First, there's his attitude toward research. In his acknowledgements in Fault in Our Stars, he lists several sources he consulted re: cancer, and then admitted he "gleefully ignored" them "when it suited [his] whims". Which offends me both as an aspiring writer and someone with several relatives who are trained medical professionals.
Second was his response to criticism. The Daily Mail mentioned his book in an article about books that supposedly glamorize things that shouldn't be glamorized (having cancer, cutting, etc.). And instead of actually addressing the claim, he posted a music video making fun of the Daily Mail (which I won't argue about).
I admit, he's not as bad as say Hamilton or Cassandra Clare, but stuff like that just rubs me the wrong way.
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2014-07-16 01:43 pm (UTC)First, there's his attitude toward research. In his acknowledgements in Fault in Our Stars, he lists several sources he consulted re: cancer, and then admitted he "gleefully ignored" them "when it suited [his] whims". Which offends me both as an aspiring writer and someone with several relatives who are trained medical professionals.
Second was his response to criticism. The Daily Mail mentioned his book in an article about books that supposedly glamorize things that shouldn't be glamorized (having cancer, cutting, etc.). And instead of actually addressing the claim, he posted a music video making fun of the Daily Mail (which I won't argue about).
I admit, he's not as bad as say Hamilton or Cassandra Clare, but stuff like that just rubs me the wrong way.