Unsurprisingly, the best piece I have yet to read on the Arday affair.
It's such a peculiar moment. The disonnance of compassion for his pain alongside contempt for some of his behaviour is too much for many brains. I posted yesterday on the highly polarised response to his death and got a like from Huw Edwards. A penny for those thoughts.
I was in a train station the other day, delayed, picked up one of the Salt Path books, and was struck by how the writing is not *that* bad. It's not good either, but what I can't fathom is why go to all the effort of writing so much falsehood, reasonably well, and not just writing fiction?
Similarly with Arday, his story was pretty good without any great embellishment anyway. Why all the crap about mystic prophecy? (Incidentally that was cribbed from the TV series Spartacus, apparently, one of the episodes is called Great and Unfortunate Things, and features a wise woman)
I feel this long strange summer will leave many memories, this affair prominent among them.
Huw Edwards, good grief. There's an interesting detail in the Salt Path saga: Raynor Winn had already written an autobiographical narrative (and actually a more honest version of it) as a novel. She self-published it, and it flopped. The public prefers true (or "true") stories to honest fiction.
This is excellent - and I'm glad you raised Salt Path - which was forensically analysed in an observer podcast. I'd add Apple Cider Vinegar too - a Netflix series about Belle Gibson. See also the real life series about the Mum Influencers. These stories were also not ignored. His own memoir put his life into the public arena - to suggest journalists were driven to dissect for reasons other than establishing veracity are unfair. What all these cases have in common is a publishing industry happy to make money as long as someone has a platform.
“He hurt the families of non-verbal children who believed the story of his unprecedented late acquisition of language, and either blamed themselves for lacking the patience and love of Arday’s mother, or blamed their children for their failure to blossom. (For whatever reason, that’s the part that made me angriest.)”
Thank you. I dare not comment about this aspect of the story on Substack, but you are right to be angry, fabulists/pathological liars have certainly hurt families like mine. My son was diagnosed with autism relatively early, at four, partly because his speech was delayed. It was later apparent he was also learning-disabled and he went to special schools (Arday didn’t). There is zero chance of him going to university, never mind becoming an academic. But throughout his childhood, well-intentioned people kept telling us we “just need to believe in him”, “labels are harmful”, “my cousin Tom was also a late bloomer”etc It only really stopped a few years ago - he’s now 21.
Yes, this is an aspect that troubled me. I have taught many autistic students, and I cannot see any one of them resorting to plagiarism and then blaming it on their condition. Far from it - they all tended to be sticklers for following every rule to the letter. It seemed a terrible smear on all autistic people even to suggest such a thing, but no-one seemed to challenge it.
A wonderful, clear-eyed piece; it’s a dreadfully complex case, with so many enablers who won’t be held accountable, because it’s easjer for ‘kind’ people to blame the media. So many unanswered questions, too.
What a wonderfully clear and cogent piece of writing.
The doubling down by Baron-Cohen and the establishment is expected.
There must be a reckoning.
Not the cancellation pigshit the left have rolled around in for 10 or more years (I was on the left - no more). But a rejection of the value put into ‘lived experience’ lest we end up with bridges and planes built from the 2+2 =5 nutters.
Maybe I see it because I'm a "person of colour". A LOT of the oxygen was generated by that petition accusing everyone of racism and the genuinely adoring tone towards someone who we could see was a bit of a fantasist.
I think this article is gross, and seems written to immediately try to soothe any potential guilt that may have occurred from the distasteful video I just watched on youtube.
It is a real shame that after a horrendous occurrence like this, people still feel that getting their word in on the matter is important. The paragraph on suicide is particularly damaging, who is anyone to say that revenge is relevant in this case? Not to mention that speculation of intention is deeply unkind to Arday's family at this time and completely inappropriate. I also can't help but feel that gender has influenced your interpretation and thought process. A man's suicide should not become something to dissect, explain and morally interpret, it is a terrible loss following a detrimental level of suffering.
This article comes across as truly self involved and the description of elements of what happened as “funny” was especially difficult to read. At the end of the day, the whole thing is deeply sad and any journalists who contributed to the story should pause for a while before responding in my opinion. An immediate desire to unpick in this way, seems like your own feelings are being put before the gravity of what this story resulted in. It's shocking, deeply sad, and once again shines a light on the damage that public shaming has on people, what more is there for you personally to say right now other than that?
