did It". Kinda clever what he did there, isn't it? The whole premise of the book is a hypothetical, so it isn't really an admission of wrongdoing- even though it describes step by step exactly how O.J. would have committed the crime he was accused of... you know, "if" he did it.
Like most people in America, I followed this trial with interest, and I feel confident based on what I learned that O.J. Simpson is guilty of Nicole Simpson and Ron Goldman's murders.
My understanding is that O.J. wrote this book to get money to help pay his legal bills from the trial, although most of the money now goes to the Goldman family, because they won a civil case against him. So as I see it, this book was written to help a murderer- who eluded justice- to further profit from his crime ("further" beyond whatever murderous bloodlust of the moment it satisfied.)
That makes me really dispise this author's behavior.
But of course we all know that I can't just come out and trash the book based on how I feel about the author's behavior. That would violate GoodReads' Terms of Service.
Of course If I didn't read the book, and I posted a 1 star review of it anyhow, I'm not entirely sure how GoodReads would know this. And If I wanted to write an excoriating review that appeared to be "about the book", I could skim the brief description on the book's page for a few central points and themes, couldn't I? I could find a few names to drop, and probably cobble together a review that sounded like I had read the book. (If I didn't read the book, but of course I totally did.)
Naturally, I'd have to keep the review "about the book". I'd have to say the writing was bad, things didn't make sense, it was boring, etc, etc. But it would be easy enough to do, If I felt strongly enough about it.
So what's my point?
My point is that back in the GoodReads "Before Censorship Era" (BCE), I could have written a nasty review about the author, and put it on a shelf called "authors who profit from murder". I could have openly admitted that I never read the book, and readers could take that into consideration when they read my review. GoodReaders would see my honest opinions for what they are, and they could make their own mind up about whether my thoughts on the author are justified, and whether they agree, and whether they should avoid the book. Reviews from the BCE were more likely to be open and honest, even if they were exceedingly negative.
Now we are in the Censorship Era (CE). If I feel strongly about a book based on its author, there's no way of stopping me from writing a terrible review about it; I just have to keep some rules in mind, to escape detection. With 20 million users on the site, it seems unlikely that GR could realistically track down and identify all the reviews which appear to be about the book, but which are really driven by other motives. Not going to happen. It is an ironclad certainty that reviews like that WILL be posted in the future, and they WILL escape official detection.
The thing is, with all of the honesty of the BCE lost, how is anybody to know which reviews are reliable, and which ones are effectively wolves in sheeps' clothing? GoodReads' new policies (or old policies with new implementation practices) doesn't eradicate "because-of-the-author" reviews; it merely drives them underground. And in doing so, it makes ALL reviews suspect.
The GoodReads of BCE had some nasty author-reader blowups, but for the most part the reviews everybody had such bad feelings about were easy to identify, and they didn't call the integrity of other reviews into question. In the GoodReads of the CE, EVERY review is suspect. You can't tell which is honest and which is an imposter.
It cheapens the value of reviews and thus of the site. While GoodReads/Amazon doesn't care about the free expression of ideas, or building a community of readers, you can bet they care about the value of the site, because that affects revenue.
So what has GoodReads achieved by censoring reviewers? It appears they have reduced the value of their own product (i.e. their precious "author packages"), and they have not prevented even a single reviewer from posting negative, because-of-the-author reviews, including of books the reviewer hasn't read.
As I stated in the caption to the image at the top of this review: not only does censorship suck, but it often doesn't even work.
August 5, 2010
[This review also appears on FingerFlow.com, a site for review and discussion of creative works.]
Being a preteen when the events described in this book took place, I probably went into this book with a hazier recollection of the facts than other readers. Even so, it was clear to me that O. J. is relating his skewed view of the events, with a heavy prejudice towards himself. If you knew nothing about the facts, you might actually believe the picture he paints of himself: as a very sensible, family-oriented, patient man; almost flawless, but willing to accept and repent for the minor infractions that he let slip (like in 1989, when he "grabbed" Nicole too forcefully and ended up being convicted of spousal abuse for it). He also doesn't miss any chances to describe Nicole as ill-tempered, obsessive, pedantic, violent... and a drug user to boot.
O. J. includes some actual transcripts from the court case and seems to have gone to some trouble elucidating a back-story to fit the facts that turn up in the transcripts. For example, he explains right before one of Nicole's 911 call transcripts that someone on the set of Naked Gun 33 1/3 told him that Nicole "parties hard" with a "rough crowd." Apparently, that got him worried about his kids and angry enough to confront her about her drug use.
