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.

I've seen a few things about TSP on YouTube in the last couple of weeks (I have to admit because I've been looking). They range from 'horribly betrayed' to 'don't really understand what the fuss is about', although the 'not really understanding the fuss' was from an American reader who, to her credit, hadn't really followed the continuing saga and had just heard things about the story not being quite as portrayed. So she knew that Tim was suspected of not being as ill as portrayed and that Sally had embezzled money but she seemed confused as to why this made a difference to the story.

I think the general discomfort with 'the story as portrayed' has travelled, so I really don't think PRH can get away with 'unflinchingly truthful' any more and I'd like to see that removed from any future copies of the books.

I found this quick read interesting - as it examines why TSP got so much attention.

The Observer, The Salt Path and the secret roots of attention

Very interesting @BeguiledSilence I think that should explain to @chocolatemademefat what interests people about this subject :)

😀

I imagine it will definitely be removed from future editions and that all blurb copy will be altered. More interesting to me is whether, in future editions, there will be a foreword or something from SW addressing the issues that were raised by CH and which cast substantial doubt on much of the book. Or whether it will just have the misleading taglines and blurb changed and be recategorised as ‘nature writing’ rather than ‘non fiction’.

Can you imagine being the person who communicates the necessity to do this foreword to a recalcitrant SW? You would be immediately recategorised from one of the ‘amazing team at my publishers’ to the editorial equivalent of the (fictional) council jobsworth with the tight ponytail who says ‘Not dying this year? Then you’re not a housing priority. Next!’

Which raises the possibility of a standoff (‘You need to do this.’ ‘Well, I refuse — you are dissing my truth!’), SW storming out, contract ended, and subsequently publishing a book with an indie which lets her Speak Her Truth about how she was manipulated by the Big Business of nasty London publishing into saying things that weren’t true etc etc.

For me, the outcomes of this important story have been left hanging... over the cliff.

The silence is deafening.

I think those of us who have been particularly taken by this story have been fortunate to have so many related articles. It has touched a nerve with other journalists, and writers,

It then went quiet. I do not think Chloe, in The Observer, should have carried on producing more on the story that was not so powerful as had already been published. It is those responsible for marketing the material, in exactly the same way as before, that I would question.

I think that there's not much more that any journalists can now say unless SW makes some response (other than 'ooooh.. my poor mental health!'). Chloe H raised the questions and we are all still discussing the points she's raised from our own perspectives, but unless and until Penguin come back with THEIR point of view, or the Walkers choose to contribute with some factual information that either confirms or refutes the allegations, we are bound to be talking into a bit of a void.

But keeping the discussion open is still valuable.

Im still quite taken aback that Penguin haven't changed the 'unflinching' honest blurb nor made a more detailed statement either in defence of their author or to confirm that TSP was only loosely based on truth ...I expected better from them....if only because it all seems so unprofessional.

I couldn't agree with you more.

Penguin is a much-loved and trusted brand. I think the buck stops at the top of Penguin UK. The statements they have put out previously refer to 'a contract with an author warranty about factual accuracy, and a legal read'. In other words, they refer it back to the author - Raynor Winn.

All of those behind the making of the film also refer the responsibility back to - Raynor Winn.

What we are currently questioning though is: Why are you continuing to market this material as if it is true? Is there no ethical concern towards the continuing distress to those suffering serious neurological conditions? Is there no consideration for those who were stolen from?

You’d think, wouldn’t you? What exactly are Penguin’s contractual obligations towards their authors? It seems like they are putting the onus onto the customer to decide for themselves because nobody responsible for the content has been taken to court over the claims they have made.

When asked if this controversy would erode trust in the brand, the Penguin Random House CEO UK - Tom Weldon - said:

".. we have gained the trust of readers through the quality books we put into the world....... In a world where anyone can publish anything online, books remain essential as authoritative, expert and human-crafted content."

In other words - deafening silence. This has happened on his watch and the chosen way to deal with it seems to have been to reassert the contract and then to sweep it under the carpet.

The legal responsibility rests with the author. SW (or that singular entity known as RW) will have signed the standard memoir contract saying that TSP is true according to her recollection, bar episodes/identities changed to protect people’s privacy.

In the same way my book contracts say I haven’t plagiarised any of the content, that I am the author, that all efforts have been made to contact rights holders for quoted material, but if anyone has been missed to get in touch etc.

I imagine PRH sees their position as being that their tagline, blurb etc were based on that contract, and on accepting that the book was substantially true, as is standard for memoir publishers. That when/if Thetes a new edition, they will have an obligation to change it.

To really round things up - what could be the connection between: Should publishers take the high road on fact checking and the dead sheep?

Well, everything according to the comment after this linked article:

When a sheep dies on your farm in the UK, it's paperwork.
Legally, you can't bury it in a field. You can't feed it bread and butter (bloating). And you certainly can't just “dig a hole” and bury it with “her sisters” and wander off on a redemptive coastal walk. You must report it, arrange collection via an approved transporter, and have it processed at a knacker's yard, maggot farm, or incinerator.
No one blinked or bleated... and if you have had to bury a pet in the garden - as cat - the hole you need to dig is very deep.
But that sheep - half pet, half plot device - was the red flag. The moment where fact blurred into fable. And someone, somewhere, should have asked:
“Wait is this what really happens when a sheep dies?

