Thread 17: To feel disappointed after reading this in The Observer about the author and her husband from The Salt Path book and film?

[DisappointedReader]

The Observer's original exposé: The real Salt Path: how a blockbuster book and film were ...
The 14 Observer items currently available on their online 'The real Salt Path' page: The real Salt Path | The Observer
More from The Observer:
‘Hope is extinguished’: CBD patients respond to Salt Path...
The real Salt Path | The Observer (The Slow Newscast)
Links to more Observer videos can be found in an early post of this new thread and here: Observer YouTube Channel: The Observer UK - YouTube
Working timeline and references: can be found in early posts of this new Thread 17.
Raynor Winn/Sally Walker's statement: Raynor Winn
Thread One ^www.mumsnet.com/talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/5368194-to-feel-disappointed-after-reading-this-in-the-observer-about-the-author-and-her-husband-from-the-salt-path-book-and-film?^
Threads 2-11: Links all in the OP of Thread 12
Thread 12: www.mumsnet.com/talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/5384574-thread-12-to-feel-disappointed-after-reading-this-in-the-observer-about-the-author-and-her-husband-from-the-salt-path-book-and-film?
Threads 13-14: Links in the OP of Thread 15
Thread 15:Thread 15: To feel disappointed after reading this in The Observer about the author and her husband from The Salt Path book and film? | Mumsnet
Thread 16: https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/5395002-thread-16-to-feel-disappointed-after-reading-this-in-the-observer-about-the-author-and-her-husband-from-the-salt-path-book-and-film?

New posters joining us in the genuine spirit of our civil discourse are welcome. It would be helpful to get the background from at least some of the Observer items above before posting.
To all - Please be extremely cautious when it comes to naming or implicating people and addresses not in the public eye or with no direct connection to the story, and around the understandable health speculations, especially where details are unclear or still emerging. Remember, even Hollywood rabbits attract the odd flea. Please do not engage with visitors who seem to have their own agenda and seek to derail. Avoid @'ing and quoting them as - from experience - this will only encourage them back to the threads. We have done amazingly well together for sixteen very interesting, very serious and very silly threads so far. I can't be here as much as I'd like so all help with keeping our discussion walking along in our usual reasonable and respectful fashion is very welcome.

Yes, it really is Thread 17. I'm as in need of smelling salts as the next person.

We seek them here, we seek them there, mumsnetters seek them everywhere: just where are the elusive How not to Dal dy Dir and On Winter Hill?

#handwavium #appropriation

Keep to the path. No saltiness. May the fudge be with you.

At least one of the other books (LL? TWS?) begins like this: a vignette involving jeopardy to pull the reader into the action. Something to do with a waterfall I think.
The style of HNTDDD’s opening is pure SalRay.

a vignette involving jeopardy to pull the reader into the action

Also, the Prologue to TSP:

There’s a sound to breaking waves when they’re close, a sound like nothing else. The background roar is unmistakable, overlaid by the swash of the landing wave and then the sucking noise of the backwash as it retreats. It was dark, barely a speck of light, but even without seeing it I recognized the strength of the swash and knew it must be close. ..... We’d camped well above the high-tide line; ......... it couldn’t reach us; we were fine. ..... No, we weren’t fine, we were far from fine. The swash and suck wasn’t coming from below, it was right outside.

Like naughty children waiting to be found

It’s funny how context changes everything. My original reading of this had the desired effect, only because I believed in them. My current reading of it tells me everything I need to know about them which is all backed up with evidence.
I have read through her last statement on her website a few times now and the part where she refers to “mistakes made in the business” after the economic crash, just make me feel livid.
There is an ongoing pattern of behaviour with her, which will never change. Even now that they have been “found”, it is all robustly denied and the carefully constructed book formulae is still being churned out. If they would come out of hiding and tell the truth without any of the fictional embellishments and emotional outpourings and set things straight with regards Moth’s health, it would be nice. Her readers were really invested in them as a couple and Moth’s health in particular. Is it too much to ask? She’s written about him in three books and wanted the reader to be invested and emotionally involved in their lives, so come on. Are we really expected to believe anything she says now and in future books? She altered history in order to put out a completely different and favourable narrative about them.

