Stalking?..........or Plain Old Bad Judgment

I was sent a link today direct from the New York Times, that featured a story about a new book coming out, called

"In His Sights" (HarperCollins), one of the first full-length memoirs of a stalking victim. She describes a campaign of surveillance, break-ins, severed phone lines and creepy confrontations after her decision to leave "Paul," a charming but distant adventurer with serious relationship issues...."

The author writes under a pseudonym because she fears for her safety......and she does this not after the 'stalker' has quit, not when he's finally locked up......oh no, this fella is still out there....with supposedly vast financial resources, and electronic cunning....

Does this make a LICK OF SENSE TO YOU?



This gal gets my own personal "DUMBASS OF THE YEAR AWARD". (She is a freelance author, btw.)

Now, to my mind- and not by legal definition- a 'stalker' is someone who has a fantasy relationship with someone (usually a celebrity) that is entirely within the stalker's own mind: the stalker has no personal involvement with their target, but is dangerous nonetheless because stalkers are relentless in trying to contact the object of their obsession, and when successful - and when the stalker is rejected, it becomes a potentially deadly situation. Teresa Saldana was a victim of a stalker when her face was horribly disfigured in a slashing incident with her sicko, and just recently- Uma Thurman was able to get her crazy-assed stalker locked up by taking him to court and having his butt incarcerated.

Neither of these women KNEW these men. But frighteningly, the rage that results when reality finally clashes with idealized fantasy is almost always physical.

Kate Brennan (the non-de-plume of said author) not only knew this man, she moved IN WITH HIM- and after his behavior became increasingly bizarre following the brutal murder of his wealthy father. (Hmmmm?? Are we to being led to believe this unsolved murder was....could it be?......Do you have shivers over this implication? ) I believe you're supposed to.

Brennan says she 'understood' his acting out: she is the product of 'an alcoholic home' and was "drawn to 'unbalanced, yet controlling men". Lady.........what happened to you is what I'd call 'bad choice of men'. This is someone you had a relationship with- lived with for 3 years- and then finally ducked out- and admittedly, after the boyfriend became less than enamored and began bringing old girlfriends around. Puh-lease.

Yes yes, the man sounds nuts...but Kate, SO DO YOU.

In ordinary life, women would profoundly regret their own stupidity- and in extreme cases, would take out a restraining order. You've admitted you've never suffered any physical harm from this man-- not since you left him in 1994-- that's fourteen years ago, plenty of time to be strangled if he'd so chosen.

Honey, what you've got...is a 'book', so fine...you're a writer.

Just don't calling it being the victim of a 'stalker'-- what you have is residual and annoying fallout from a poor life decision. If you sincerely felt threatened, I hardly think you'd write a book and then allow an article about it to appear in the New York Times-- not when this threatening fella is so well-connected, and still very much at large.

Is it any wonder the Times chose to stick this story not in the book section-- not in hard news--- but in the 'Fashion' supplement.

('Telling'.....ain't it? )