The Bookseller - Editor's Letter - Comment: Should publishers take the high road on fact checking?

Penguin's website should have stopped making statements that TSP is "unflinchingly honest" and a "true story" etc as and when they believed those statements to be false.. What SW may have warranted to Penguin in her contract is a matter between them, and wouldn't justitfy Penguin choosing to continue to make false statements to the public, especially if vulnerable people could be harmed by them.

I'm particularly bothered because I'd always had the highest regard for the Penguin brand.

I’m not commenting on the ethics of it, only saying that a publisher won’t generally change the online advertising for something unless they’re going into a new edition. And if you’re buying a paper copy, that will have the original blurb, cover, tagline etc until those are sold out. (Did they bring out a film tie-in cover?)

Not sure why they would regard their obligation to correct a false statement as suddenly existing if they print a second edition but not existing at any other time.

I suppose that if Penguin change the tagline now or remove the 'unflinchingly truthful' line, that is tantamount to them ADMITTING that they know or suspect that the books are a pile of hogwash. And as obviously that would hit sales, they won't do that. So I suspect that they are going to swing it around, if necessary, to pile all the blame on the Walkers, which is fair because SW is the one who will have signed a contract and stated that everything was true.

Penguin should bear some of the weight of responsibility though. I also suspect that there's a good deal of back pedalling in a lot of places right now as everyone tries to work out just WHO is to blame for this farago.

The dead sheep disposal method won't have raised an eyebrow I shouldn't think. Most publishers, indeed, most agents, have absolutely no idea how hard and regulated animal keeping is. I wrote a book about one type of wild animal and got reviews complaining about how the main characters didn't 'cuddle and stroke' the animal more. A WILD ANIMAL. Not a cute story prop. Because people don't know and they don't care, they want cute.

Phew. I'm still pissed off about that.

I’m not a publisher, but I imagine the position is that they can’t change the physical product until they go into a new edition, and there’s no legal obligation to do so, as it’s not a public safety issue.

@Vroomfondleswaistcoat re: hitting sales. I would be very interested to know how the sales of the 3 books are doing? Since dropping out of the top-selling list, I have spectacularly drawn a blank when looking to see the sales figures.

I have some evidence that they are continuing to pile up in charity shops but is anybody able to produce any figures that show a comparison of sales?

Meanwhile, websites are easy to change yet they continue to maintain the false blurb online.

It's not just that, it's very possible they DID just bury the sheep. A lot of people who keep a few farm animals just as pets don't understand the difference in regulation between keeping farm animals and having a domestic pet. It was something that was highlighted when there was a fashion for buying so-called 'micro pigs'.

People bought them without understanding that this isn't a dog or a cat. Many were in breach of regulations concerning the upkeep of such an animal. I wouldn't be a bit surprised if these two hobby farmers buried the sheep as though it was their kid's Guinea pig. People do.

They might well have done. But I was considering the possibility that the publishers didn't know the regulations and therefore wouldn't have asked.

I don't think we can take a single word that WW say as true and it might well have been that they got the knacker wagon to take away their dead 'pet' but that SW didn't want to say that as it sounds 'cold and heartless' - when it is what most people do when a farm animal dies.

I'm sorry if my answer was confusing but, yes, I was mainly concerned with the publisher's liability for 'due diligence' (which they, quite clearly, did none of other than checking that SW had signed the contract).

Exactly. This is what I don’t understand. Even if they were to quote part of the author’s last statement referring to “Moth’s” health, ie

”I have never sought to offer medical advice in my books or suggest that walking might be some sort of miracle cure for CBS, I am simply charting Moth’s own personal journey and battle with his illness, and what has helped him.”

I think that would be the least they could do under the circumstances. I think the book should also be recategorised.

Well, agreed in principle, absolutely, though surely SW at least would have been aware of disposal regulations as the daughter of a stockman who describes herself as having been very involved with the sheep her father raised in her childhood, helping with lambing etc, and, according to some posters on here, regularly entering agricultural shows.

Given that they purportedly had no money by the purported time of death of Smotyn the Sheep, it may simply be that burying was cheaper than having her picked up, and SW decided to masquerade it as sentiment? (Aware that elderly sheep death does also apparently feature in HNTDDD, so presumably the actual time and date of death, if it happened at all, is a moveable feast!)

But SW was from a farming background and raised on a farm so would have been aware of the legalities.
I also think that this may have been another example of poetic licence. To dig a hole big enough and deep enough to bury a sheep is no mean feat. Smotyn died under beech trees, so unless they dragged her someplace else, there would have been hinderance from tree roots. If they had buried her elsewhere in the field, they would have had to bury her deep so that she wouldn't be ploughed up.