Romance novelist who faked her own death reveals what drove her to it

[Hitch]

Originally Posted by ZodWallop

I don't think many have.

On the plus side, maybe she can spin it into a romance novel!

"Where's Meachan?" (a la "Where's Waldo" or "Where in the World is Carmen Santiago" or the like....)

Hitch

[ucfgrad93]

Originally Posted by Hitch

Honestly, she should be bloody shunned. Absolutely and her sales should go through the floor. Actions are meant to have consequences, in any day and age. People can be "cancelled" for speaking their minds today--we don't any longer really have the sort of freedom of speech that we had, 50 years ago--so why shouldn't she lose her privileges, as a 'dead author' now that she's an undead author? Screw that stuff.

Hitch

Agreed. If I read romance novels, I wouldn't purchase one of hers.

[SteveEisenberg]

Originally Posted by ucfgrad93

Agreed. If I read romance novels, I wouldn't purchase one of hers.

I’ve come across no mainstream review telling me she is worth reading. But if that was different, there are several reasons I’d not be influenced in my reading decision by anything other than book quality.

One is that, by the preponderance of the evidence, her misleading behavior was a product of mental illness. (By the way, the preponderance of the evidence goes in the same direction for Agatha Christie in 1926.)

You can’t ever prove what is going through someone’s mind, but I think mental illness, and even what used to be called a mental breakdown, isn’t rare.

Another reason to read is that if the standard is the worst thing a person ever did, a large portion of good authors are going to fail the test. I don’t vouch for everything in this link, but it gives the picture:

RESPECTED WRITERS WHO WERE ACTUALLY TERRIBLE PEOPLE

I don’t think I’m worse than the average human, but have I ever done anything, even long ago, so shameful that it would get me on a do not read list? Could be. If we refuse to read someone because of their publicly known bad behavior, we are quite liable to read someone who is actually, but secretly, worse.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

If we refuse to read someone because of their publicly known bad behavior, we are quite liable to read someone who is actually, but secretly, worse.

It's not about reading (or not) books written by dirtbags. It's about not rewarding known reprehensible behavior. I feel no remorse for reading (and even enjoying) works written by people who keep their bad behavior secret. But when I know better? And they cop to it? I'll reserve the right to refuse to enable them.

[Uncle Robin]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

It's not about reading (or not) books written by dirtbags. It's about not rewarding known reprehensible behavior. I feel no remorse for reading (and even enjoying) works written by people who keep their bad behavior secret. But when I know better? And they cop to it? I'll reserve the right to refuse to enable them.

Besides agreeing with the above, I would add that what I find possibly even more repugnant in this spcific instance is that she is STILL playing the victim - howling that she's been cruelly attacked now the fact that she systematically lied and defrauded people for hr own pecuniary advantage has been exposed.

[meeera]

Originally Posted by ZodWallop

Has anyone read a book by Meachan? I wonder if the stunt increased her sales?.

Increased? No. Can confirm that Romancelandia is thoroughly unimpressed at someone faking her own suicide then raising money from it. There's no excuse.

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

It's not about reading (or not) books written by dirtbags. It's about not rewarding known reprehensible behavior. I feel no remorse for reading (and even enjoying) works written by people who keep their bad behavior secret. But when I know better? And they cop to it? I'll reserve the right to refuse to enable them.

Mostly this I how I see things as well, though it seems to reward an author's hypocrisy and secrecy about his or her past.

But then there's Anne Perry, who, as a teenager, helped her friend violently kill the friend's mother. When this information came out, it seemed especially distasteful to me that someone who'd killed wrote murder mysteries, so I resisted reading any of her books for a long time. Until one day I did, and continued to read her many excellent books.

I can't fully justify this to myself and my sense of ethics, except that the crime happened long ago when she was very young, and she was punished for it.

[DuskyRose]

Originally Posted by Catlady

I can't fully justify this to myself and my sense of ethics, except that the crime happened long ago when she was very young, and she was punished for it.

I think that there has to be some room for redemption, or why would anyone bother to turn their life around? Once that fatal mistake is made, and you're not allowed to atone, correct it, or move on, then what's the point of even trying? People see that they can't get past it, they'd stop trying.

She did her legal time, changed her name, and tried to move on. I don't know if she could have done more. Maybe the family didn't want her to.

But in the 69 years since the murder, she's behaved herself, and found a way to support herself. I have no problems with people buying her books, and have some I hope to enjoy in the future.

[DiapDealer]

Oh, most certainly. Redemption IS possible. But Meachan has not even begun to earn that.

[DuskyRose]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Oh, most certainly. Redemption IS possible. But Meachan has not even begun to earn that.

Meachan, no, I don't believe she's even going to ever admit that what she did to her friends sucked. I would put her on a 'do not buy' list if she was writing in the genre I read.

I was just talking about Anne Perry.

