You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
I read the book when it came out. I thought it was an OK summer read and human interest story, especially as we've walked chunks of the SWCP so could identify with the geography of it. We also watched the film recently but found that a bit meh.
Seems key aspects of this "true story" are more story than true and that there is a bit of a dark side to the author and her partner. Maybe I'm naive and the last to realise this, but admit I was taken in by the whole yarn.
More than a bit fishy eh! No happy feet in the Penguin camp I bet.
Read the article, seems like a nasty piece of work tbh. CCJs all over the place and a property in France when they were “homeless”??
Also the books seem to be just a repetition- hubby not well so we went for a walk & he got better! So much so he’s living far beyond what’s expected with his condition.
The relative that lent the money because “no relative of mine will go to jail” sounds equally lovely charging 18% interest.
Some of the little tales in that book felt far fetched to say the least. The one where she turns up in a new town and immediately plays cupid between two shy teens working in shops on opposite sides of the road seemed particularly unlikely. It was written as if she was some sort of fairy going around sprinkling magic dust about the place. It was mainly the author's unbearable, holier-than-thou arrogance that made me put it down in the end. Think I got about half way through. Must admit I doubted my own judgement, since so many people seemed to like the book. But having seen that video I now feel vindicated, so happy days!
Read the book, then started the follow on, but got fed up with her 'mums' death in detail - been through it ourselves, so this just stopped me carrying on. I'll watch the video above. They have been on telly going on about how bad things were, but let's see what my opinion is after above.
Blimey, watched it now.
Do we trust the Observer?
Do we trust the Observer?
Any reason not to? Raynor Wynn/ Sally Walker is not short of a few quid now and has every right to challenge in court if it's not true. Maybe even with Penguin's backing. I don't see what the Observer would have to gain if it isn't true?
Any reason not to?
Just a general mistrust of the media - the book's been out seven years, now all of a sudden it's been turned into a film and loads of grievances suddenly arise? Why weren't they pursued earlier?
I dunno - I thought it was a lovely book, and now a paper's shitting all over it, and I don't want to believe it's all nonsense. But then, I believed Lance right up until the Oprah interview, too. 🙁
Do we trust the Observer?
You can trust their lawyers to not have let them publish all this if it was nonsense
Just a general mistrust of the media - the book's been out seven years, now all of a sudden it's been turned into a film and loads of grievances suddenly arise? Why weren't they pursued earlier?
Because no-one really investigated it much earlier?
It's a bit like that bloke in the canoe story. Guy goes "missing" while out kayaking, all seems like a tragic death at sea, life insurance pays out.
And then over the years, everything gradually unravels and it turns out he's faked his death, collected the life insurance and is living in the attic at his home, unseen by anyone except his wife.
Same with the Captain Tom story - all seems nice and innocent and gradually (quite quickly in this case) the money-grabbing nature of his daughter becomes apparent.
Because no-one really investigated it much earlier?
Well, the suggestion is that the police were involved and nothing happened?
I guess we'll find out if there's any action over the breach of the alledged NDAs.
Why weren't they pursued earlier?
Because no one else bothered digging into the story. Might even be the film publicity had the journalist thinking "thats a nice sounding story so will read it this winter" before going "actually might be a story here".
Whilst the observer is a newish outfit (with the current owners) I cant see their lawyers not carefully double checking the claims.
There was a non disclosure agreement tied to the return of the considerable amount of money stolen initially. This money that was returned was borrowed from a relative, it was when it was required to be repaid that the repossession of the house took place.
There was a change of name too which does tend to hide a person’s identity - for a while!
When my wife read the book she said the whole narrative around the walk healing his condition smelled a bit like the ‘I don’t need chemo, I’ll just drink fruit juice’ type of quackery. Not surprised that the rest of the story is bollocks too
I read the book a last year and enjoyed it.
All the court case stuff at the beginning of the book I guess was skimmed over and whilst it was the reason for the walk it set up the story of loss combined with his sickness.
i do like it though when a good story is unpicked by investigations.
I'll watch the film when it ends up on terrestrial TV, for the scenery and hopefully with a better understanding of the characters involved.
Since so many people seemed to have enjoyed it, I tried reading it a few months back. I found her so annoying I had to put it down after about 50 pages.
I read the article and wasn't surprised. Like others, my first thought was that the lawyers wouldn't have let them publish it unless they had the receipts.
You managed 50 pages? I struggled through till about 45.
As a Guardian online subscriber I ventured on to the Observer site for the first time last week.