Despite the absurdity and poor writing of his account, I found myself eagerly anticipating the moment of the murder (does that make me a sick person?). O. J. invents an acquaintance named Charlie who dropped by unexpectedly one evening and told O. J. some gossip about Nicole that set him off to the point of dropping everything to go scream at her. Charlie, in my opinion, was O. J's conscience; first, he tried to prevent O. J. from going to Nicole's condo in the first place, then refused to allow O. J. to take the knife in his car with him (why did O. J. have that knife in his car, hmm?). Charlie later tried to cool off O. J. in Nicole's courtyard, but for some inexplicable reason, brought the knife from the car with him. At this point, O. J. grabbed the knife, blanked out for a moment and then realized he was covered in blood with two bodies at his feet. For all his confusion, he seemed to be of sound enough mind to remove his bloody clothing and force Charlie to make his clothes and the murder weapon disappear. The most absurd part, of course, was O. J's temporary amnesia about the climatic moment; he even wonders how he could have missed witnessing the murders when he was standing right there!
In any case, I think If I Did It is a poor title because O. J. never conjectures what it would have been like if he did commit the murders. Nor is I Did It an apt title because he never does admit that he did anything but be an all-around good guy.
And for those wondering why O. J. didn't commit suicide during the Bronco car chase: hearing Dan Rather report that O. J. had a long history with the police department as a domestic abuser made him angry enough to want to stay alive so he could get the truth out there. It only took him over a decade to finally tell his side of it.
Being a preteen when the events described in this book took place, I probably went into this book with a hazier recollection of the facts than other readers. Even so, it was clear to me that O. J. is relating his skewed view of the events, with a heavy prejudice towards himself. If you knew nothing about the facts, you might actually believe the picture he paints of himself: as a very sensible, family-oriented, patient man; almost flawless, but willing to accept and repent for the minor infractions that he let slip (like in 1989, when he "grabbed" Nicole too forcefully and ended up being convicted of spousal abuse for it). He also doesn't miss any chances to describe Nicole as ill-tempered, obsessive, pedantic, violent... and a drug user to boot.
O. J. includes some actual transcripts from the court case and seems to have gone to some trouble elucidating a back-story to fit the facts that turn up in the transcripts. For example, he explains right before one of Nicole's 911 call transcripts that someone on the set of Naked Gun 33 1/3 told him that Nicole "parties hard" with a "rough crowd." Apparently, that got him worried about his kids and angry enough to confront her about her drug use.
Despite the absurdity and poor writing of his account, I found myself eagerly anticipating the moment of the murder (does that make me a sick person?). O. J. invents an acquaintance named Charlie who dropped by unexpectedly one evening and told O. J. some gossip about Nicole that set him off to the point of dropping everything to go scream at her. Charlie, in my opinion, was O. J's conscience; first, he tried to prevent O. J. from going to Nicole's condo in the first place, then refused to allow O. J. to take the knife in his car with him (why did O. J. have that knife in his car, hmm?). Charlie later tried to cool off O. J. in Nicole's courtyard, but for some inexplicable reason, brought the knife from the car with him. At this point, O. J. grabbed the knife, blanked out for a moment and then realized he was covered in blood with two bodies at his feet. For all his confusion, he seemed to be of sound enough mind to remove his bloody clothing and force Charlie to make his clothes and the murder weapon disappear. The most absurd part, of course, was O. J's temporary amnesia about the climatic moment; he even wonders how he could have missed witnessing the murders when he was standing right there!
In any case, I think If I Did It is a poor title because O. J. never conjectures what it would have been like if he did commit the murders. Nor is I Did It an apt title because he never does admit that he did anything but be an all-around good guy.
