JMBarrie

JMBarrie => JMBarrie => Topic started by: andrew on October 03, 2009, 02:10:47 PM

Title: Piers Dudgeon and "Captivated"
Post by: andrew on October 03, 2009, 02:10:47 PM
I have sent the following letter to Chatto & Windus, publishers of Piers Dudgeon's ridiculous book:

Dear Sirs,

Captivated, by Piers Dudgeon

I have only just caught up with this book, which you published last year. Back in 2005, Piers Dudgeon contacted me, asking for my help in a book he was writing about J M Barrie and the du Mauriers. I told him that everything I had to offer in the way of research was on my website, www.jmbarrie.co.uk, and that he was free to use the extensive database, providing he gave due credit. This he did in his acknowledgements, although I had little idea that he would quote (not to mention misquote) from my material quite so extensively.

On page 23, Dudgeon writes that I offered $10,000 to anyone who could prove that Barrie was a paedophile, in response to having read an article by Alison Lurie in the New York Times Review of Books on 6 February 1975. He goes on to say that this was “possibly an over- reaction, as Lurie had suggested not sexual abuse but that, as the boys grew older, they had become ‘embarrassed’ by ‘this odd little man who looked like an aged child.’” This is typical of Dudgeon’s sloppy research. My offer (to donate $10K to GOSH, not to the prover) was in response to an article in the New York Post in 2004, claiming that Barrie was a paedophile. It was Nico, not me, who was so incensed by Alison Lurie’s “bollox” – which Dudgeon must have read for himself since it comes from one of Nico’s letters to me on my website, from which he quotes so freely. I would ask him/you to kindly correct this in future editions of the book.

I would also ask you to correct the source of several of the illustrations. The photograph of Michael dressed as Peter Pan is not to be found in the “du Maurier Archive, Special Collections, University of Exeter” (as credited on page viii), nor the photo of “his eldest brother George” next to it (the photo is in fact of Michael, not George at all); nor indeed is the photo of “Jim Barrie with his St Bernard” from Exeter – all three have either been ripped from my book or taken from the database on my website. Having bought the originals from Nico in 1979, I donated them to GOSH in 2004, to whom a reproduction fee should have been paid.

Piers Dudgeon is of course entitled to his own opinion, but his book is so full of errors, distortions, half-truths, and his own opinion passed off as fact, that I personally regard it as worthless.

Sincerely,


Andrew Birkin
Title: Re: Piers Dudgeon and "Captivated"
Post by: Robert Greenham on October 03, 2009, 04:13:59 PM
Very well said, Andrew. Let's hope Chatto & Windus heed your authoritative points made so  firmly but politely.

For anyone encountering this issue within the past year or so, and who may not have read early reviews of Captivated, I quote below the last paragraph of Frances Wilson's review in The Sunday Times in which she referred to the book as "wonderfully batty":

"It was Barrie's belief, Dudgeon says, that “people are pegs on which we hang our emotions”. The same might be said of Dudgeon's own approach to biography: people are pegs on which to hang our theories. With its cast of one- dimensional characters and its theme of good v evil, Captivated is more pantomime than scholarship, but while few will agree with Dudgeon's findings, I defy you not to be...captivated."

You can still read Frances Wilson's review here:

http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/books/non-fiction/article4263887.ece
Title: Re: Piers Dudgeon and "Captivated"
Post by: andrew on October 04, 2009, 12:53:59 PM
I sometimes regret ever having spotted Barrie's mistranscription of Sylvia's Will, since it has given writers like Dudgeon ammunition on which to hang their own dubious theories. For those who don't know the background, here is the salient part from Sylvia's Will, as quoted by me in my book:

"I would like everything to go on as far as possible as it has been lately. Twenty-three [Campden Hill Square] to be kept up for the dear boys with Mary (whom I trust with my whole heart) looking after them.

At any time I know friends who love them will come & stay sometimes - one at a time - & see them & be with them for a little just as if I was there. What I wd like wd be if Jenny wd come to Mary & that the two together would be looking after the boys & the house & helping each other. And it would be so nice for Mary.