Yesterday was a bit of an eye opener and my first thought was they needed to bung a big rock into a pond to make a splash to let people know the Observer existed.
Yes, that was an interesting article. I started reading the book after an enjoyable 'Folk on Foot ' podcast featured it but, like others above, gave up quickly. I just didn't believe it. But then I think Dervla Murphy's 'Full Tilt' was liberally dosed with bullshit, too.
The 'story' has hit some of the tabloid papers.
Yesterday was a bit of an eye opener and my first thought was they needed to bung a big rock into a pond to make a splash to let people know the Observer existed.
Yeah I had to ask mrs750 if it was a daily mail or a guardian type paper before I went in to read it
Tortoise media do seem to be taking the Observer downmarket. I really don't understand why the Guardian group sold it. Hmmm, off to complain about this in another thread.
I read the original book a few years ago and enjoyed it. So many travel books end up being "we walked a bit and it rained, then we camped, next day we walked a bit and I got sore feet but it didn't rain as much."
This one was much better and more varied but I always assumed there was a degree of fiction in it. Bi enjoyed the next two books as well.
Mrs Elbrus listened to the original as an audio book which was read by Raynor Winn and said she liked the book but ended up really disliking the author.
It's a shame if they are fraudsters, I didn't see that coming at all.
It's a shame if they are fraudsters, I didn't see that coming at all.
That about sums it up for me. I do smirk at all those with 20/20 hindsight "I sussed 'em as wrong 'uns from the off". Not on here I hasten to add, but some of the claimed retrospective insight online is laughable.
I read the original book a few years ago and enjoyed it. So many travel books end up being "we walked a bit and it rained, then we camped, next day we walked a bit and I got sore feet but it didn't rain as much."
This one was much better and more varied but I always assumed there was a degree of fiction in it. Bi enjoyed the next two books as well.
Mrs Elbrus listened to the original as an audio book which was read by Raynor Winn and said she liked the book but ended up really disliking the author.
It's a shame if they are fraudsters, I didn't see that coming at all.
I agree. It was an enjoyable read. She didn't try to make her own character out to be particularly personable, or sociable, and I thought there was an interesting narrative about being homeless, which now may be entirely fictional and manipulative. Of course there were obvious fictional parts, Moth being mistaken for Simon Armitage everywhere they went is a stand out. He looks nothing like Armitage, so I thought maybe that it had happened once and been expanded for comedy effect.
I'm not going to pretend that I thought the whole story was made up - did they even walk the path, I'm wondering now? - but I wasn't sure how a couple who obviously had some money behind them could become homeless so quickly and have no help at all from friends and relatives. The other two books were rubbish, though!
Penguin now claiming they did all the relevant due diligence. Obviously they didn't dig too deep, otherwise they would have likely uncovered one of the many spurious 'facts' in the book.
Penguin now claiming they did all the relevant due diligence. Obviously they didn't dig too deep, otherwise they would have likely uncovered one of the many spurious 'facts' in the book.
What they actually said is that the authors basically signed a 'honest, it's true' and got a solicitor to read through, then before the film they had no complaints.
They did not actually do any phoning round, checking of business or addresses, etc
Penguin now claiming they did all the relevant due diligence. Obviously they didn't dig too deep, otherwise they would have likely uncovered one of the many spurious 'facts' in the book.
TBF, I am not sure how much checking they could be expected to do – they state they have a process for fact-checking non-fiction books before release (and this was also done by their lawyers). I assume publications are mostly checked on a good-faith basis to try to spot obvious untruths, not investigative fact-checking of every potential book. I believe they also have a contract to cover themselves in such instances so Sally Walker may find herself having to find another large sum of money to pay them back all the fees and royalties.
Sally Walker may find herself having to find another large sum of money to pay them back all the fees and royalties.
maybe she can then go on a walk and write about it!
I was encouraged to read it when it came out. It was so dull all the way through, then he got better, the end. Just didn't like it, and found it all a bit hollow. Does not surprise me that they may not be what they seem.
maybe she can then go on a walk and write about it!
😎
I believe they also have a contract to cover themselves in such instances so Sally Walker may find herself having to find another large sum of money to pay them back all the fees and royalties.
I would have thought anything like that would have expired? Penguin will have long ago made their money back on it.
The film makers, maybe. But again presumably they'd have to demonstrate a loss which is hard when it didn't do well critically anyway.
