And now we're back to the line of thinking that makes no damn sense to me. You're trying to phrase it so it sounds like he's potentially doing something wrong...for getting money from writing a biography. It's not a slam job or an attempt to slander Payton. It's a documentation of his life and some of the things that happened in his life are "negative." The caveat of it being about a "a guy who can no longer defend himself" is clearly an effort to paint the writing and publishing of this book in a negative light and is a completely redundant and ridiculous thing to say. Again, most biographies are about dead people. Pointing out that this one is also about someone who is dead isn't a negative mark against Pearlman or the publishers, and if you think it is, well, quite frankly, you're wrong, and it's a wholly unrealistic expectation. Yes, I get that you don't want to read the book, and that's great. But stop trying to make it sound like the author did something wrong. Your line of thinking appears to be that because others do it, it's OK for Pearlman to as well. I disagree. There are levels of "wrong." I'm not saying Pearlman should be brought up on charges or anything. I am saying that I personally would never do something like this, and it definitely feels wrong/bad/not good -- whatever -- to me. So is it wrong because the author is revealing flaws in a person you admire? What if a biography comes out that would reveal something disparaging about a historical figure, like Abe Lincoln or Ben Franklin? Would that person be wrong for doing so? What about the person years ago who discovered Thomas Jefferson fathered children with a slave? Was that guy wrong for doing so?