We can approach complex stories like this with curiosity and compassion. Your article lacks both, even after the worst possible outcome has occurred, and contributes to the damaging black and white attitudes that are encouraged in society.
l understand that you think public shaming is bad, but I don't understand why you think shaming me is different and legitimate, so I suspect that you might not have a fully developed position based on principle here. And, to be entirely clear, I'm not attributing any motivations to Arday: I'm just listing some of the more complicated emotions that can drive suicidality. Personally, don't think that there is a strong public safety argument to be made against reviewing a book and talking about it in the radio, but if you'd like to make it, I'm sure I'd be interested to read it.
Criticising a journalist's article is not public shaming. Do you believe Substack is a space where people must publicly agree with you?
To say that my thoughts on your article are simply that "public shaming is bad" is a simplification. I believe the timing, tone and context of what you said are deeply problematic and insensitive.
I found your video distasteful, not a public safety issue, and I felt that the article was maybe born from that video, which I stand by.
If you don't agree with what my thoughts are, that is 100 percent your truth, but Substack is a place for thought and conversation. To immediately accuse me of publicly shaming you is far-fetched, and, to me, supports my thoughts on the black-and-white ways you may interpret information..
I don't have a problem with you being critical, but given what you believe about journalists' responsibility for harm to Arday, I'm surprised you feel so relaxed about making highly charged accusations against me. Glad to hear you're ok with book reviews though!
My words may feel highly charged, as this situation most likely feels that way for you - because you made a video about him, and then wrote this article, I am not saying this with judgement, just as facts. Yes I felt the video was distasteful in tone, as I do your article but my criticism of your work is not about your character or an attempt to shame you.
The combined response to this story was extreme, and I also don't think being mindful of the potential harm caused by public commentary means that people shouldn't be able to criticise journalists. I am not a journalist, I have no public profile or following and my comments on your article will not be read by many. I believe that journalists should accept and embrace commentary surrounding their work, why would you want it any other way?
Anyway, I've never commented on an article in my life before, but initially I wanted to share that I was shocked by what I read and I'm not sure a back and fourth is proving constructive. I wish you all the best though
I didn't make a video: I made a radio appearance with camera on, it was clipped by the social team. You find it distasteful because you saw it after Arday died, but it was made over a week previously. I don't have the feelings you're ascribing to me: I'm very sorry he's dead, but I don't hold myself responsible, because I've written enough reviews to know that they don't cause suicide. But as you say, journalists are public figures, and legitimate subjects of commentary. So are academics and authors.
Your comments to Sarah Ditum are both strange and unfair--strange because you do the very thing you accuse her of doing (treating your own speculations about her motive as if they are facts, as if you could read her mind) and unfair because you clearly have not read her piece carefully. For instance, you seem to have entirely misread her points about the complexity of suicide. At that point in her essay, she is explicitly moving away from Arday's specific case to broader questions about suicide. She is doing the necessary work of thinking bigger picture about why suicide is such a "complex and terrible form of violence," to quote her haunting phrasing. You seem not to understand that. I think she handles this hard topic with extraordinary sensitivity. And ironically, the link she makes to the sailor lost in the Atlantic actually evokes deep sympathy for Arday's terrible isolation. She does an extraordinary job balancing the hard facts of Arday's misguided choices with real human heartedness towards him as a person. How did you miss that? Nothing in your words suggest to me that you have actually read Ditum's piece with any care or understanding.
Great piece. I felt truly horrible to hear he had taken his own life, but the dizzying speed that the usual suspects have turned their dials back to 'Saint' now that he's dead, and once again returned to dismissing every doubt raised on his work and story, as well as piling in on anyone who commented about it is jaw dropping. It's genuinely horrible that he ended up in such a position, but the honest truth is it's mostly the consequences of his own actions. The newly righteous defense of him would look insane if he was alive...which is a rather odd message to put out when you consider it.
What a writer you are. Brilliant piece.
She really is. Makes me cross.
Unsurprisingly, the best piece I have yet to read on the Arday affair.
It's such a peculiar moment. The disonnance of compassion for his pain alongside contempt for some of his behaviour is too much for many brains. I posted yesterday on the highly polarised response to his death and got a like from Huw Edwards. A penny for those thoughts.