I would like Mama & J.M.B. & Guy & Crompton to be trustees & guardians to the boys & that Mary & Margaret would give their dear advice & care [...] I would also like the advice of dear Hugh Macnaghten, [...] J.M.B. I know will do everything in his power to help our boys - to advise, to comfort, to sympathise in all their joys & sorrows.

At present my Jack is going into the Navy - if he should grow to dislike it and if there was anything else, I know he (J.M.B.) would do all that was best. I want all the boys to treat him (& their uncles) with absolute confidence & straightforwardness & talk to him about everything. I know he will understand always & be loving & patient. I hope from my soul that they will be happy & lead good lives & be as much as possible like their most beloved father & I also hope that if they marry they will be good & tender husbands & fathers & be with their wives as happy as he & I were [...] They have all been the most splendid & beloved & affectionate & open sons & I know they will go on being affectionate brothers & help each other all they can in the years to come. I do not want my Michael to be pressed at all at work - he is at present not strong but very keen & intelligent: great care must be taken not to overwork him. Mary understands & of course J.M.B. knows & will be careful & watch."


When Sylvia's second Will was found several months after her death, Barrie made a careful, hand-written copy and sent it to Emma du Maurier, adding: "The above is an exact copy, including the words `Sylvia's Will', of paper found by me at 23 Campden Hill Square [...] It is undated, but I do not doubt it to be the will written by her at Ashton, Exmoor, a few days before her death, of which all she told me was `I thought I was dying and I began to write a will.'" Part of the second paragraph, as transcribed by Barrie, read: "What I would like would be if Jimmy would come to Mary, and that the two together would be looking after the boys and the house and helping each other. And it would be nice for Mary." In fact Sylvia had not written "Jimmy" but "Jenny" - Mary Hodgson's sister. The mistranscription was no doubt unintentional, although the word "Jenny" is clear enough, and Barrie can have had no illusions that his presence at Campden Hill Square would be "nice for Mary".

Dudgeon of course creates a veritable mountain out of this molehill, citing it as evidence that "Barrie's strategy was predatory", not just once (pages 195, 196 and 197) but again - as a full page illustration lifted from my book - where he repeats his allegation that "Barrie wilfully" changed the names and "in this way, he made himself guardian of Sylvia's five sons."  Absolute rubbish! If Dudgeon had troubled himself to read the very next paragraph of Sylvia's Will, he would have seen that Sylvia stated clearly and unambiguously, "I would like Mama & J.M.B. & Guy & Crompton to be trustees & guardians to the boys."  Changing 'Jenny' to 'Jimmy' changed nothing!

[Note: both versions of the Will can be viewed in the database]


Title: Re: Piers Dudgeon and "Captivated"
Post by: ecb on October 05, 2009, 05:09:45 PM
I'm so glad you wrote them that letter, Andrew.  I hope you get a reply.

I have always been struck by the fact that people latch onto the Jenny-Jimmy transcription error as though that meant that Sylvia didn't want Barrie in the boys' lives.  As you say merely reading on on the will would show that she very much thought of him as a major actor in the care of her children after her death.

After all Jenny and Mary Hodgson by themselves could hardly have afforded to keep 23 Camden Hill Square, to say nothing of educating 5 boys!
Title: Re: Piers Dudgeon and "Captivated"
Post by: tcarroll on October 05, 2009, 08:36:58 PM
I totally agree.  Sylvia wanted Mr. Barrie to be part of the boys lives from the first time they met!  I think it would be foolish to think she wanted otherwise after her death. He was a pure champion to that family as far as I'm concerned, and he never, ever tried to replace their parents, and always honored their memory.
Title: Re: Piers Dudgeon and "Captivated"
Post by: andrew on October 07, 2009, 06:12:28 PM
This from Nico's daughter Laura: " I personally think Dudgeon is more or less raving mad and lives in a world of wildest fantasy!"
Title: Re: Piers Dudgeon and "Captivated"
Post by: ecb on October 07, 2009, 07:33:50 PM
Quote
This from Nico's daughter Laura: " I personally think Dudgeon is more or less raving mad and lives in a world of wildest fantasy!"

