Glad you mentioned that one! That "book" was so poorly "researched" that the author didn't even realize Lillian Disney was still alive and able to vocally debunk much of its overt sensationalism. Some authors gloss-over the blemishes, some apply their spin to make the person worse than they actually were, some gloss-over the good things in their attempt to make them outright monsters. Bob Thomas claimed the only restriction placed upon him was not to mention that Sharon Disney was adopted (which he stated plainly in the 1994 edition). I admit histories/biographies cannot be written without the biases (good & bad) of anyone involved, often influenced by how they even felt while giving/researching their accounts (not to mention how much time passed since the actual events). One of many examples....I've read firsthand accounts given by Marc Davis of, definitively, the exact same event that still differed on many details. So which was right? We'll never know for sure. Part of my career involves "drilling down," as much as possible, to the historical sources behind what was written to create as accurate an understanding as possible behind events, what was said, and what was meant by those words (without having been there, it'll always be lacking, there could always be new opportunities for further refinement in understanding). My hobby is applying my formal training to studying historical texts regarding the life of Walt Disney, who himself frequently admitted he was no saint, but still has a profound impact nearly 6 decades after his death.