Well done to everyone for keeping this inquiry going. I have only posted once previously (Th7 p18), to point out that in the 2015 medical letter there was no mention of Moth walking the 630 miles of the SWCP and to ask why that was the case. If the Walkers had mentioned this, the consultant would surely have noted the fact as he did report Moth stating that he had difficulty walking on uneven ground. My thoughts were that either the walks had not taken place prior to 2015 or that the Walkers had not told the consultant for their own reasons.
I did have other concerns arising from the 2015 letter but that was going to be my only post on the issue. Fortunately, however, my better half presented me with a (charity shop) copy of TSP for Christmas (probably due to my banging on about the topic) and I have now read TSP for the first time in light of what I had gleaned from the 2015 letter. This has encouraged me to follow up my original post. I’m sorry this is lengthy but I hopefully it will be of interest.
In TSP it is claimed that the Walkers are first given a diagnosis of Moth’s ‘condition’ (“I believe you have corticobasal degeneration, CBD”. p15), “at a Liverpool hospital” (p14), sometime in June 2013 (p179).
Despite these claims, I think the information provided in the 2015 medical letter indicates clearly that the first diagnosis given to the Walkers was the one given to them at Liverpool in June 2015. This is because no previous diagnosis is referred to in the letter, just a series of inconclusive tests (MRI, EEG, EMG, blood tests) which are reported to have had negative results. So, the first point to make is that the meeting in Liverpool described in TSP actually occurred after the two walks in TSP which are described as occurring during August – October 2013 and from July to September 2014. Therefore, any reference in TSP to the Walkers i) believing Moth had CBD, ii) either of them thinking about it at the time, or iii) discussing it between themselves or with any other person, is a complete fabrication.
The second point to make about the 2015 letter concerns the diagnosis itself. The consultant is quite tentative about making the diagnosis but, based upon the reported symptoms and the results of the eye examination, he states: “I have explained to Mr Walker that his condition mostly resembles the corticobasal syndrome…but it is clear that he is affected very mildly…” So, he is saying that it could be a mild version of CBS (I’m not going to be diverted into a discussion about definitions of CBS/CBD here as that has been covered adequately in an earlier thread) but very responsibly, and tellingly the consultant also states the following: “…especially given the long history. I mentioned to him that the PSP Society provides information about corticobasal syndrome /corticobasal degeneration but emphasised that much of the information he would encounter if he researched the matter would pertain to patients with more severe disease than his own.”
My reading of this is that the consultant is explicitly warning the Walkers that Moth was not suffering from a severe form of CBS and therefore that the most severe effects of that condition did NOT apply to him (in other words this was explicitly NOT a terminal diagnosis). Therefore, regardless of when the walks actually took place, any reference in TSP to the Walkers believing i) Moth was dying, ii) he did not have long to live, or iii) was destined to suffer horribly, etc. is also a complete fabrication. I should say at this point that the consultant was completely justified in making his comments as Moth still appears to be going strong around 20 years after he says his symptoms first appeared.
The main reason I have made these points is that TSP is absolutely riddled with claims that a) the Walkers knew Moth had CBD in 2013/14 and b) that his condition was terminal. In fact, I have counted them. I’m not sure I have spotted them all but there are direct references to CBD on 15 pages (if you would like to check, on pages 14,15,20,46,48,58,75,165,179,180,195,206,222,241,243).
As well as this, on 27 pages there is reference to Moth suffering the most severe effects of CBD (e.g. “Moth was dying”, (Moth says) “I’m dying”, ‘What if I’m dying”, “I don’t want to die in a tent”, etc.) This is on pages 2,8,18,20,22,24,40,51,61,73,74,78,81, 82, 107, 130,131,149,165,191, 200,209,210,225, 241,243,271. I have included here several references to “a miracle” occurring when Moth seems to have improved somewhat, on the basis that this is an indirect reference to severe symptoms. On the other hand, I have not included the very many references to Moth’s aches and pains, which the reader is implicitly invited to link to his condition but could really just be the natural aches and pains felt by an older person engaging in unfamiliar physical activity.
Why is this important? Well, having now read the book I can see that for many readers the details of the walk are probably a secondary issue. The emotional heart of the book and hence much of its wider appeal is based on the story of a woman who has lost her home and livelihood now facing the greatest challenge of all as she faces losing the man she loves, her partner, soul mate, etc. etc.to a devastating illness. A battle to keep him alive against all odds, against medical opinion, against the world...okay, I’m over egging it, but that is how the text reads. It has quite an emotional pull and I’m sure that many readers can empathise with someone in this situation. But the narrative is based upon two lies. The knowledge of the diagnosis and its severity. Without those two things, the struggle does not have the same emotional heft.
I think Penguin recognised this and the question remains as to how much, having recognised a potential cash-cow, they helped to shape the narrative of TSP. The back cover blurb of TSP reinforces both of the lies mentioned here: “Just days after Raynor Winn learned that Moth, her husband of thirty-two years, was terminally ill,…”. So it is clear that they knew what would pull in the punters. Even more reprehensibly, the back cover blurb for TWS (which my better half also presented me with) states that before the walk described in TSP “Raynor Winn was told her husband was dying” and that the journey “had saved Moth’s life.” This is quite remarkable and, in my view, marketing this as a true story amounts to both the Walkers and Penguin knowingly perpetrating fraud on their readers.
As I say, I hope this is useful. I am happy for anything I have said here to be corrected. For my part, I’m just glad to get it off my chest.