View Single Post
  #22  
Old 27-01-2019, 15:37
River Boy's Avatar
River Boy River Boy is offline
I live to fall asleep
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,971
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elizabeth M View Post

As for the book, it could be interesting, but to me it doesn’t seem there's any question as to whether or not Richey staged his disappearance. I think it has always been pretty obvious that he staged it. The questions is what happened to him afterwards. Still no answer to that, of course. I feel for Rachel and the other loved ones he left behind. It’s a horrible thing to live with.
Completely agree, I've always thought that it was obviously a staged disappearance, not a suicide. Obviously there's no way of knowing if it went well or if he's still alive somewhere now, but I don't understand why so many respond to the idea that he's alive as if you're debating the existence of the Loch Ness monster or something.

I'm interested in the book, purely because it has Rachel's approval. I was very surprised to learn she had agreed to anything, so she must have felt the content was fresh enough (I ignored the last attempt which emerged a few years back and just seemed to repeat stuff from the biographies).

Didn't read the whole of the article though. Will reserve judgement as journalism, by its nature, provides a very clumsy summation of anything slightly complicated. So will decide what I think when reading the book, as granted some of the content in the article will be abbreviated and poorly detailed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wireobsessed View Post
Totally agree.

I totally understand if people hate what I'm about to write but this has really got to me. I won't read this book. Over the past two days I've become increasingly pissed off with what's been publicised and written. I know I've not read the book but from what has been written via Wales Online and The Sunday Times there doesn't seem to be much new evidence of anything. I get that Rachel is still grieving and frustrated and angry. God knows we all would be but it's her decision again to produce a book that just reinforces the "stereotypical" tortured rock star image of Richey. If she want to reclaim her brother this is not the way to do it. Too many people will simply focus on the sensational stuff-the anorexia, the drinking, the cutting and self harm, the psychological and mental health issues and then the way the book appears to push the idea that he was obsessive about disappearing. The front cover even seems to have been chosen to show the eternal "rock-star" image. If she'd wanted to reclaim him as her brother she should have used a different image.
That said, what has got to me most has been the issue she seems to have with James, Sean and Nicky. The Times article states she is angry with the band and it's hardly hidden. What the hell has she got to be angry with them for? They have acted with dignity and love from the moment Richey left. They still don't know the truth and have suffered just as much. Perhaps she should have considered that. They've clearly not been involved in this and you can't imagine them issuing any kind of reply or statement. It will inevitably hurt them for all sorts of reasons. It's been an incredibly tough 18 months for the boys and Nicky particularly, I wonder if Rachel ever considered that when she was involved in this and particularly with the press articles surrounding the book release? Mourning for a loved one brings back all those feelings of loss you've experienced before, I feel for Nicky so much. It must feel like a smack in the face.
I hate exploitative journalism and this feels so much like that. The release date coincides with Richey's disappearance, the press focussing on the mythology, which Rachel claims to want to avoid, the cover photo, publicly expressing anger at the band and raising the issue that Richey didn't like them or get on with them before his disappearance.... I could go on.
Wherever and however he is, I hope he's found peace. If he is out there living a quiet, happy life this won't help him either. Let things be, rakeing over details, myths and whatever's won't help anyone; least of all Rachel. Some things need to be left well alone; this is one of them.
The decisions regarding cover and timing, etc., would have come from the publishing company who would be sensitive to sales above all else. That does not mean that the book doesn't come from a good place.

Could be worse. The first US publisher to publish The Hobbit put an emu on the cover.
Reply With Quote