I am not sure why Gerald Clake's "Get Happy" is labeled here and there by Garland fans as "trash". The press gave it almost universal acclaim. For example: The New York Times, states, "He deals with Garland's childhood better than anyone so far" [1999] and the Philidelphia Examiner states, "The last, best and only essential account." Library Journal asserts that Get Happy "could possibly stand as the definitive work of the troubled actress/singer".

I can only ponder that the fans (myself included) being protective of Garland's image and body of work are highly sensitive to further possible exploitation of Judy. Are fans overly sensitive? like GT on Amazon Listmania who calls it "Raunchy, Sloppy, and Mean-Spirited". I have read many, many responses like this from fans. But interestingly not from the press, it is almost always the polar opposite.

Publisher's Weekly states, "Clarke never exploits this volatile material as cheap gossip; instead , he deftly weaves into a detailed, respectful and haunting portrait." Yet, "Get Happy" is listed on Amazon Listmania under the heading of "Texts To Avoid Like The Plague" Really? A plague on your book Mr. Clarke!

What are we to make of the such violent reactions to "Get Happy" from so many fans while Gerold Frank's (family authorized) sanitized accounts of her life are heralded as treasures? Any ideas fellow fans?