|
Why?
To protect artistic integrity? No, because this was biography so there were no characters to be protected. To protect the family? What might they have to hide? Best not to go into that one, maybe. Or to protect the new 'product' i.e. the new authorised biography? I've read my fair share of unauthorised biogs of bands and singers - all of them get published regardless. The Plath biographies have also been published regardless (complete with snippy comments directed towards her 'estate'). Or is it because the biography is a bit pants? I don't think they're that bothered about a low quality bio - the official one isn't that great.
It is an important question - why?
Why? Perhaps because G-K had demonstrated himself to be an arrogant sh!thead? I do think there is a bit of slumbering dragon in the son and executor who once called David Day "more like a burglar than a writer"
__________________
The entire plot of The Lord of the Rings could be said to turn on what Sauron didn’t know, and when he didn’t know it.
|