There won’t be a court case. Observer employ good lawyers and check their sources. It’s posturing and the truth looks a lot less palatable than the puff. I haven’t read it nor watched the film. But I grew up close to the path.
I would have thought anything like that would have expired? Penguin will have long ago made their money back on it.
But surely they want more than just their money back - they want to turn a profit on their investment and this revelation means future sales are likely to tank.
That about sums it up for me. I do smirk at all those with 20/20 hindsight "I sussed 'em as wrong 'uns from the off". Not on here I hasten to add, but some of the claimed retrospective insight online is laughable.
Well, quite. I enjoyed the book but I'm not overly invested in the author being a liar or not. Which seems to put me at odds with most of the noise.
I enjoyed the book but I'm not overly invested in the author being a liar or not.
I bet you enjoy reading all the Lance Armstrong books too 🙂
She's come back at it.
https://www.raynorwinn.co.uk/new-page
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c89eq12qvl5o.amp
Haven’t read the book. Hard to believe that of over 600 pages of notes this was the best movie version imaginable.
I was generous about it. https://prettygreenparrot.wordpress.com/2025/06/14/the-salt-path-is-long-winding-and-purposeless-5-10/
I bet you enjoy reading all the Lance Armstrong books too 🙂
I haven't read any of his books so can't offer an opinion on their merits.
Just rename it
The Pinch of Salt Path
Duplicate
Only just picking up on this as I don’t participate follow the news. Any story told often has a version of the tellers or authors version, some twisted truths and exaggerations. It’s hardly a revelation that another wouldn’t be accurate. I mean there was once a story about a guy who could walk on water and come back from the dead.
It's a shame if they are fraudsters, I didn't see that coming at all.
TBH part of being a successful fraudster requires being able to tell a good story 🙂
Enjoy the book if it’s your thing and you like the story, it was written as a piece of entertainment so treat it as such.
Just don’t expect entertainment to be wholly factual 🙂
Enjoy the book if it’s your thing and you like the story, it was written as a piece of entertainment so treat it as such.
Just don’t expect entertainment to be wholly factual 🙂
Exactly this. I read a short way in and didn't enjoy The SP so gave up. Mrs timba read all three books
The point for her is that this has probably turned a chunk of her fans off reading her other books and watching the film. It also has potential for expensive legal stuff from one side or another
Haven't read the book, went to see the movie - wife has a crush on Gillian Anderson, who can blame her? I agree with @prettygreenparrot review, it was all a bit...so what? The essential/central premises is still more or less the truth; They lost their house, they went on a long walk, and the husband's ill. It's still just not that interesting at the end of the day
The essential/central premises is still more or less the truth; They lost their house, they went on a long walk, and the husband's ill
Thats the real rub, Is he faking it all!?
The 'is he actually ill' thing is probably the main thing.
The other thing is claiming to have been made homeless when they still owned a house in France.
I read a book called One Man and His Bike where a guy quit his job and cycled around the entire 5000 miles of UK coast (more or less). It was pretty good and didn't really seem like it needed any extra medical diagnoses or foreclosures to make it worth reading.
Maybe she just thought writing about going for a walk would be boring. Which is stupid. Hasn't she heard of Lord of the Rings?
The essential/central premises is still more or less the truth;
If they were 'homeless' in this country but not actually through lack of assets, that casts doubts on any conversations about their homeless status while doing the walk. It's one of the key points in the book - peoples' attitudes to them - and also important enough that it's mentioned at least once in the trailer for the film. Take that away and there is almost no story other than Moth's illness and his miraculous recovery, and it looks like that's a fiction as well.
Fiction is fine, but she's taken money based on it not being fiction, and built her current status - acclaimed author, long distance walker, charity helper - on lies. I think people are entitled to feel a little disgruntled at being taken in.
Thats the real rub, Is he faking it all!?
According to the Observer, there are letters from NHS specialists published on her website that seem to suggest that he has the condition, although it's clear that he's 'atypical' or may have another closely related disease. I don't think he's faking it, but it does look like it's not nearly as bad the vast majority of CBD sufferers.
Not read it, no comment. However as a long distance wallker I've thoroughly enjoyed the following films of walks I've done but people wouldn't be interested in reading about, not even you lot - pure fiction but faithful to the spirit of the walks:
Compostelle:
The Way, most but not all of the footage is on route and the things that happen in the film have happened to us or other pilgrims we've walked with except the lightening strike.
St Jacques la Mecque, rom com with well-known cast in streotypical roles. Remove brain, enjoy - all filmed on location on the walk.
