jump to navigation

superlative silly phrases and bad timing (bad event followups) do not make a good writer May 10, 2010

Posted by Ruth in Refuting Joan Wheelers statements.
Tags:
trackback

A reader of the book Forbidden Family by Joan Wheeler just emailed me and wondered if Joan o the year of the Space Shuttle Challenger wrong on page 257. So I decided to take a look at page 257. Her mistake is that at the top of the paragraph, she is talking about December 1985. She does jump to January 28, and talks about the Challenger. But she doesn’t clarify that a change in year takes place. A good writer would have. Don’t make your reader search for information in previous paragraphs, it pulls their focus from what you are trying to tell them.

I noticed another writing mistake by Joan throughout the entire book. She has a  propensity for describing hand movements too much.
She has Kathy slapping her thighs. She describes the fictitous visit by Prof. Rene Hoksbergen to my house and I am pumping my arms. lol
Other people are sweeping their hands palm down, palm up to the sky! Try that one: PALM UP TO THE NIGHT SKY. It hurts the wrist. It is not a natural movement. And she was using that in describing a rant and rave by her then boyfriend Jimmy, another sick individual.  He was ranting and she has sweeping his palm up to the night sky. A person who is ranting does not do that.

By the way, she says she first met him in 1991, looked into his eyes, saw his soul, and fell in love. Um, weren’t you MARRIED at this time my dear? You are supposed to love your husband, not some idiot. — Around page 440, she is deep in a relationship with a sicko, who has a violent temper, who even hit his own dog. And she stayed with him. She writes how frightened she was, his outbursts in public places, his degrading comments to her. What woman who professed to be a Woman’s Rights Advocate puts up this shit? oh of course, this is just another way for us to read about it and say, “oh,  poor Joan, look what she had to put up with.” Oh Baloney. Leave the jerk. You stay in an abusive relationship. — Hey, Joan, I thought you said that you looked into his eyes and saw his soul. (neat trick there – I wanna learn it). Anyway, if you had seen his soul, you would have known he was an asshole. lol “seen his soul.” Stop writing such silly phrases. Is this an intelligent book on adoption, adoption reunion, adoption reform, or is it a Harlequin Romance?  

People sweeping their arms and hands around have nothing to do with what she is trying to say. And for the life of me, I can’t figure just what the hell she is trying to say. She is always insulted by something or somebody. (does nothing in this world make her happy?)

Advertisements

Comments

1. Gert - May 10, 2010

I’ve been reading and writing my own posts of every page of Joan’s book and my posts will eventually all get on this blog, it takes time to really digest everything Joan has written, because most of it is falsehoods, misrepresentations and outright fabrications! She is a very sloppy writer and I too wondered about the Challenger, it didn’t seem to fit in on that page, but it wasn’t all that important to my writing, but it does prove that that book was not edited properly, if at all.

Stay tuned I have a lot to say, page by page, event by event, junk by junk, lie by lie, with truth by truth.

We sisters have the right to correct the lies that have been put into print by Joan

2. Gert - May 12, 2010

Husband’s flight or the Challenger?

Having had pg 257 brought to my attention I gave it another closer look. At first and second readings of that page it does appear that what Joan has written is quite plausible but still confusing. But don’t get fooled. She is good at misleading the reader by using clever writing techniques and dramatization that pulls a reader in but that is only good for fiction, and by Joan’s own choice she says this book is a book of non-fiction. Like I’ve said before, you cannot have your cake and eat it too. Is this a book of fiction or non-fiction? If it is non-fiction than dramatization has no place in it, unless it is clearly labeled, as in TV dramatizations of historical happenings are, but nowhere does Joan label anything. Bad presentation!

She starts off the page with it being Christmas 1985, then, rather abruptly, her husband had gotten on a plane that left at 11:38 am on January 28. No year is given so there is an assumption; bad form. Besides the January date being our brother’s birthday, which no one but the family may have caught the significance of the date, again another attempt at dramatization is present. She goes off into a word picture ‘…in my mind. I saw a bright orange explosion with dark smoke…Horrified, followed the plane with my eyes until it flew behind the airport’s buildings…’ At the same moment, dramatization, ‘…little son squirmed out of my arms and ran into the crowd…’ She can’t hang on to a child? Again, dramatization. ‘…found him with about fifty people around TV sets in waiting area…(baby) pointed to TV set screen…’ Such dramatization! I can’t stand the suspension!! ‘…I watched in shock at the billowing smoke plums as the newscaster announced that the Space Shuttle Challenger had just exploded at 11:39 am.’

Wow, what do you, the reader, get from that? That the husband flight and the Challenger were on the same flight path? That they collided? What? But wait there’s more!

After watching the TV for hours she calls her brother who allegedly said ‘what a bummer of a birthday’ and then 2 weeks later she is pregnant. Gee, we go from a huge dramatization of what…a plane her husband gets on that blows up? No, it’s the Challenger! Ok, but what happened to her husband’s plane? At first I’m thinking when she says ‘…in my mind. I saw a bright orange explosion with dark smoke…Horrified, followed the plane with my eyes until it flew behind the airport’s buildings…’ that her husband’s flight was this orange explosion. But then instead she left me, and her husband’s flight, hanging, in mid air and went directly to the Challenger’s explosion and all that drama. Then no further mention of the flight of the husband’s. Bummer of a tale…but a good segue into a second pregnancy.

Moral: read Joan very very carefully!


Sorry comments are closed for this entry

%d bloggers like this: