Bret Hart book commentary

Anonymous writes (butchery of the English language left intact):

f you don't agree with the way Bret sees things, that is a commentary the man, not the book. The greatness of the book is that it is uncompromising in telling what the view of the world was from Bret's eyes. The book is an AUTOBIOGRAPHY - not a definative historical account, and it should be viewed as such.

I don't disagree that autobiographies are inherently subjective. But to try to draw some artificial line between "the man" and "the book" is slightly ridiculous. I mean, "the man" wrote "the book." And "the book" is about "the man" who wrote it.

Yes, the greatness of the book was the hard-hitting and uncompromising way in which Bret tells his story.

The failing of the book, however, is what I noted in my original commentary on it. Bret is quick to point out the failings of others, but in the process he makes himself look foolish and immature by refusing to take responsibility for his failings.

As a person gets older, there should be some wisdom of age and experience that better informs how they used to view the world. I do not doubt that, at those particular points in time in his marriage and career, Bret Hart thought his wife was being unfair to him in their marriage. My issue was more that at this point in his life, Bret should be able to see how selfish his opinion was (or still is) and grow beyond that.