Stevenson:
Antoinette dans les Cevennes, happy tale but without blisters or the real difficulties. Junior thought it crap, Madame wasn't Taken in but I envoyed it.
Poops thread for a true life motivational walking adventure.
The other thing is claiming to have been made homeless when they still owned a house in France.
If you look on her website at her statement the house in France has no roof, fallen walls and is mostly brambles. When they tried to sell it the estate agent said it was worthless.
She also posts letters from NHS consultants where Moths condition is discussed. There seems to be no debate that he had the condition but it is atypical.
This looks more like a hatchet job by the Observer to cash in on the media coverage of the film.
If you read a book like The Salt Path and believe every word is true with no embellishment you are naive. If you belive every word you read in the media you are an idiot.
This looks more like a hatchet job by the Observer to cash in on the media coverage of the film.
It might be a 'hatchet job', but importantly is it true? Sure, it's OK to write fiction but if you're writing a true story about real people then is it not important to get those facts right, and if you've been 'evasive' with those facts and importantly made a small fortune (I saw estimate of $1-2M) of it, is it not fair game for someone to call it out. I mean, if it's not true then she'll make another sum in libel settlements.
Another question, what will the Observer actually make from this? It's read in the main on free to view internet, and now every other outlet is reporting on the report. I know there's at least one journalist (maybe ex) on here - I know it 'sells newspapers' but who's actually doing the buying?
If you read a book like The Salt Path and believe every word is true with no embellishment you are naive. If you belive every word you read in the media you are an idiot.
More or less of an idiot than someone who 'accidentally' embezzles £64,000 from their employer?
Yeah, it's very possible the French house was/is 'worthless'. However, I'm not sure if we're dealing with the most honest and objective witness, somehow.
So the Observer now accepts that he does have CBD/CBS and the house in France isn't the one they showed a video of.
The Observer is being pretty cute about this. The guy who says they still owe him £400k doesn't mention the loan which was secured on their house had 18% interest on it! 18% on a secured loan - that marks him out as a wrong 'Un already for me. All the initial reporting was "we went and spoke to this person and this is what they said". AFAIK if they claim they were reporting other people's opinions in good faith then a successful libel claim is very difficult to achieve. That's very different to reporting "Salt Path man didn't have CBD" as then they are reporting it as a fact.
None of us here know the truth about the walk but it's probably embellished. She has admitted the £64000 charge but that came before any of the events in the book and the rest of the Observers claims that he wasn't ill and they weren't homeless have been shown to be false.
I'm really not sure why people are hitting on them so much.
So the Observer now accepts that he does have CBD/CBS
Not sure how you took that from what they wrote. As per their original article they stated "nothing to contradict Walker’s claim to have been diagnosed with CBS/CBD."
Logic would tend to suggest this atypical case is so atypical then it might not be the thing in question. They further point out the claims she makes about walking improving things is something there is absolutely no support for.
That's very different to reporting "Salt Path man didn't have CBD" as then they are reporting it as a fact.
Which they didnt. So why are you making shit up?
On the £9k/£64k; as I read it the company spotted a sum missing and very quickly uncovered about £9k. Which was quickly admitted and promised to be repaid. Seems though that wasn't the total, that was found to be £64k after a proper investigation. When she turned up sobbing and offering to repay it, had she somehow forgotten about the rest? Or thought that paying back £9k might avoid them looking any further?
On the loan and interest, her own statement says:
"He said he didn’t have it but offered us a loan through his company. We agreed. Because the loan was coming from his company, he said it had to follow the company’s standard loan terms: 18% interest, which he would cover, and a charge on our home in his name"
Now, the claim is also that they'd put money into the relative's business previously, which had gone bad because the relative had been sparing with the real facts about the viability of the business. So when it came to trying the repay the money they'd nicked and associated costs they'd asked first for their money back, and then when that couldn't be given back the offer of a loan was made. But the reason they needed the money was because of the theft, exacerbated by an investment going bad, not because of the investment going bad alone.
So the relative might be a bit of a wrong'un for being a bit sparing with the truth about the investment (do your due diligence!), less so for the interest rate bit. I'm not finding a lot to like about a few of the characters involved, from what I read.
TBH I’ve always noticed that people not telling the truth seem to engineer really convoluted porky pies :-).
As opposed to remortgaging and not being able to pay.
I'm really not sure why people are hitting on them so much.
I guess there's the main thing and then there's the other stuff.