And for those wondering why O. J. didn't commit suicide during the Bronco car chase: hearing Dan Rather report that O. J. had a long history with the police department as a domestic abuser made him angry enough to want to stay alive so he could get the truth out there. It only took him over a decade to finally tell his side of it.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
January 5, 2012
Hmm. This was interesting to say the least. There is no way that I believe that any of this is "hypothetical", and that's what makes it all the more brain bending. I find it almost comical how he describes his and Nicole's relationship. He is always the rational one and she is always the obsessive, out of control one. Hmmm. Pretty hard to swallow. I do think there is some truth though in his perception of their relationship and in the events that took place after the murders. His description of what happens in the Bronco seems reasonable and I would go so far as to say it sounds pretty truthful. I know most reviews said that the chapter on the murders was kind of ridiculous and obviously not the truth, but I beg to differ. I don't think that he doesn't remember killing Ron and Nicole, but his description about how he felt afterward is very telling. How he kind of snaps out of a haze and is wondering what the hell just happened. I think that that is him being really honest. Isn't that how a lot of people describe how they feel after committing murder. Especially when it is a crime of passion. It's like a rage that overtakes them. They feel like a different person and when it is all over, they can't believe that their own hands took the life of someone else. I don't think O.J. is a cold-blooded murderer. I think he is a man who committed a horrific, unforgivable crime and he should have paid the price for it. Unfortunately he didn't, but when you see him now he is a sad, worn-down, fraction of what he used to be. Guilt from killing two people will do that to a man. He's a narcissist and has never thought once about how his actions affect other people. This manuscript is proof of that. But he knows what he did and it eats at him bit by bit and eventually there will be no more of him left. Then he can answer to a higher power.
May 21, 2016
Where to start with this? I had a really hard time rating this book. I didn't want to give it one star, even though it made me sick at times to read it. But it also didn't deserve 5 stars for the same reason. I can safely say I was ok with this book because of the mind boggling fact OJ Simpson gave such a detailed chilling account of his crime under the guise of what "could" have happened. I also had a difficult time with how to shelve it. I consider it non-fiction, an accurate, if bumbling and ego driven story of how Simpson deluded himself into believing he was the victim in the marriage with Nicole Simpson (he just loved her SO much, she was messed up!) and then "possibly" killed his ex wife and an innocent bystander. I was one of the millions who knew he got away with murder and admit I cheered when he went to jail for armed robbery in Vegas. I consider it justice late served. The story behind how this joke of a book got published is as interesting and amazing as the story contained within its pages. I am glad the Goldman's won their suit against OJ and the publishers and were able to control who this book was released. Their touches, the introduction and forward (by a very confused and non-sympathetic ghostwriter who states right off the bat he believed Simpson guilty himself), to the tiny type on the cover of the word "If" so it looks like the book is titled "I Did It," a more accurate title of this chilling confession by a very notorious killer.
September 4, 2021
bullshit.
i have to give it to oj simpson: he's one of the most convincing liars i've ever encountered. although this book is written in a very strange way, with all accounts except for the night of nicole brown's murder being supposedly true, you hardly notice it because of the actual content. whoever helped him write this (because he sure as hell didn't do it himself) did a brilliant job of creating an enthralling story. the book paints oj as a responsible, down-to-earth, confident man and nicole as a young, exciting woman who slowly lost her lovability and sanity to anger. she's shown to be neurotic, aggressive wife who drove oj (the poor victim!) halfway to the brink of madness: and it's written in such an infuriating way that you almost forget that it's all full of shit until the last few chapters, when you start to realise that this man is a raging narcissist.
from the very start, oj downplays his fault in the failure of their marriage, trying to paint nicole as a manipulative bitch for calling the police when he hit her. it is stated multiple times that she was always the one who came swinging first, and that she hit him on a regular basis, but the truth is that there is no way for us to know exactly what went on for their 17 years of marriage behind closed doors. at the end of the day, it doesn't matter to me whether nicole was a wonderful person or truly was the horrible woman he portrayed her as, because she ended up dead and i'm certain that he did it.
i have to give it to oj simpson: he's one of the most convincing liars i've ever encountered. although this book is written in a very strange way, with all accounts except for the night of nicole brown's murder being supposedly true, you hardly notice it because of the actual content. whoever helped him write this (because he sure as hell didn't do it himself) did a brilliant job of creating an enthralling story. the book paints oj as a responsible, down-to-earth, confident man and nicole as a young, exciting woman who slowly lost her lovability and sanity to anger. she's shown to be neurotic, aggressive wife who drove oj (the poor victim!) halfway to the brink of madness: and it's written in such an infuriating way that you almost forget that it's all full of shit until the last few chapters, when you start to realise that this man is a raging narcissist.
from the very start, oj downplays his fault in the failure of their marriage, trying to paint nicole as a manipulative bitch for calling the police when he hit her. it is stated multiple times that she was always the one who came swinging first, and that she hit him on a regular basis, but the truth is that there is no way for us to know exactly what went on for their 17 years of marriage behind closed doors. at the end of the day, it doesn't matter to me whether nicole was a wonderful person or truly was the horrible woman he portrayed her as, because she ended up dead and i'm certain that he did it.