[SteveEisenberg]

Originally Posted by Catlady

I can't fully justify this to myself and my sense of ethics, except that the crime happened long ago when she was very young, and she was punished for it.

My first thought is -- how would I know that there should be an additional penalty beyound what the New Zealand justice system metted out?

There also is the problem of how ex-convicts are to support themselves if people are going to continue to penalize them after their sentence is completed.

As for Susan Meachen, maybe she will be charged with crimes, and maybe not. While U.S. law enforcement isn't perfect, I don't think that I know better what penalty, if any, she should face.

I wonder if readers, who feel that reading decisions are an up or down vote on the character of the author, are only going to read authors whose publicly known character fits into their value scheme. Then reading, rather than opening up the mind to understanding people far different from ourselves, will close it.

So, in my sense of ethics, your Anne Perry reading decision is fully justified.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

I wonder if readers, who feel that reading decisions are an up or down vote on the character of the author, are only going to read authors whose publicly known character fits into their value scheme.

No one here has suggested that reading decisions are an "up or down vote" on the character of the author. I've only seen suggestions that bad behavior (especially when there's no remorse) has consequences. People make personal decisions to read or not read books for a wide array of trivial (and sometimes borderline nonsensical) reasons all the time. Why should personal opinions about the author be exempt?

Reading for personal edification is not something everyone does. Especially later in life. For those reading purely for entertainment purposes, all criteria used to dismiss a book (or an author) are on the table. Be they whimsical and/or unfair.

I, for one, have no interest in an author's character. So long as they keep their character relatively private. Once they share their character publicly, I will use that knowledge any way I see fit. Up to and including choosing not to read (or to read) their works.

[Hitch]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

No one here has suggested that reading decisions are an "up or down vote" on the character of the author. I've only seen suggestions that bad behavior (especially when there's no remorse) has consequences. People make personal decisions to read or not read books for a wide array of trivial (and sometimes borderline nonsensical) reasons all the time. Why should personal opinions about the author be exempt?

Reading for personal edification is not something everyone does. Especially later in life. For those reading purely for entertainment purposes, all criteria used to dismiss a book (or an author) are on the table. Be they whimsical and/or unfair.

I, for one, have no interest in an author's character. So long as the keep their character relatively private. Once they share their character publicly, I will use that knowledge any way I see fit. Up to and including choosing not to read (or to read) their works.

I believe I've said similar things, myself, here. I've said that if we refuse to allow ourselves to read authors whose sentiments, morals, values, etc. don't align with our own and our modern-day own, we'll have bloody nothing to read. How many of today's women would really relate to Austen? I mean, let's get a grip here.

My..IDK, issue? My takeaway with this woman is yes, perhaps she's mentally ill. One has to infer a certain amount of some oddness, to have pulled this off. Sure, the Dame disappeared for some days--not years. She didn't allow people to go to her own funeral and all that. She didn't allow friends and family to grieve, thinking she'd suicided.

Was it, is it, a cry for help? Hell, who knows. She should definitely see a therapist. I'll leave it there.

Nonetheless...even if I did read her genre, which I confess is not my wheelhouse, I think I'd give her a pass. I think that if she were ill; if she'd sought treatment, if she had any self-awareness, at all, around the idea that she's not the center of the universe, the announcement and handling of all this would have been far better-handled. That sort of makes me feel as though it's all some huge joke to her and yes, I'm making that judgement from, no doubt, thousands of miles away with zero information. I admit it.

Hitch

[SteveEisenberg]

Originally Posted by Hitch

Sure, the Dame disappeared for some days--not years. She didn't allow people to go to her own funeral and all that. She didn't allow friends and family to grieve, thinking she'd suicided.

If you mean Agatha Christie, more than one thousand policemen* were assigned to the case, along with hundreds of civilians. For the first time, aeroplanes were also involved in the search. So, if Christie was consciously choosing not to be found, she was wasting a lot of police resources and putting others in danger (and Christie would have quickly known about it from newspapers). Also, she had a 7 year old daughter. Since the daughter was protective of her mother and refused to ever answer press or biographer questions about the 11 days, we don’t know if family grieved, but it is plausible.

Even more plausible is that learning her husband was having an affair, and wanted a divorce, pushed her into a nervous breakdown.

Some people become irrational when under too much stress, and then recover. How long it takes to recover is variable.
____________________
* Gendered language is quoted from my link. I’m sure there were also, at least a few, policewomen.

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by Hitch

I believe I've said similar things, myself, here. I've said that if we refuse to allow ourselves to read authors whose sentiments, morals, values, etc. don't align with our own and our modern-day own, we'll have bloody nothing to read. How many of today's women would really relate to Austen? I mean, let's get a grip here.Hitch

There's a huge difference between avoiding authors because of their values and opinions, and avoiding them because of their outright criminal and reprehensible behavior.