In an earlier post, I linked to an LA Times article about Kate Braverman. The article painted a picture of a writer who seemed seriously over the top about herself. I'd never heard of her or read her work, so I was rather amazed to hear she thinks of herself as in the canon. I thought maybe the article was a bit of a joke.
Well, no, it's not.
Turns out Kate Braverman has been diagnosed with bi-polar disorder but doesn't take medication because it stifles her creativity. Ok, fair enough.
So, knowing that Kate Braverman is ill (and bi polar disorder is an illness as we all know) why would the LA Times print this? Did they want to make her look like an ego obsessed bitch?
Knowing she has this disorder makes asking her questions about her place in the canon akin to asking Grandmother Snark's opinion about Miss Snark ability as a literary agent and printing that she is the best agent the whole wide world, and most of the known universe-- it may in fact be true but the source is a tad unrealistic.
If Kate Braverman is in fact bipolar, she's not a reliable source of information about herself.
Taking advantage of a person who is ill seems pretty low to me.
I read the article once before I linked to it, and again, after the comments it generated. The information about her bipolar condition is buried deep in the article and never referenced again as the source of the grandiose statements. Bad bad writing, and worse, cruel.