We live in a time where medicine and science in general are under attack. From the sound of it there are three possibilities with Moth's illness. The first is it's completely made up. The second is it's something else. The third is that he's an entirely unique case.
It seems unlikely the walking helped. And yet that seems to be what we're supposed to come away with.
This is not the time to be 'overstating' your illness to sell books, particularly if yours may be a 'unique' case, and especially not suggesting some sort of alternative treatment.
Just look at the kids currently dying because they didn't get the MMR vaccine:
Everything else is kind of supporting the idea that she is someone who is being economic with the truth. Maybe there isn't a smoking gun but there is more than enough to suggest this is someone who is happy exaggerating to the point of lying.
Anyone who doesn't understand why it's important to go after people who are promoting 'alternative' health treatments, even if it's tangentially, in order to write an inspiring story is being willfully ignorant of the world we are currently living in.
Which they didnt. So why are you making shit up?
From the original Observer article:
Prof Michele Hu is a consultant neurologist and professor of clinical neurosciences at Oxford University. She says Moth’s presentation of CBD does not tally with anything she has seen in her clinical practice.
“I would be very sceptical that it is corticobasal. I’ve never looked after anyone that’s lived that long,” she told me. Another neurologist said that Moth’s history with CBD “does not pass the sniff test”
I read that as a very strong suggestion that "Salt Path man didn't have CBD". And they now accept he does, or at least he has a diagnosis of CBD/S which may be a misdiagnosis.
Brucewee - you are absolutely right. The current scepticism about modern medicine is extremely worrying. The thing here though is there isn't any medical treatment for CBD so it's not like they are saying "don't have the treatment, don't take your drugs, go for a walk instead". The message I got from the books was that if you have this condition you might as well go for a walk because there is nothing else but a slow, unpleasant death.
I read that as a very strong suggestion that "Salt Path man didn't have CBD"
I do too but the observer hasn’t changed their opinion - the original observer article acknowledges there is a diagnosis (see also nickc’s post at the top of the 2nd page) - both articles are questioning the diagnosis because CBD typically gets you within 6 years and is irreversible - this fella seems to have been pretty fine for 18 years and gets better when he goes for a walk - a fair point imo.
"Salt Path man didn't have CBD"
They didn't say that. They presented the evidence, and pointed out that that evidence made it unlikely that he had CBD. There is a huge difference between making a categorical statement and presenting evidence that allows the reader to make a judgement.
On the illness thing we've met a few people on caminos who were there as therapy one way or another. Burnout, depression, career in tatters, reformed alcoholic, cancer, separation, handicap, something terminal... . We walked with an 80s star shortly after they'd got an all clear after cancer treatment for something in their head - all very zen after a typically chaotic star's existance.
So even though I haven't read the book the idea of walking and feeling better for it I can relate to. People can feel better even though their illness is progressing because their state of mind and fitness are improving.
Try it. If you're physically able enough fill a rucksack with enough to keep you alive and go walk somewhere for a month. Report back and tell us if you feel better or worse at the end. Even if you have no worries and nothing wrong with you I venture you'll feel better.
Will it triple my life expectancy?
I don't think anyone is arguing walking isn't good for you. This goes a bit beyond that and that is the problem.
This story is sailing a little too close to Belle Gibson's (where apparently you could beat brain cancer with a healthy diet and make a shitload of money doing it) for my liking.
Triple? no idea Brucewee, it might do better than that if your current lifestyle is set to kill you in the next year and the walk radically changes that. 🙂 It strikes me that CBD is hard to diagnose reliably and can easily be confused with other illnesses so the original diagnosis could have been wrong - but diagnosis there was and that part of the story is in good faith.
Sure, diagnoses can be wrong. However, if you end up making a shitload of money out of a wrong diagnosis that raises my suspicions.
You add that and her 'mistake' that ended up with £64,000 in her bank account and I'm less inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt.
Perhaps these were all just a series of unfortunate mistakes that ended up being very profitable but given that there's no danger of them being homeless now I don't think there's anything wrong with not giving them anymore oxygen just to be on the safe side. Who knows what deadly disease they will find a cure for next.
So don't buy the book or any of the other motivational stuff on the Net or the shelves of WH Smiths. Somone above compared with the Lance books. I was anti-Lance from the day he tested positive for cortisone (just as a test became available) and claimed it was his bum cream. The books I didn't read but they sure got a lot of people on bikes.
It's just some books which are economical with the truth just like every cycling/mountaineering/ sport book I've ever read in my life. Would you write a book about your life with all the embarrassing bits ? I wouldn't.