Sounds like Laura has a good portion of her father's obvious common sense! ;D
Title: Re: Piers Dudgeon and "Captivated"
Post by: Lesley on October 08, 2009, 07:11:03 AM
apparently. I think living in a world of fantasy can be good or bad. Dud (;D) is DEFINITELY living in the bad world of wildest fantasy. Or at least the aftermath is awful...
And the being raving mad can be positive or negative as well. and well, dud IS raving mad. There is no better description.
Title: Re: Piers Dudgeon and "Captivated"
Post by: TheWendybird on October 08, 2009, 10:16:00 PM
I don't understand why untrue gossip and hearsay is allowed to be printed as true at all.....if the news did this wouldn't they get in trouble? I mean aside from the entertainment shows and all..i mean the REAL news...
Title: Re: Piers Dudgeon and "Captivated"
Post by: AlexanderDavid on October 08, 2009, 11:46:37 PM
I don't understand why untrue gossip and hearsay is allowed to be printed as true at all.....if the news did this wouldn't they get in trouble? I mean aside from the entertainment shows and all..i mean the REAL news...

Freedom of the press.  :P

Labels are like permanent marker stains--not a part of you, but SO, SO hard to rub clean without doing damage to yourself.

"Out, damned spot!"
Title: Re: Piers Dudgeon and "Captivated"
Post by: TheWendybird on October 09, 2009, 03:28:42 AM
I don't understand why untrue gossip and hearsay is allowed to be printed as true at all.....if the news did this wouldn't they get in trouble? I mean aside from the entertainment shows and all..i mean the REAL news...

Freedom of the press.  :P

Labels are like permanent marker stains--not a part of you, but SO, SO hard to rub clean without doing damage to yourself.

"Out, damned spot!"

Haha Lady Macbeth=awesome. I love that play.
Title: Re: Piers Dudgeon and "Captivated"
Post by: tcarroll on October 09, 2009, 02:32:43 PM
This case is proof of the damage the wrong press can do.  After all these years, people still believe lies about Mr. Barrie. I think it's so important that Andrew wrote the book and that the mini series was made.  Maybe it made some people see what kind of man Mr. Barrie really was.
Title: Re: Piers Dudgeon and "Captivated"
Post by: Peter Pan on October 09, 2009, 03:50:40 PM
I don't understand why untrue gossip and hearsay is allowed to be printed as true at all.....if the news did this wouldn't they get in trouble? I mean aside from the entertainment shows and all..i mean the REAL news...

Freedom of the press.  :P

Labels are like permanent marker stains--not a part of you, but SO, SO hard to rub clean without doing damage to yourself.

"Out, damned spot!"

Freedom of the Press should've been illegalized long ago. That legal "right" was established when the Press had a conscience and regulated itself. Now that all morality has gone out the window, the Press has gone from 'delivering information' to 'speculating on what that information means and telling the people what and how to think.' This should probably be deemed a crime.
Title: Re: Piers Dudgeon and "Captivated"
Post by: andrew on October 09, 2009, 04:59:52 PM
Well Napoleon would certainly have agreed with you at one time - he introduced state censorship in 1801 to counter what he saw as a torrent of lies about himself and his policies, most of them originating from his royalist enemies. But ultimately he considered censoring the press to have been one of his biggest mistakes, and abolished it in 1815, a few months before Waterloo.  Of course even our so-called free press is insidiously censored - by the advertisers, by the editors, by the proprietors - but in my view, better a "free" press regulated by strong libel laws than a state censored one.
Title: Re: Piers Dudgeon and "Captivated"
Post by: AlexanderDavid on October 09, 2009, 05:53:02 PM
Well Napoleon would certainly have agreed with you at one time - he introduced state censorship in 1801 to counter what he saw as a torrent of lies about himself and his policies, most of them originating from his royalist enemies. But ultimately he considered censoring the press to have been one of his biggest mistakes, and abolished it in 1815, a few months before Waterloo.  Of course even our so-called free press is insidiously censored - by the advertisers, by the editors, by the proprietors - but in my view, better a "free" press regulated by strong libel laws than a state censored one.