I was in a train station the other day, delayed, picked up one of the Salt Path books, and was struck by how the writing is not *that* bad. It's not good either, but what I can't fathom is why go to all the effort of writing so much falsehood, reasonably well, and not just writing fiction?
Similarly with Arday, his story was pretty good without any great embellishment anyway. Why all the crap about mystic prophecy? (Incidentally that was cribbed from the TV series Spartacus, apparently, one of the episodes is called Great and Unfortunate Things, and features a wise woman)
I feel this long strange summer will leave many memories, this affair prominent among them.
Huw Edwards, good grief. There's an interesting detail in the Salt Path saga: Raynor Winn had already written an autobiographical narrative (and actually a more honest version of it) as a novel. She self-published it, and it flopped. The public prefers true (or "true") stories to honest fiction.
This a brilliant piece of writing.
A brilliant and deeply thoughtful essay. The analogy about the Atlantic is superb.
Huw Edwards liked my comments too. Worrying times.
So you think he's trying to rehabilitate himself via Substack? That's a long shot.
Maybe he just wants to comment. It’s a germane topic.
This is excellent - and I'm glad you raised Salt Path - which was forensically analysed in an observer podcast. I'd add Apple Cider Vinegar too - a Netflix series about Belle Gibson. See also the real life series about the Mum Influencers. These stories were also not ignored. His own memoir put his life into the public arena - to suggest journalists were driven to dissect for reasons other than establishing veracity are unfair. What all these cases have in common is a publishing industry happy to make money as long as someone has a platform.
Best thing I’ve read about Arday, thank you.
“He hurt the families of non-verbal children who believed the story of his unprecedented late acquisition of language, and either blamed themselves for lacking the patience and love of Arday’s mother, or blamed their children for their failure to blossom. (For whatever reason, that’s the part that made me angriest.)”
Thank you. I dare not comment about this aspect of the story on Substack, but you are right to be angry, fabulists/pathological liars have certainly hurt families like mine. My son was diagnosed with autism relatively early, at four, partly because his speech was delayed. It was later apparent he was also learning-disabled and he went to special schools (Arday didn’t). There is zero chance of him going to university, never mind becoming an academic. But throughout his childhood, well-intentioned people kept telling us we “just need to believe in him”, “labels are harmful”, “my cousin Tom was also a late bloomer”etc It only really stopped a few years ago - he’s now 21.
Much love to you and your family, Anna ❤️
Yes, this is an aspect that troubled me. I have taught many autistic students, and I cannot see any one of them resorting to plagiarism and then blaming it on their condition. Far from it - they all tended to be sticklers for following every rule to the letter. It seemed a terrible smear on all autistic people even to suggest such a thing, but no-one seemed to challenge it.
Best thing I’ve read on the subject - well done. Will circulate widely.
A wonderful, clear-eyed piece; it’s a dreadfully complex case, with so many enablers who won’t be held accountable, because it’s easjer for ‘kind’ people to blame the media. So many unanswered questions, too.
What a wonderfully clear and cogent piece of writing.
The doubling down by Baron-Cohen and the establishment is expected.
There must be a reckoning.
Not the cancellation pigshit the left have rolled around in for 10 or more years (I was on the left - no more). But a rejection of the value put into ‘lived experience’ lest we end up with bridges and planes built from the 2+2 =5 nutters.
Manipulator manipulated manipulators.
It was clowns all the way down.
This is a very interesting take- thank you.
Maybe I see it because I'm a "person of colour". A LOT of the oxygen was generated by that petition accusing everyone of racism and the genuinely adoring tone towards someone who we could see was a bit of a fantasist.
Evenhanded and Fair
I think this article is gross, and seems written to immediately try to soothe any potential guilt that may have occurred from the distasteful video I just watched on youtube.
It is a real shame that after a horrendous occurrence like this, people still feel that getting their word in on the matter is important. The paragraph on suicide is particularly damaging, who is anyone to say that revenge is relevant in this case? Not to mention that speculation of intention is deeply unkind to Arday's family at this time and completely inappropriate. I also can't help but feel that gender has influenced your interpretation and thought process. A man's suicide should not become something to dissect, explain and morally interpret, it is a terrible loss following a detrimental level of suffering.