I'd cut them a bit of slack over the illness. The book was written in 2018 about events a few years earlier so the diagnosis was nowhere near the 18 years post diagnosis survival that appears to be the case now. Maybe the diagnosis might now be wrong but it was made in good faith at the time and they had no reason to not believe it. When the book was written "Moth" was still in the window of expected life span post diagnosis.
For me, the biggy is the chain of events that lead to them being evicted from their home. Glossed over in the book as them being liable for debts outwith their control in an investment gone bad by a friend who then turned on them. In reality the chain of events that lead to that was caused by their own dishonesty and fraud. It began with them stealing £64K. Although they paid it back, it was only because they were caught. The couple they stole from had to sit back and and watch the book become a best seller without discussing any of that and them being unable to mention it because of a legal NDA.
One of them has since died and it's claimed (believably imo) that they both suffered considerably as a result of being defrauded by Winn and partner whom they had considered to be friends. How many people would have read the book if they suspected any of that?
Would you write a book about your life with all the embarrassing bits ? I wouldn't.
No but I, like you (I imagine) have never stolen tens of thousands from friends, covered it up 'til caught and then spun a web of lies to make out it was just a bad investment.
It's not like forgetting to mention you got caught shoplifting a copy of the Beano from the corner shop when you were 10.
Whatever the details of the theft, she was questioned and not charged, and the case settled with the employer.
Duplipost. 🙁
So don't buy the book
That advice is a little late after the book became a bestseller, was made into a film and made the poor, destitute author into a very wealthy person. I'm more annoyed that I read all three of her books - there are too many good books for me to read in one lifetime and I've wasted three! 😀
Maybe the diagnosis might now be wrong but it was made in good faith at the time
That's the second time I've read that on this thread. Why would the illness be any more 'good faith; than any of the other mistruths?
That's the second time I've read that on this thread. Why would the illness be any more 'good faith; than any of the other mistruths?
Because there is strong evidence for the other stuff - theft/fraud etc. but even the Observer who broke the story don't dispute that Moth Winn was diagnosed with CBD. That fact that he has gone on to outlive anyone else with that diagnosis may cast some doubt on it's validity when made, but that's down to the diagnosing specialist, not the Winns.
but even the Observer who broke the story don't dispute that Moth Winn was diagnosed with CBD.
Isn't it that they can't dispute his diagnosis unless they see his medical records so it's all good faith? Or have the medical records been made public, or his consultant stood in front of the media and confirmed it?
I honestly don't know. Although there is sufficient other evidence that they are a pair of shysters, there isn't any that I've seen which proves he didn't have such a diagnosis. Doesn't mean he didn't of course, just that neither the Observer nor anyone else can prove it in the way their theft/embezzlement can be proved.
Medical records are rightly considered to be highly confidential. I can't imagine a situation where I would want to share mine. Whatever suspicions people may have (and which I might share), I don't think Moth Winn can or should be compelled to make his medical records public.
It would also be unethical (and possibly illegal?) for a consultant to discuss medical in confidence info about a named patient in the public domain.
I'm betting that most travel books of the walk / cycle around etc. that sell in any numbers have a large element of falseness to them. "I just happened to bump into the King who was having a wee..." or "After five minutes I was invited in to spend the night with her in the remote cottage..." Especially the ones where such unlikely events happen daily, and continue to do so for the whole book. Most if not all people accept this as it keeps the story going, and the story teller is probably a nice person who entertained us just for a tenner and the suspension of our disbelief. Perhaps Moth and Winn are just not nice people, full on grifters, and upset the wrong person at the wrong time?
I'm betting that most travel books of the walk / cycle around etc. that sell in any numbers have a large element of falseness to them.
Yes, but most don't try to convince you your incurable terminal disease can be cured by walking.
It's not so much the false hope. It's people who have similar conditions being encouraged (often far too strongly) to just get out and walk in nature by well meaning friends and relatives because it caused Moth's symptoms to go into remission. Reluctance to do so is seen as being weak willed and/or enjoying being a victim.
Like I said, now is not the time to be playing fast and loose with the truth when it comes to 'cures'.
I'm not sure why we have to give them the benefit of the doubt when we know she was a thief and a liar long before there was any supposed diagnosis.
If they want to go into obscurity with their millions then fair enough. Worse things have happened to people than to not be able to make even more money.
Yes, but most don't try to convince you your incurable terminal disease can be cured by walking.
I don't particularly think she did, only that it seemed to help Moth.