Amen to that.  I'd rather just ignore what goes into the press than have it censored.  Then what happens when I'M censored?   :-[
Title: Re: Piers Dudgeon and "Captivated"
Post by: TheWendybird on October 09, 2009, 09:07:45 PM
I guess what both me and Peter Pan think is that the press should be more accountable for false information that they put out there. If something is shown to have no merit or be completely untrue..they should retract and apologize for their error. That's what I've always felt anyhow. I agree with freedom of the press but people should also be accountable and fair. And many times their "speculative" reporting is not fair at all but what they wish to convey. If the media wants the public to view a famous figure a certain way they control it. If tomorrow someone wanted to see oh gosh I dunno....Brad Pitt or someone as a such & such it will happen as long as the media pushes it...it's actually kinda scary.
Title: Re: Piers Dudgeon and "Captivated"
Post by: AlexanderDavid on October 09, 2009, 10:38:39 PM
I guess what both me and Peter Pan think is that the press should be more accountable for false information that they put out there. If something is shown to have no merit or be completely untrue..they should retract and apologize for their error. That's what I've always felt anyhow. I agree with freedom of the press but people should also be accountable and fair. And many times their "speculative" reporting is not fair at all but what they wish to convey. If the media wants the public to view a famous figure a certain way they control it. If tomorrow someone wanted to see oh gosh I dunno....Brad Pitt or someone as a such & such it will happen as long as the media pushes it...it's actually kinda scary.

Oh, I agree--no arguments there.  I'm just saying that censorship of freedom of the press is not the answer to that problem.  Like Andrew said, libel laws.
Title: Re: Piers Dudgeon and "Captivated"
Post by: TheWendybird on October 10, 2009, 02:38:30 AM
I guess what both me and Peter Pan think is that the press should be more accountable for false information that they put out there. If something is shown to have no merit or be completely untrue..they should retract and apologize for their error. That's what I've always felt anyhow. I agree with freedom of the press but people should also be accountable and fair. And many times their "speculative" reporting is not fair at all but what they wish to convey. If the media wants the public to view a famous figure a certain way they control it. If tomorrow someone wanted to see oh gosh I dunno....Brad Pitt or someone as a such & such it will happen as long as the media pushes it...it's actually kinda scary.

Oh, I agree--no arguments there.  I'm just saying that censorship of freedom of the press is not the answer to that problem.  Like Andrew said, libel laws.

Obviously :)
Title: Re: Piers Dudgeon and "Captivated"
Post by: Peter Pan on October 10, 2009, 03:43:17 PM
A perfect example of why I believe in censorship (or at least punishment when something is shown to be blatantly one-sided) is the way Michael Jackson got treated. The press loved to make him look like a pedophile as much as possible, always deciding to omit all aspects of the story that made him look like he WASN'T one. It shouldn't be legal for the press to present information like this. It's kind of ironic that people are saying that censorship of the press is bad, because censorship is exactly what the press is guilty of doing.

And copied from the Michael as Peter Pan thread... another example of the crap the press gets away with... I wrote the following paragraph:

I would like to see some actual proof that the letter exists. think it could easily be true as well. The existence of the photos anyway. But those photos are actually indicative of absolutely nothing. Unless somehow there's a naked picture of Michael in a playboy bunny pose.   ::)

Now if a reporter were to treat me like Michael Jackson, he would quote me as saying:

"I would like to see", Peter Pan said, "a naked picture of Michael in a playboy bunny pose."

And to do that in reporting is perfectly legal. This is what freedom of the press gets you.
Title: Re: Piers Dudgeon and "Captivated"
Post by: AlexanderDavid on October 10, 2009, 06:19:34 PM
We'll just have to agree to disagree, then.  I agree with you that the press shouldn't be allowed to do that, but censorship is an extreme and frightening answer to it, and where does it end?

If censorship is allowed, how long does it take before my views are censored because of being unpopular?  That's how freedom dies.
Title: Re: Piers Dudgeon and "Captivated"
Post by: Peter Pan on October 10, 2009, 07:54:44 PM
Actually, "majority rules" already does that. Sure there were rare reporters who portrayed MJ in a better light, but you couldn't hear them amidst the army of reporters screaming "BURN THE WITCH!"

