So, I’ve read it. The most self-obsessed thing I’ve ever read, and dangerously boring. Noticed lots of florid language and middle-class-friendly references.
Few points of note: the original blog said she wore grotty Oxfam clothes to the publisher’s posh offices in The Strand, and was overwhelmed and intimidated by pictures of That Man being everywhere. Now she says she had to save up enough money to buy something suitable to wear there, and there is zero mention of That Man.
I have an interest in statement analysis, aka forensic linguistics, and noticed that she was unable to “commit” to her tale of overdosing or planning to overdose on pills. Notice that she heavily implied it, but she wasn't able to outright state it using appropriate first person pronouns. She dances around it but can’t actually say it, because outright lying stresses the brain (even Jack’s!). Instead liars will lie by omission, by implication, by weasel wording, or by excessive language (which functions as a distraction for the reader, and weakens commitment to the statement from the writer.)
Finally I agree with what a previous poster said: even if true, the whole thing would still be utterly irrelevant. What you (chose to) experience 7-8 years ago has no bearing on poverty today. The country has changed. And you’re no longer in poverty. There are many other people this has happened to. She should have mentioned more relevant examples of why it’s not always worth the time to buy fresh food. And god forbid, included anyone else’s experiences.
triangulation
I didn't have children at the time, and instead of being traumatised for years by my brief experience, I made sure it never happened again, and in a way it made me try even harder to be stable and careful financially. Seriously Jack, you need to stop milking it. It was a long time ago