August 6, 2016
OJ's confession - pure and simple. He's insipid and vane. He's narcissistic. He's so full of $h1t. It's painful to read and he paints himself as the victim. He is so guilty.
May 29, 2023
I don’t really know how to rate this. On the one hand, it was a really entertaining and fascinating read. On the other, I don’t really want to rate anything written by a murderer very highly.
OJ’s description of his life with Nicole Brown leading up to the murders was very compelling, and, as much as I tried not to be, I felt myself on his side for everything. But as some others have echoed about this book, it’s easy to seem right when the other person is not there to defend themself. Up until the chapter where he describes how he “hypothetically” would have committed the murders, he seemed perfectly rational and I almost felt bad for him. But, again, the “hypothetical” account was clearly a confession.
About half of this book was written by the Goldman’s their lawyer, and even the ghostwriter had his own segment. Most of what they said was a lot of legal stuff that I skimmed over. OJ’s portion is definitely the most captivating.
OJ’s description of his life with Nicole Brown leading up to the murders was very compelling, and, as much as I tried not to be, I felt myself on his side for everything. But as some others have echoed about this book, it’s easy to seem right when the other person is not there to defend themself. Up until the chapter where he describes how he “hypothetically” would have committed the murders, he seemed perfectly rational and I almost felt bad for him. But, again, the “hypothetical” account was clearly a confession.
About half of this book was written by the Goldman’s their lawyer, and even the ghostwriter had his own segment. Most of what they said was a lot of legal stuff that I skimmed over. OJ’s portion is definitely the most captivating.
March 15, 2015
Given that the closest most celebrities will ever get to being literate is writing their own autobiographies, OJ Simpson writes some awfully good fiction. There is not one sane person on this planet who does not see this 'recollection of events' as a massive middle finger to everyone who saw his true colors and wanted him behind bars. To anyone who is actually considering reading this book which a neutral perspective of what happened that night, you should prepare yourself for some utter drivel. Although OJ tries to make himself seem like the victim of his abusive, drug taking ex wife Nicole Brown Simpson whom he decapitated that night on June 12th 1994, as well as an innocent, unsuspecting young man in Ron Goldman who only wanted to do a favour for the Brown family, here I present to you the proof that this 'memoir' is no more than a scam to keep OJ relevant and destroy the reputation of Nicole, and as a consequence, enhance his own.
1. During the trial of the murder, the defence's case was strongly built around OJ being a loving, caring man towards his ex wife whom he loved so much despite their split. However, in his book, OJ paints a picture of Nicole as someone who ignored her children. was abusive towards HIM (Yes, despite the photographs of her with bruises and cuts all over her face after he 'allegedly' beat her, which of course, were inflicted by herself), hung around with criminals, did cocaine, stalked him and was still madly in love with him. Instead of doing what someone who was truly scarred by the death of his ex wife would do, and allowing her to rest in peace, he was ruining the legacy of an obviously defenceless Nicole.
2. The vivid description of the murder. In the book, OJ describes the accusations of him being the murderer to be absolutely ridiculous. Instead, in attempt to be clever and mock the claims that he was the culprit, he told a story of what would have happened that night had he committed the murder. However, this smart move by OJ clearly backfired, as the passion and insanity he poured in to describe the scene of the murder, including how he butchered Nicole given in deep detail, his 'ridicule' of the claims that he killed Nicole seemed pretty realistic.
3. OJ might have walked free that day, but nothing can change the obsessive maniacal murderer that he is inside. In the parts that actually seemed to be written OJ himself and not the ghost writer he clearly paid a bomb, there are many shocking lines throughout the entire book that just point more fingers towards him being the culprit of the crime. The prosecution's case stated that OJ was obsessed with Nicole and wanted her back, and that he couldn't bring himself to see anyone else with her, and regardless of whether he chose to admit it or not, some of these lines that he said about Nicole were shocking, even for supposedly innocent man:
'The girl was an accident waiting to happen'
'Charlie was right. He wasn't the enemy. Nicole was the enemy.'
'We're going to scare the shit out of that girl (Nicole)'
Who were these people, thinking they knew anything about my relationship with Nicole? '
'The sooner she gets this finding-herself shit out of her system, the sooner she'll be back (She will be back and happily married to him. Sounds like obsessive, jealous ex husband to me!)'