I just made myself listen to the Landlines prologue on my library app - it starts with her on a slippery rock above a waterfall, one slip away from plunging into a chasm.
(spoiler alert: she doesn’t fall!)

Yes, Landlines begins with Jeopardy on a Waterfall. TWS starts with her running out to huddle on the cliff edge before down on New Year’s Day. And of course TSP has their tent almost being washed away by the tide.

.... to continue the theme, (we don't know the exact beginning) in OWH:

she confronts blizzards, floods and sub-zero temperatures, and carries the emotional weight of a difficult year, simultaneously exploring a profound loss of faith in her connection to the natural world.

I think Chloe Hadjimatheou encapsulated all of the above when she referred to their 'origin story'. It made me do a search to see why she would use that term.

Maybe Marvel will sign them up next.

many people believed what she wrote. There were others who spotted a few things which didn’t add up, but assumed there were understandable reasons behind it. The way she wrote about losing the house never rang entirely true, I suspect many of us assumed there were some bad business decisions along the way, and that SalRay didn’t want to lose face by admitting they’d messed up. That was the only way it made sense to me. But to learn that it was her criminal activity which led to it is another thing entirely. And such a nasty, prolonged crime against someone who considered her a friend.

I can’t see how there’s any way back from this. I’m not sure SalRay is even capable of doing a complete U turn, coming clean, telling the actual facts. She must be a highly deceitful manipulative person and I expect she has convinced herself a lot of the bullshit she’s written is true. The only way I could see some real facts coming out is if all these revelations break their relationship. But tbh I can’t see that happening because they’re both so invested in it now. And they’ve got money, they can afford a very comfortable lifestyle without needing to publish anything further or put themselves in the public arena any more. Of course, their reputation is shot to bits and I would imagine it must be hard for them to have any kind of social life or interactions on a wider scale now. Those things would matter to most people, I imagine most people would value friendships, mutual respect etc rather than being in the position the Walkers are in now, albeit with plenty of dosh in the bank. But I honestly don’t know with these two. The statement on the website, which may be the last thing we ever hear from Sal, suggests she has absolutely no willingness to own her actions.

I'm catching up, so many interesting posts, I love the origin story idea @BeguiledSilence will someone write a spoof one? I agree @crossedlines they can afford to disappear never to be heard of again (with luck :)

Listening to Angela Harding on Desert Island Discs right now. 5 minutes in and Simon Armitage has already had a special mention. And her opening remark was to emphasise that she always goes to the places she depicts. A mention of 'book covers' but no names.

Nicely done, Angela.

But I honestly don’t know with these two. The statement on the website, which may be the last thing we ever hear from Sal, suggests she has absolutely no willingness to own her actions.

Totally agree @crossedlines . I don't think a mea culpa is in her nature and she/they can afford not to give one, if the estimates of how much they've made are true. They can also afford to "lie low" in a privacy many couldn't afford.

I agree with @DisappointedReader and others that no one wishes Salray poor mental health, the house of cards she built has come crashing down and all the adulation has gone, how people around her are dealing with it, who knows, are they still pretending to go along with her delusions?

I agree it’s perfectly possible we will simply never hear from SW again, and they will fade into obscurity and live in retirement on their earnings.

On the other hand, the strong strand of loud self-righteousness, the ‘You’re all meanies, and I am a Pure Soul!’ aspect of her, that saw her depicting virtually everyone else in TSP from the ‘heartless’ consultant, Polly and ‘Cooper’ to random fellow-walkers, ‘Etonian’ beggars, cafe owners, campsite managers, coastguards, homeowners adding extensions etc etc as dreadful exploiters or soulless human drones, and had her hitting back against the ‘highly misleading narrative’ of CH and complaining about ‘threats’ and ‘vitriol’ — that makes me think that it’s also possible she may not be able to resist having the last word.

We’ve seen, over and over, her ability to spin a story that makes her and TW into the pure-souled victims of other people’s wrong-doing or venality and their own trusting nature, and the way other people (Bill Cole, the Parsons, Ros Hemmings etc) have said ‘But that’s not what happened!’ She’s simply not someone who seems capable of seeing other people’s POV.