This article comes across as truly self involved and the description of elements of what happened as “funny” was especially difficult to read. At the end of the day, the whole thing is deeply sad and any journalists who contributed to the story should pause for a while before responding in my opinion. An immediate desire to unpick in this way, seems like your own feelings are being put before the gravity of what this story resulted in. It's shocking, deeply sad, and once again shines a light on the damage that public shaming has on people, what more is there for you personally to say right now other than that?
We can approach complex stories like this with curiosity and compassion. Your article lacks both, even after the worst possible outcome has occurred, and contributes to the damaging black and white attitudes that are encouraged in society.
l understand that you think public shaming is bad, but I don't understand why you think shaming me is different and legitimate, so I suspect that you might not have a fully developed position based on principle here. And, to be entirely clear, I'm not attributing any motivations to Arday: I'm just listing some of the more complicated emotions that can drive suicidality. Personally, don't think that there is a strong public safety argument to be made against reviewing a book and talking about it in the radio, but if you'd like to make it, I'm sure I'd be interested to read it.
Criticising a journalist's article is not public shaming. Do you believe Substack is a space where people must publicly agree with you?
To say that my thoughts on your article are simply that "public shaming is bad" is a simplification. I believe the timing, tone and context of what you said are deeply problematic and insensitive.
I found your video distasteful, not a public safety issue, and I felt that the article was maybe born from that video, which I stand by.
If you don't agree with what my thoughts are, that is 100 percent your truth, but Substack is a place for thought and conversation. To immediately accuse me of publicly shaming you is far-fetched, and, to me, supports my thoughts on the black-and-white ways you may interpret information..
I don't have a problem with you being critical, but given what you believe about journalists' responsibility for harm to Arday, I'm surprised you feel so relaxed about making highly charged accusations against me. Glad to hear you're ok with book reviews though!
My words may feel highly charged, as this situation most likely feels that way for you - because you made a video about him, and then wrote this article, I am not saying this with judgement, just as facts. Yes I felt the video was distasteful in tone, as I do your article but my criticism of your work is not about your character or an attempt to shame you.
The combined response to this story was extreme, and I also don't think being mindful of the potential harm caused by public commentary means that people shouldn't be able to criticise journalists. I am not a journalist, I have no public profile or following and my comments on your article will not be read by many. I believe that journalists should accept and embrace commentary surrounding their work, why would you want it any other way?
Anyway, I've never commented on an article in my life before, but initially I wanted to share that I was shocked by what I read and I'm not sure a back and fourth is proving constructive. I wish you all the best though
I didn't make a video: I made a radio appearance with camera on, it was clipped by the social team. You find it distasteful because you saw it after Arday died, but it was made over a week previously. I don't have the feelings you're ascribing to me: I'm very sorry he's dead, but I don't hold myself responsible, because I've written enough reviews to know that they don't cause suicide. But as you say, journalists are public figures, and legitimate subjects of commentary. So are academics and authors.
Your comments to Sarah Ditum are both strange and unfair--strange because you do the very thing you accuse her of doing (treating your own speculations about her motive as if they are facts, as if you could read her mind) and unfair because you clearly have not read her piece carefully. For instance, you seem to have entirely misread her points about the complexity of suicide. At that point in her essay, she is explicitly moving away from Arday's specific case to broader questions about suicide. She is doing the necessary work of thinking bigger picture about why suicide is such a "complex and terrible form of violence," to quote her haunting phrasing. You seem not to understand that. I think she handles this hard topic with extraordinary sensitivity. And ironically, the link she makes to the sailor lost in the Atlantic actually evokes deep sympathy for Arday's terrible isolation. She does an extraordinary job balancing the hard facts of Arday's misguided choices with real human heartedness towards him as a person. How did you miss that? Nothing in your words suggest to me that you have actually read Ditum's piece with any care or understanding.
Great piece. I felt truly horrible to hear he had taken his own life, but the dizzying speed that the usual suspects have turned their dials back to 'Saint' now that he's dead, and once again returned to dismissing every doubt raised on his work and story, as well as piling in on anyone who commented about it is jaw dropping. It's genuinely horrible that he ended up in such a position, but the honest truth is it's mostly the consequences of his own actions. The newly righteous defense of him would look insane if he was alive...which is a rather odd message to put out when you consider it.
The bigotry of low expectations strikes again. His defenders refuse him agency, even in death.
Fantastic piece, superbly observed and written