It did. Am just wondering (while rereading The Outrun, which in some ways does a similar ‘redemptive arc via attunement to nature’ narrative, but which never claims the writer’s alcoholism and associated behaviours were anything other than her own ‘fault’, insofar as addictions are anyone’s fault as such) whether any of the initial lies/omissions/massaged timelines etc were in fact necessary.
The Outrun did ‘redemption via nature from a bad place’ without having to have been faultless in what brought you low in the first place, was a bestseller, and was made into a high-profile film with a big star in the lead, too. Do the Walkers now wish they’d been a bit less economical with the reality and trusted that the book would still sell on its merits, even if it was more ‘We lost our home through my bad choices, and decided to take a cheap holiday to think things through, despite Moth having some alarming symptoms’ than ‘We became homeless because we were too trusting and Moth got a terminal diagnosis between the court case and us hiding from the bailiffs, and no one would take us in, and we had £48 a week and nowhere to go ’?