Quote:
Originally Posted by hummingbird
(Post 2677639)
Authors get royalties when their books are borrowed from the library. Not as high as a sale but still income. Something to bear in mind for those wanting to read it.
|
Hey:p I see through you...:lol: Making it harder. Authors only get 7p a loan...3 and a ha'penny each. On the positive side libraries get an issue and an extra visit, if that's all you've gone in for, to add to their stats...maybe even a new member.....everyone should join their local library...that be free....let's make something good come out of all this:) Maybe you'll leave with a much better read in your bag
Quote:
Originally Posted by sim
(Post 2677642)
Excuse untidy reply, a phone job again.
That is the truth, and I'm glad it reads like that. But that wasn't the intention of the person who quoted about the meeting (forgive me, I am unsure if it was Rachel or SHR). I think the reception of such a quote depends on context the reader may have gained elsewhere, and the opinion of the band/management. Thankfully, from what you've said, that's positive. Perhaps it will remain that way.
|
I'm still not convinced it was intended to look like his dad had been coerced. But it certainly was intended to besmirch the band. Absolutely. I can only doubt it came from Rachel directly because she has spoken publicly of her discomfort at the use of the lyrics whilst acknowledging permission of their dad had been sought. I feel she has more restraint in short.
SHR should have remained objective if she is first and foremost a writer ... The band clearly struggled a long time over whether they should write music for and record the lyrics left to them, it was never going to be a commercial success though it was a critical hit for which they should be proud. What better tribute could they have made to their old friend who left them his lyrics? He did say a lot of what he wrote went off into the river so if he was sure of anything seems safe to say he was sure he wanted the words he handed over to be used. Though of course because he's no longer here anyone and everyone close to him will have an opinion, will have doubts, is this what Richey would have wanted, the band first and foremost ....Maybe Rachel has different opinions, fine, understandable even and surely she as much as the band would have worried over how his lyrics would be received, interpreted and whether the band had done justice or shaped the interpretation etc etc but I feel SHR has taken her doubts as permission to undermine the band and blacken their name. Which from her just comes across as sheer spite and completely unsubstantiated because she isn't his sister, she wasn't a friend, she has no personal emotions to try and resolve she just looks like she's trying to look for a new angle to make a sale. People will see that
Quote:
Originally Posted by sim
(Post 2677642)
Because context, because this is the fear. The fear is something like that is in the book, and not on a forum which (with the greatest of respect) relatively few people read.
The same accusations against Richey... The exact same accusations. Because she was always talking about Richey when she said them. She's performed a sleight of hand to transfer them to James, because it fits the current narrative.
If mentioned at all, I doubt it would be overtly so. As you say, not exactly publishable. It may not even fit into the book. It may have been removed... Who yet knows?
|
If she's idiotic enough to have put such things in the book they will have been removed. She has been idiotic, a rumour is a rumour and more than not rumours are malicious so as a writer she had no reason to pay any heed if she could find no substance but instead it seems like they gave her an idea to really stick the knife in the band....As if she was writing the next ep of Eastenders and wanted a duff duff moment instead of a work of non-fiction. She seems to have taken the approach that every rumour...especially around his disappearance all need to be given equal merit....they don't, all can be considered sure and then most of them (most likely) can be tossed without touching the book.....He was beamed up by Scotty to the Mothership...let's weigh up the facts...Noooo...window...throw
Quote:
Originally Posted by sim
(Post 2677642)
I didn't make myself well understood here: I don't mean Richey, I mean the relationship. Am willing to hear that anyone's experienced otherwise, there are bound to be plenty, but my own experience is that you feel like you're better permitted to grieve if you can make out like you had a happy relationship. I speak as someone whose partner went missing and was found dead.
|
Ah, I understand now. I just feel in this situation no one can really grieve because they don't know he's dead and I imagine you could convince yourself of it one day then be full of doubt the next so you can't ever work through or resolve any feelings and you need to know even though knowing probably wouldn't really resolve anything in many ways......
But I do understand what you're saying, you still hear 'don't speak ill of the dead' as if all is resolved, forgiven and forgotten even if they were a complete bastard. And of course if someone's taken their life then come all the questions/feelings of guilt, blame, anger, protectiveness, relief in some cases and difficult maybe to just let your guard down and speak honestly ....everyone's different, everyone reacts differently obviously and it does feel SHR has disregarded complexities for the sake of a black and white picture though I don't know what she's hoping to achieve unless of course you have a certain narrative in mind....that he felt pushed out, unappreciated etc that here are reasons why he may have left with no trace which is ridiculous in its sheer simplicity....more of us would disappear from our lives if it was all down to feeling unappreciated and frustrated in the day job....as well as backed up by erm nothing
Sorry to hear about what happened to you. I think on forums and well social media generally we can forget there's a person sitting behind the screen and when it comes to discussions like this some people may be bringing more of themselves into it than we always realise so we all should tread a little more kindly
Quote:
Originally Posted by sim
(Post 2677642)
That's not what I suggested at all, I don't really think it was unclear - the band haven't ever been spared the trauma, or been afforded any privacy. We speak about the possibility of Richey having taken his own life (the correct phrase), yet continually are unconcerned with the mental health of those he left behind.
|
I misunderstood. Your reference to the biggest killer of young men (suicide) ... I thought you were referring to the band and their potential reaction but wasn't entirely sure. Sorry. I think people do care about those left but I agree that Richey, as happens with other suicides, becomes thee story, becomes the tragic figure, the mystery no one can resolve.......maybe, I don't know, maybe because the act they do whether that's to take their life or disappear leaves such huge consequences and so many questions and memories it's easy to forget that though what they did was huge it was also brief, not necessarily weeks or even days in the planning but a decision taken in a certain state of mind at a given moment in time, but those left think there must have been some considered reason for such a big decision when maybe there was no reasoning, no real control but the opposite we try and make logic out of the illogical....
Anyway yes we can forget as fans or as writers that of course you can talk about it but it's not an episode of Broadchurch for everyone, it's not just interesting gossip. I could surmise Rachel feels the band have always had an outlet or platform for their memories and she doesn't have that in the same way....she's losing 'her' brother, I could be wrong and guilty of doing what I don't think others should (!) I get that but for SHR to be scathing as she has been about the band discussing Richey and using the tragedy for their own ends that I don't understand and can't be excused, just malicious...God, I'm talking myself out of wanting to read it now:)
It would be just plain weird if they never spoke about him. I know they don't seem keen to have it pointed out but it does seem Nicky's trying to resolve a lot of feelings around Richey, Richey haunts a lot of his lyrics I can't see that it's down to SHR or anyone to express her arseish cynicism. Is she mixing him up with a politician? Oh, silly me, cos of course they don't have any politics neither do they??? Playground.
I feel it's good to hear them talk about him and their history, awkward if they're asked about what they think happened, don't see a reason to be so cloddish but I don't think they get that so much now...though yeah they might on the back of this book
Quote:
Originally Posted by sim
(Post 2677642)
I'm not sure if I would be surprised myself. I think at this point it's looking fairly likely it will be? I mean, a big publisher like Penguin isn't going to let it go, surely? Having said that, the book's been through a lot of hands, had a lot of attention, and I suppose it could go either way. We'll have to wait and see!
|
Virgin's the publisher isn't it? Owned by Penguin/Random House true but I suspect Penguin wouldn't have published. Virgin's more music biogs/entertainment isn't it? Penguin the serious stuff:) The classics. No fear of that here. It seems clumsy putting it back twice in a short time as if someone took a look and then having took a look decided it needed a more thorough look. If it needs a lot of revision or re-writing it won't be ready come the month's end but we'll see