I bet there’s at least a part of her that wants to hit back against the ‘haterz’. The issue is who she casts as the meanies this time. Whose fault is it? Did her editor/agent make her exaggerate/embellish against her will? Are the Hemmingses and Bill Cole meanies? Is she prepared to do a bit of a ‘mea culpa’ in order to have the last word? Because I can’t imagine any kind of ‘full disclosure’ where she says ‘Yes, I stole and lied, and my bestseller is a farrago of lies and misrepresentation.’

I suppose in part it will come down to what she’s prepared to do, and what her publisher is prepared to do. It may be that PRH and their legal team say ‘We can’t publish further work from you unless you clear up all the significant allegations against you.’

l thoroughly recommend the Angela Harding DID programme. A strong woman, a very interesting life and a great choice in music. And her anecdotes, even the bizarre ones, don't leave you thinking 'hmm, really?'.

Thing is, how can she have the last word? If she tries to re-cast the ‘haterz’ and chooses to direct her bitterness in a new direction (whether that’s the agent/ the Hemmings/Bill Cole, whoever) there will be backlash. From whoever the new target is, plus the hordes who will be outraged that she still can’t admit that she’s in the wrong. If she does a total 180, a mea culpa admitting she stole, lied and treated other people like shit (which lets be honest is highly unlikely, it would need a complete change of character for her to be upfront) … but if she did, it’s likely she’d still be the target for vitriol. I’m not sure how well a U turn would go down with the die-hard fans who still think the sun shines out of her backside and that she’s much maligned. They’d rather the myth were true and that she really is some poor victim. And I imagine everyone else, those who see her as a cheat and a liar, would see a mea culpa as a cynical attempt to manipulate even more. When you’re totally backed into a corner (which she seems to be, because 3 months on from the exposé, there’s just silence, nothing to actually be able to deny the Observer’s investigation and findings) then frankly, a mea culpa doesn’t mean a lot. There’s nowhere else to go.

my hunch is that the Walkers will just fade away. If OWH does get published, there’ll be another flurry of public indignation (and of course the die-hards who’ll buy the book because of course it’s true and poor Sal…) but tbh I can’t see it actually seeing the light of day.

Jumping back to the house raffle for a moment, do we know that those who took part got their money back?

And staying with the lottery for just another moment.

On the Accidental Smallholder site, Gangani said that the house would be won by "one of the 250,000 people who buy the book", and that the lottery would be open for 6.5 months, i.e. about 200 days. All postal entries had to include a form from the book, and all Internet entries had to be "supported by" a purchase of an online or physical copy of the book (whatever "supported by" means).

I wonder what plan had been made to process an average of well over 1,000 applications a day (with potentially far more on non-average days).

As an aside (jumping back to the SA) thread, I was re-reading the section where the Walkers reach Port Isaac:

Port Isaac used to be a fishing village.The owners of the few boats on the beach would tell you it still is. But the thousands of visitors who come by car and bus trip know it's the village where Doc Martin lives. We threaded our way through the narrow,heaving streets, crowds of people trying to take selfies with Doc's house in the background. A whippet/lurcher/greyhound bounded through the crowd, knocking telephones and ice creams flying.
'Simon,oi,Simon, catch the dog will you?'
Moth caught the dog's collar and hung on to him until the pasty couple made it through.
'Knew it was you. We knew it.'
'Who?'
'Knew it was you. Answered to your name, didn't you?'
'Only because people have called me it before.'
'Yeah,course,ha,your mum.'
'Look,stop now. Who is Simon?'
'Simon Armitage.'
'Who the fuck is Simon Armitage? We've been hearing the name since Combe Martin and we still don't know.'
'God, you're good, aren't you? Keeping it hidden. We'll catch you out though. Don't forget we're on your trail.'
Moth handed the dog back and we struggled through the hordes and up the hill out of the village, where a group of smart elderly ladies gathered.
'Simon,Simon, can we have a photo near Doc's house? Two birds with one stone, so lucky!'
'No'
'Ooh Simon, what a great Doc impression. Good luck with your walk.'
I followed Moth as he pounded on ahead, marching up a steep gorse path without looking back until I gasped up behind him and had to call a halt.
'Why's it annoyed you so much?'
'I don't know, I just want to know who this person is; he could be anyone.'

