Thank You For Debunking Charles Cross Just Wanted

Thank you for debunking Charles Cross. Just wanted to ask - what were his sources for all the stories of Cobain's cruelty, or did he just pull them from his ass?

Edit - 8/3/2018 - This post is outdated and we were ignorant that Charles Cross doesn’t so much have a vendetta against Kurt (though he’s an ass) so much as him just being paid by Courtney and her team and whoever to paint Kurt in a sensationalistic light to sell copies

It’s no problem. He literally pulled them out of his ass or twisted them beyond disbelief. For example, that turtle/frog story was a complete exaggeration. We also attempted to research the source for the cat/chimney story and there’s no source for it. In the back it says that one of Kurt’s friends is credited within that chapter where its mentioned but it doesn’t specify what part of the damn chapter it is. Not to mention that even if he was credited with it, the story has enough context from Cross to be sensationalized to death. Same with the Bunny/Cat uterus story. 

Because for some strange ass reason, even on his own accord, he has this seemingly personal vendetta against Kurt. Whenever he talks in interviews or from just reading the book itself, he has all of these sections where he makes really damaging jumps that are based on sensationalizing that information. 

Because we’re talking about him recording information from random dudes in Aberdeen that are saying anecdotal things like (this is a made up example btw), “Kurt liked to use bb guns on cans in Joseph’s backyard.”

And Cross crawls in and turns it into - 

“Growing into his more rebellious adolescent years Cobain showed early signs of his tendency towards senseless violence. He would use bb guns on things that he believed would pose no threat to him that he could dominate - starting with taking his baseless vengeance on trash, cans, and sometimes even birds.”

^^ That is EXACTLY how he writes. So you pick up Heavier Than Heaven and you read where this is mentioned and what you take from it is that Kurt is some sort of standard patriarchal male that’s violent and what sticks with you, sensationally, is that he targeted birds, even if birds weren’t mentioned in the original anecdote. You walk out believing that he harmed animals and had the markings of someone “disturbed” and “latently abusive” and would quickly go into the (ableist) pop culture interpretation of a “sociopath”. See what I mean? Just LOOK at what shit like that DID to our inbox that we’ve posted. For WEEKS. For example, Kurt’s friend mentioned that he never had the INTENT to make the frogs and the turtles eat each other. He just mistakingly put them in the same tank. So where the fuck did that written intent COME from?

So he does both. Sometimes he designs entire anecdotes, much like Courtney, or he takes one little thing and props it onto a story that leads the reader into a certain perception of Kurt that makes them dislike him because ‘hating’ a celebrity you once loved makes for a good story that puts money in your pocket instantly and years and years down the line. We also don’t think that the guy even likes him, because even if you found out this information, you wouldn’t OBJECTIVELY make jumps to those conclusions without evidence. 

We’re not talking about John Wayne Gacy here. Like some dude that seemingly seems nice on the outside that has to be deconstructed to ‘reveal’ who he is. We’re talking about a fucking dude that came from a small town that bored the shit out of him, had weirdo interests, that became famous and all that fame and exposure blew his inner conflicts out of control. That was literally it. Not all of this

True Stories : Life of a 20-Something-Year-Old-Secret-Future-Serial-Killer Lifetime channel shit. 

Because the main thing people take away from Heavier Than Heaven is that Kurt is a rapist, person that loves animal cruelty, and hated his life for no reason that was generally unpleasant. 

Who the fuck also does that? Christopher Sanford.

Who writes what? That Kurt is a rapist, person that loves cruelty, and was generally unpleasant. Yet it’s endorsed that Charles Cross is the more credible author. Why? Because that endorsement alters public perception and makes people believe that what he’s saying is true, despite it being the next to the same thing that Nirvana’s fanbase hates so deeply.