ForgotPassword?
Sign Up
Search this Topic:
Forum Jump
Posts: 1816
Mar 22 11 10:57 AM
kirbyfanatic wrote: Medieval Guy wrote: 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.I agree, the publishers do need to clarify some things. I mean, I have the TwoMorrows Buscema book, so I'm interested, so an explanation as to why the family wasn't at least consulted should be forthcoming. Allen Smith
Medieval Guy wrote: 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.
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.
Share This