Quote:
Originally Posted by hummingbird
Can anyone copy and paste the times review in here? You have to register to see the full article and I'm lazy 
The interview in the Wales online makes me want to read the book just for the personal archive, family tree, what he was reading ...but then I see the bit about him not getting on with the others -and all the other nonsense mentioned here -and I don't anymore.
I know people have issues with privacy but normally a close family member or friend should be the perfect person to ensure care is taken when publishing such things. Personal papers have been published before...Virginia Woolf's diaries, Sylvia Plath's letters even Anne Franks diary and that was the diary of a child....considered a classic today, John Lennon's letters, - Yoko Ono has always been fiercely protective of Lennon's legacy. Kurt Cobain's journals..- publication of his suicide note shouldn't have been made public in my view however.
Having an interest in the archive does not mean the reader is looking for juicy gossip or doesn't support the band. Of course we support them. 1000%. |
I've a copy of The Times review but I'm not sure if I can post? Or would it be in breach of copyright because it's subscriber access??
It doesn't cost anything though just your email and a password and you can read it, takes 2 minutes to access
The 3am piece that got taken down as well as being full of rubbish copied several lines from the Wales Online piece with no acknowledgment which may have contributed to it being taken down...anyways
It's not just privacy it's interpretation too maybe? Whoever hands over private materials, or chooses to publish may also have the power over how they are interpreted through how they choose to present them, what they decide to publish and what they decide to omit. Something the band seemed very aware of when they came to record Journal...it's a big responsibilty and even if the best will in the world you might never be sure you've got it right. Sylvia Plath is possibly almost as well known for the arguments and fall outs and spite levelled at the Hughes family who took care of the copyright than she is for her poetry. I believe Anne Frank's diary was edited upon first publication though at the call of her publisher rather than her father (to take out the bits referring to sex...never mind the inhumanity of the camps and the mass murder can't mention any thoughts relating to sex...readers won't cope
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bryter Layter
You know, I’ve always appreciated your contributions here, but this is completely uncalled for! No one is stating any of this as fact, just reiterating what other’s have said. I personally brought up the passage because it was mentioned a few pages back, I didn’t include it to shame anyone or spread “gossip”!
Man, it’s replies like this that pushed me away from this forum a few years back. I’m still not comfortable posting here because I know someone will inevitably take something the wrong way even though I feel like I do my best to explain my reasoning. Ugh! Whatever!
|
Not stating as fact just reiterating what other's have said is gossip no? I can sound more blunt than I intend sometimes. Although someone will always disagree with you, someone will at some point misinterpret you that's no reason to decide to leave the forum or any other place and certainly not my intention. Just a few posts, not just yours, had started to be pretty derogatory towards members of the band and none of it based on anything but hearsay and assumptions and a friend of a friend's dog down the pub who overheard....I just find/found it frustrating than when so many are critcising SHR for repeating unsubstantiated rumours, putting her own interpretation on some events and just telling plain lies with the intent to denigrate the 3 remaining members over pretty much everything that the thread would itself descend into rumour and gossip and painting James black. I know no one has said 'this be true fact' but a lot of damaging gossip never states that, just repeats itself, gets ever more ridiculous and yet still harms
Quote:
Originally Posted by Routine Builder
Not trying to be the anti-fun police, but this thread is kind of getting into the quasi slander arena. Whether rumours are baseless or not, it's probably best not to give them much airing here. Considering there may already be some legal attention given to SHR's book, I think we should not give grounds to have that attention refocused on this forum.
|
See, you're more measured