These AI pictures are fantastic, well done to the people who created them. When I look at the cat herding picture I can hear either the theme music to Bonanza or the film The High Country 😀
The photo of TW's star jump really is an insult to those that do have CBD, I feel sorry for any person with CBD being told by a relative "look what TW can do, you try, you do it, you'll be better for it!" The Walker clan are utterly shameless in their deception.
Out of idle curiosity I have pulled out SW's trilogy (not to re-read, I hasten to add) But to read the quotes and promotional reviews on the covers. I was wondering if any of the reviewers post OC's Observer article and podcast feel that their reviews that were given in good faith at the time of publication are still valid after the expose?
On TSP:
A beautiful, thoughtful, lyrical story of homelessness, human strength and endurance - The Guardian
The most inspirational book of the year. Conveys the human capacity for endurance and the regenerative power of nature - The Times
A tale of triumph; of hope over despair of love over everything - The Sunday Times
etc.
On TWS:
Extraordinary - The Observer [it certainly was, it was completely bogus!]
Notions of home are poignantly explored ... her evocations of weather, landscape, the sea and her love for her partner, Moth ... are wonderful - The Guardian
TWS confirms Raynor as a a natural and extremely talented writer ... so moving it made me cry - Sophie Rayworth
etc
My hardback copy of LL does not have any critic or review comments.
Now post OC's articles, do these glowing reviews have any validity now that tawdry criminality of SW and TW is now revealed. And now the real truth is known and in the public domain (not SW's version of the truth) would the reviewers really want to have their praise permanently linked to a bogus memoir? Could the reviewers either request or insist that their comments or reviews be removed as they were given in good faith of the book being an honest memoir? And by the comments remaining it could be considered a form of misrepresentation or misleading to the book buying public.