That entire passage is considerably more unlikely than ‘We blamelessly lost our house because of Evil Cooper’ and ‘My husband’s terminal illness was magically cured by a long walk’!

Plus, even leaving aside the deep unlikeliness of more than one person momentarily mistaking Moth for SA, and for not explaining who SA was when asked, it makes no sense whatsoever that endless successions of people would think SA was undercover!

He was on the second of two widely publicised walks where the whole point was trying to make sure people knew he was walking so they could attend readings and donate, or walk with him! SW seems to be labouring under the delusion that SA was something akin to a big Hollywood star trying to be incognito on his holidays, rather than a poet with a book contract that involves trying to see if he can walk a LD path on the strength of his work, hospitality and donations.

And I have to say, her characterisation of everyone else in these scenes really annoys me. Everyone other than her and TW are Silly Tourists Taking Selfies and Ruining Unspoiled Villages, and saying ‘Ooh’ a lot. And TW throwing a strop here because he thinks SA could be ‘anyone’ makes no sense. Though annoyance clearly gifts him with supernatural fitness…🙄

And she should just stop writing dialogue.

It's terrible really how much they exploited SA to give themselves credibility to the reader, SA said he agreed to let them reference him as he felt they were down on their luck. Someone pointed out earlier in the threads that SA wasn't that well known in 2013, but he was in 2018 when the book was published and he received the queen's gold medal award. If he believed the story, I suppose he might have thought that it wouldn't do him any harm either.

Well, yes. SW says so. But then she also says that everyone who’d booked to stay in their barn before the house was repossessed was also refunded. And that they don’t owe anyone money. Hmm.

(Though it did strike me that in the film scene where we see GA leaving an answerphone message cancelling someone booked to stay in their barn, there’s no mention of a refunded deposit, only that it won’t be possible to rebook for another time…)

When was the last time you saw a whippet knocking people, mobile phones and ice creams flying? It's like something out of a Beano comic from the 70s!

Agree with every word @Pissenlit

Incredible isn't it that all these random pathdwellers, holidaymakers and "elderly lady" Doc Martin fans know who Simon is (although clearly not what he looks like) and the Beowulf loving intellectual Timoth hasn't got a clue.

I'm not sure SA thought it would be a benefit to him rather than not a detriment, hence not objecting when asked about it for the book, I suppose also the numerous instances of mistaken identity can't actually be disproved. He certainly put his foot down firmly about any reference to him as "PL at the time" in the film though and that was pre scandal, because he knew that would be a complete fabrication.

I've been doing some early online Christmas shopping and the (non TSP) work of Angela H features large, with a few of Simon's books thrown in. Solidarity! I'm pretty sure the recipients will be happy.

Oh, I don’t think that’s true at all. I think he found it irritating all along, but acquiesced because the Walkers were down on their luck and SW was an unknown bringing out a first book. He probably assumed it would tank. (Especially if all he was sent were the scenes in which his name appears. I also think he was probably annoyed by the cavalier way Seamus Heaney’s death was used in the Beowulf busking scene, too. He was genuinely devastated when he died, to the point where his wife travelled down to spend the night with him. I can imagine he’d find it pretty callous that SH’s death implicitly swells Moth’s coffers as it’s assumed to be a tribute to his memory.)

By the time he’s asked again for approval of the use of his name by someone from the film production company, SW is a hugely bestselling author, and he sees her as a successful fellow-pro writer who’s hit the big time. This time he has no compunction in refusing to let the film script in the SA gags as Poet Laureate for extra lols, because he’s asserting his own reality here. He wasn’t Poet Laureate during that period, and it doesn’t matter whether the scriptwriter wants to pretend to improve the gag. He’s not playing ball. He’s not a background gag in someone else’s high-profile film. (Like the cafe owner, Bill Cole, the Parsons etc.)

I did hesitate when I wrote that SA might have thought it wouldn't do any harm either @Pissenlit I wasn't meaning to be critical of SA, I wouldn't want to incur a drive by scolding or have my fudge and cider rations cut :)