kirbyfanatic wrote:
I haven't read the book, so can't comment on this.  If the book is inaccurate, that would be horrible and Stephanie Buscema is correct to object to it.
I have seen just a few examples of her art, she is talented.  As a general rule that families should have veto power over someone covering a biographical subject, I'm not in favor of that, however.  It depends on whether the book is a hatchet job or  whether it accurately reflects the truth.
A tough call, really.  I do agree that any book likely would be more truthful if family members were consulted.  Asking the family for information wouldn't mean giving them veto power over content. 
I don't think it's a tough call at all.  If you're writing a book about somebody, you interview, or at least try to interview, the people who knew him.  And nobody is saying the Buscemas should have had veto power; just that they should have at the very least been told that such a book was in the works.

I think it's bad journalism to write a book without trying to find out about the subject.  But worse, it's just plain idiotic.  What could they possibly have lost?  Worst-case scenario, the family would refuse to cooperate, and they lose nothing; best-case scenario, the family does cooperate, and they get a treasure trove of information and material they otherwise wouldn't have had.

I have no clue what their thinking was.  Maybe there is a logical reason to freeze out their subject's family.  But I can't imagine what that reason would be.