JAN WONG IS WRONG

More than once. And in big ways.

I'm wrong a lot. But that part is not so bad because usually I'm wrong in my assumptions like "No, I don't need to buy eggs" (whoops, fridge eggkeeper is bare) or "Yes, I do believe the Globe and Mail reports accurately" (double whoops, Soundgarden is actually one word, not two).

Jan Wong, who wrote "Sound Garden" in Saturday's paper, doesn't stubbornly contend that the seminal Seattle grunge band should be spelled the way she thinks the band should be spelled. Or at least I doubt she does. The fact is we all make little mistakes -- I'm sure she realizes that -- and maybe that was the copy editor's fault anyway. What she does contend in the article is an entirely different mistake. It's one that's not nearly as forgiveable as the little fuck-ups like forgetting to buy eggs or misspelling someone's name. Jan's got much more than that on her hands. She authors a huge conceit about the mind of a killer she's never met! Fiction much? And she fills up the mind of a killer -- someone whom she doesn't know any better than the book behind a cover that she vaguely recognizes -- with ideas based entirely on coincidence. Give her a glimmer of recognition of her long-past episodes in Montreal and she'll tie it to recent tragic events and then ride it for all it's worth. I'd expect more from the palm reader I offered 50 cents to. And this is the crap she stands behind in a "front-page report" with her name on it.

Not good. Very very wrong.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20060916.SHOOTMAIN16/TPStory/TPNational/?query=

I think her hypothesis is wrong, but I absolutely know for sure that her methods are. How about you?