"The good: written in 1926, while some of the people who actually knew Billy the Kid were still alive and available for interviews; the style is unapologiticaly theatrical--emotional states and dramatic interpolations are an obvious attempt to flesh out the scenes and provide the reader with a reasonable feeling for the actions and thoughts of the participants.

The not-so-good: there doesn't seem to be any references to other sources than possible newspaper stories; there is obviously some exaggeration and spin in an effort to portray the Kid as a sociopath who was kind to his friends and damning to his enemies; there also didn't seem to be any attempt at scientific inquiry (although the '20s might not have been interested in the kind of analysis we cherish today)--for example Burns claims that the Kid was left handed because the one photo shows the Kid's handgun strapped to his left leg...even though we know that the ferrotype process produces reversed images.

Taking all that into account I enjoyed the story. When I couple it with the Wikipedia synopsys of Billy's life I don't see that the extra detail added more than a few intellectual tidbits and removed all the emotional coloring that makes the Kid worth knowing. And this book worth reading." ( )