4. Paula. OJ Simpson's defence team claimed that OJ Simpson was in love with American model Paula Barbieri, and had no feelings whatsoever for Nicole at the time. However, for somebody who was supposed to be in a committed relationship, the parts that OJ had written about Paula were rather patchy, to say the least. Paula always seemed to be on a business trip or ignoring him, especially during the times of some of his 'difficult' encounters with Nicole.
5. OJ Simpson claimed that during the time of Nicole's murder, he was practising golf in his backyard. He would have had to be playing golf for around an hour for his theory to make sense, and for the prosecution's timeline to be flawed. However, the part about playing golf was also extremely patchy. During the majority of this time, OJ was apparently standing or sitting on a couch or some rubbish, 'thinking' about Nicole. OJ must be a much better fiction writer than I thought originally, given that he could remember exactly what he was thinking 11 years ago!
The only reason I give this poorly written piece of trash a SINGLE star was not even of OJ Simpson's doing. The father of the young man who was killed by OJ that night, Fred Goldman, was given legal rights to rename OJ's 'autobiography' and added the line 'Confessions of the Killer' to the title of the name, making it the only line in the whole book that matches it's non fiction label. Half of us probably think you did it that night OJ? No. All of us do.
1. During the trial of the murder, the defence's case was strongly built around OJ being a loving, caring man towards his ex wife whom he loved so much despite their split. However, in his book, OJ paints a picture of Nicole as someone who ignored her children. was abusive towards HIM (Yes, despite the photographs of her with bruises and cuts all over her face after he 'allegedly' beat her, which of course, were inflicted by herself), hung around with criminals, did cocaine, stalked him and was still madly in love with him. Instead of doing what someone who was truly scarred by the death of his ex wife would do, and allowing her to rest in peace, he was ruining the legacy of an obviously defenceless Nicole.
2. The vivid description of the murder. In the book, OJ describes the accusations of him being the murderer to be absolutely ridiculous. Instead, in attempt to be clever and mock the claims that he was the culprit, he told a story of what would have happened that night had he committed the murder. However, this smart move by OJ clearly backfired, as the passion and insanity he poured in to describe the scene of the murder, including how he butchered Nicole given in deep detail, his 'ridicule' of the claims that he killed Nicole seemed pretty realistic.
3. OJ might have walked free that day, but nothing can change the obsessive maniacal murderer that he is inside. In the parts that actually seemed to be written OJ himself and not the ghost writer he clearly paid a bomb, there are many shocking lines throughout the entire book that just point more fingers towards him being the culprit of the crime. The prosecution's case stated that OJ was obsessed with Nicole and wanted her back, and that he couldn't bring himself to see anyone else with her, and regardless of whether he chose to admit it or not, some of these lines that he said about Nicole were shocking, even for supposedly innocent man:
'The girl was an accident waiting to happen'
'Charlie was right. He wasn't the enemy. Nicole was the enemy.'
'We're going to scare the shit out of that girl (Nicole)'
Who were these people, thinking they knew anything about my relationship with Nicole? '
'The sooner she gets this finding-herself shit out of her system, the sooner she'll be back (She will be back and happily married to him. Sounds like obsessive, jealous ex husband to me!)'
4. Paula. OJ Simpson's defence team claimed that OJ Simpson was in love with American model Paula Barbieri, and had no feelings whatsoever for Nicole at the time. However, for somebody who was supposed to be in a committed relationship, the parts that OJ had written about Paula were rather patchy, to say the least. Paula always seemed to be on a business trip or ignoring him, especially during the times of some of his 'difficult' encounters with Nicole.
5. OJ Simpson claimed that during the time of Nicole's murder, he was practising golf in his backyard. He would have had to be playing golf for around an hour for his theory to make sense, and for the prosecution's timeline to be flawed. However, the part about playing golf was also extremely patchy. During the majority of this time, OJ was apparently standing or sitting on a couch or some rubbish, 'thinking' about Nicole. OJ must be a much better fiction writer than I thought originally, given that he could remember exactly what he was thinking 11 years ago!
The only reason I give this poorly written piece of trash a SINGLE star was not even of OJ Simpson's doing. The father of the young man who was killed by OJ that night, Fred Goldman, was given legal rights to rename OJ's 'autobiography' and added the line 'Confessions of the Killer' to the title of the name, making it the only line in the whole book that matches it's non fiction label. Half of us probably think you did it that night OJ? No. All of us do.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 1,524 reviews