Julie Myerson - why am I not surprised that a book has materialised concerning her own son's drug issues?

[glasjam]

Read this is in today's Observer www.guardian.co.uk/society/2009/mar/01/julie-myerson-novel-drug-addiction

Does anyone else have the uncomfortable feeling that I have on learning that she is writing about her son's drug problems? I know that writers often mine their own personal experiences for material but I think she's putting her literary endeavours ahead of her son here. From what I can gather, he is still young, his drug issues are ongoing, and although he is out of the family home, surely this is risking any possible future reconcilliation? I also baulk at the way she "weaves historical research about Yelloly with her disturbing account of her son's ejection from the family home" It just smacks of middle-class-writer angst.

My cynicism is further fuelled by my very strong suspicion that Julie Myerson is the author of Living with Teenagers - but that's another story...

Well I agree that what they've done is utterly appalling in terms of breaching the privacy of their children. However, I really wouldn't want to blame them for their son's addiction (notwithstanding Pater's hair).

Thanks for the link mp - I had been wondering whether she was the LWT author (and I still think she is!).

Yes, Blu, I can see this as something that could be going on in our homes or those of our friends, but I still think the washing-of-dirty-laundry element is hideous. And if she really thinks that writing a book might help other people, as opposed to her other motivations (self justification? money?), why doesn't she wait a while before publishing? She doesn't have to publish it now, before the story is finished, does she, she could leave it 5 years and see if her son has turned his life around by then.

The book and the publicity around it are both harmful, IMO.

Maybe he could SMOKE Pater's hair.

DandyLioness

That's exactly the question Jeremy Paxman put to her on Newsnight last night - if Jake was addled with drugs, then how on earth could he give informed consent to the book?

He kept asking what benefit she thought her son would derive from the publication.She tried the 'but you haven't read my book' tack - but he had. Then when he put to her that Jake had not given consent she went into "I'm not calling him a liar, but he's a liar" mode.

Very oddly, I don't think she referred to Jake by name throughout the entire interview, just kept saying "my boy" which sounded really artificial.

Watch it on Iplayer.

oh goodness she is TERRIBLE on newsnight

just AWFUL

they really should have just said NOTHING

Bettany - re South London. I wasn't serious. OBVIOUSLY S Lond is not the main cause of either drug use or Was an observation on the way facts are being (spuriously) stacked up to prove a cause for smoking weed and family breakdown.

Just to be clear, I am not in support of a writer using her son as material for a book. factual books need to be objective, researched, cover huge anonymous sampls of people. Fiction needs translating into FICTION. Autobiography, memoir etc is obviously so subjective and potentially manipulative that it should only be attempted if the writer cares not one jot for the opinion or ongoing relationship with other protagonists. Jeeez, within literary reference (Philip Roth / Claire Bloom, Julie Birchill / Tony Parsons, Hanif Kureshi...) JM should have more sense than to say she thought that writing the book could bring them closer, or at least do no lasting harm!

I imagine that, if she wasn't the LWT author, the Guardian would have said so, straight out. I'd believe them if they did.
Instead, the comments on the end of Mr M's piece today are peppered with links to LWT.
Hmmm...

Oh I wish they would have her plus son in a face-to-face discussion refereed by eg Paxo. That would be carcrash TV

the comments under JM's article are terrifying

LOL dittany, do you think that would work with ds1 (aged 2)?

"If you don't pull up your pants NOW it's going in my new book!"

Blu, sorry for misunderstanding. That's what happens when you skim read a thread like this in 3 minutes!

mp - many have been removed.

What were they like?

Do you think Jake has been getting his mates to respond?

The terrible thing is that the grisly parents will enjoy an upsurge in book sales as a result of all this hoohah. (He used to write below par thrillers, don't know if he still does). They seem quite desperate in their need for attention (her particularly) and it's just so...unedifying. Begone, Myersons, and stop living your lives through the papers like the cheap, BB wannabes you no doubt despise.

She (and now her husband) just don't know when to stop and appear completely addicted to publicity. Her main complaint on R4's Front Row was that her son had given an interview to the Daily Mail. Well she's spoken to every other media outlet in the UK, he should at least be allowed one outlet to defend himself.

She does appear to be loving all this though, and has brought forward the publication of her book by two months. That's not exactly the behaviour of someone who claims she's worried by the effect of all this adverse publicity on her son, and didn't forsee any of this at all, oh no.....

Yes, I am her, her publisher and her agent are clapping their feet (whilst pretending to mop their brows) and, what is more, the drama of this sullying tale will be grist to her avid little mill for evermore.

The "my boy" thing on Newsnight made me cringe.

I meant I am SURE her, her publisher and agent.

I am her? Please God let that not be Freudian.

lol woodenspoon2

She's so bad on newsnight!
Well done Paxo, didn't let her off one iota, no excuse for this betrayal.
His question about:if your son was drug addicted how could he give rational permission to publish - such a good ethical point!
Narcissism of the woman.

She was so bad I had to turn her off after the first minute or so.

thank god for Paxo. She got a very easy ride from Mark Lawson on Front Row.

Poor poor poor boy. She's totally hung him out to dry and she has no idea that she's done it. Bizarre and deluded act. It's a pity the father is as deluded!
He could have had any future possible if she hadn't done this, if she'd protected his privacy. But now his whole life will be determined by this youthful phase which might have passed in time.