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...

And you cannot push your writing into that public space and then claim you're not occupying it, surely?

(Mind yo I have to say that Mr Mosley has brought much joy to the inmates of the Inferiority Complsx in recent months.)

Filming/photography aren't the issues here. Neither is the duty of confidence an employee owes to their employer. I honestly can't see any way in which that batty judge's creation of a privacy law by the back door applies. Sadly for Myerson junior.

sorry it was me, not Xenia, who doesn't know the difference between slander and libel! She was quoting my question to her.

But isn't it a grey area? It's not covered by the press code because it's not journalism, it's a book. Plus people publish their autobiographies all the time without seeking the permission of every member of their family and every casual acquaintance namechecked in the book.

As far as publishers go, authors only have to sign a declaration that their work is not libellous and doesn't infringe copyright - they don't have to declare that they've sought permission of everyone mentioned. Publishers normally only seek guidance/legal advice if there are specific allegations which might not stand up in court.

Constance Briscoe for eg made very, very serious allegations against her family and they took her to court but afaik there was no question there of her having invaded their privacy - only whether the allegations were true.

True that people publish autobiogs all the time. Sometimes it can breach privacy rights:

www.quinlanroad.com/pdf/McKennitt-Privacy-Case-Ends-with-Settlement-PressRelease-O ct5-07-DF.pdf

It is a grey area - a minor cannot be written about without parents' consent.

When it comes to privacy the newspapers will look at what is ' out there' already. So Kerry Katona has punted her kids around the media and cannot suddenly demand privacy for her family. Juliue has certainly put it 'out there' to make a few quid.

As for libel - the allegations in the book would have to significantly lower Jake's standing within the community and be untrue for a successful action.
Although I think (5 years as a SAHM has left me rusty) Julie would have to prove allegations in her book to be true. ie: that Jake hit her etc.

So I think in the case of Naomi Campbell the papers would haacve argued that she is 'out there' and makes her money through the media therefore cannot be an invasion of privacy.

Have I killed the thread? Have I?

Jake isn't a minor any more, though.

No he isn't a minor and therefore could sue for libel if so inclined (I hope he does). You are quite right.

He could get a no-win, no-fee solicitor... (Although acutally he's admitted taking drugs and hitting his Ma, so has no chance.)

Another good review for the book by Jane Shilling in The Telegraph, I see.

www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/books/bookreviews/4978453/The-Lost-Child-by-Julie-Myerson---review.html
May I just ask if anyone on this thread has actually read the book? Not being snide, just interested.

We're not going to buy it, are we, abraid?

Could we get hold of 1 mumsnet copy which can be passed from person to person?

With a few journalists around here I wondered whether a review copy might have wended its way around.

I must admit I probably will buy it. I'm curious. And I have enjoyed her novels.

With a few journalists around here I wondered whether a review copy might have wended its way around.

I must admit I probably will buy it. I'm curious. And I have enjoyed her novels.

With a few journalists around here I wondered whether a review copy might have wended its way around.

I must admit I probably will buy it. I'm curious. And I have enjoyed her novels.

WHy does this keep happening to my messages? I don't repeat myself three times in real life I promise, promise, promise.

I think one or two of our journo/writer posters have read preview copies. But as it has only just been rushed into publication on the wave of all this (adverse??) publicity, most of us haven't.

That must have been what happened to myerson with her 3x denial.

Think I might borrow it from the library, thereby minimising any contribution to JM's pension fund.

me too, edam - I would really like to read it but am buggered if JM will benefit!

Not sure whether I'll be strong enough to read it. I'm sure it would make me weep.

She's a v. good writer at those troubling emotions and I'll bet she'll be good at the one's about losing a child.

But Naomi campbell won as did Zeta Jones and JK Rowling and Max M. In other words nothing whatever to do with libel - those revealing the confidential information or personal data can be sued. Thus Jake had he not consented probably could recover damages from his mother.

Those cases are all about newspapers/magazines/photography, Xenia. Quite different. And all turn on different points - one is about a child, another about a celebrity having the right to sign exclusive deals for pics of her wedding etc. etc. etc. Nothing comparable to this case. And none leading to the creation of a single, simple privacy law. Although if Myerson junior did get a no-win, no fee lawyer to take a case to Judge wotisface, the high court one who is single-handedly inventing a privacy law, it would be interesting to see what he had to say.

I know what you mean Cherryblossoms. I am not denying that her writing can be powerful and persuasive - some part of me would like to read it but again I have huge reservations about contributing to her coffers and validating it in any way. Knowing what I know about the background, it would somehow feel wrong even if I did wait to read a library copy.

I think I would have to slip it into another dust jacket!