And in most cases, it all boils down to has more money because all forms of communication institutions demand payment for their services. So if you have the money, you just dominate all the TV channels, radio stations, newspapers, etc. with your ads, and we wind up with the phrase, "Buying the Election." And the little guy who ran for whatever on a shoestring budget... you see him on the ballot on election day and you wonder, "Who the heck is he?"

Popularity practically rules over truth. For instance, how long did it take for the rainbow to change? It was a symbol traditionally associated with "the bridge to heaven", hope, dreams, fortune, luck, "God's Promise", for thousands of years. The gay community managed to jam a flag into it and claim it as their own symbol in a quarter of a decade, and suddenly anyone with an abundance of color is automatically stereotyped as being a homosexual. How did this happen? Homosexuality was, and still somewhat is... controversial. Controversial sells, it's popular, it has the power. A headline depicting a guilty MJ grabs peoples' attention, depicting an innocent MJ it does nothing.
Title: Re: Piers Dudgeon and "Captivated"
Post by: TheWendybird on October 10, 2009, 08:03:36 PM
I think the matter at hand here is Peter Pan is not saying to censor everything just i think we all agree people who print things or say things known to be lies should be held accountable. And majority of the time today they are not. What Peter is saying is there is backward censorship...the media is the ones censoring and they are censoring the aspects of stories and situations that could help people better understand it because they have their own agenda. Hence his Michael Jackson example. They pushed and pushed one view..they didn't show the opposite side of it as well. Or on the flip side..complete lies that they were not held accountable for. I don't think he's saying to censor everyone just that this backward censorship is already going on and people are not being held accountable for doing it. People should be given both sides of a story and left to decide for themselves..instead...the media is trying to sway people into certain views. I don't think many people would argue that one. But I really don't think he's saying to censor the media ;)
Title: Re: Piers Dudgeon and "Captivated"
Post by: Peter Pan on October 10, 2009, 08:13:21 PM
That's exactly it. The problem isn't that the media needs to be censored. The problem is that the media needs to be UNCENSORED. Reporters are showing the public only the side of the story that they wish the public to see. It's like once the media decides they don't like you, you're the antichrist no matter what you do, and the same goes for the exact opposite. If they like you, you're going to be loved no matter what. Britney Spears, anyone? Or for something a bit closer to MJ's old dilemma... Roman Polanski has been being treated by the press (and consequently, the public) like a innocent Angel.
Title: Re: Piers Dudgeon and "Captivated"
Post by: AlexanderDavid on October 10, 2009, 10:22:47 PM
That's exactly it. The problem isn't that the media needs to be censored. The problem is that the media needs to be UNCENSORED. Reporters are showing the public only the side of the story that they wish the public to see. It's like once the media decides they don't like you, you're the antichrist no matter what you do, and the same goes for the exact opposite. If they like you, you're going to be loved no matter what. Britney Spears, anyone? Or for something a bit closer to MJ's old dilemma... Roman Polanski has been being treated by the press (and consequently, the public) like a innocent Angel.

I figured that was what was meant, and I'm neither trying to suggest otherwise nor trying to put words into your mouth that you're not saying.

But as you said yourself, the media does its own censoring, and as I've said, I'm against ALL censorship, and that certainly includes the media deciding what's "news" and what isn't, what we need to hear and what we don't.

When the media tries to censor a movie, say, because of its subject matter before it even comes out, that's when we know we need to see the movie--why are they keeping it from us?
Title: Re: Piers Dudgeon and "Captivated"
Post by: TheWendybird on October 11, 2009, 01:01:37 AM
That's exactly it. The problem isn't that the media needs to be censored. The problem is that the media needs to be UNCENSORED. Reporters are showing the public only the side of the story that they wish the public to see. It's like once the media decides they don't like you, you're the antichrist no matter what you do, and the same goes for the exact opposite. If they like you, you're going to be loved no matter what. Britney Spears, anyone? Or for something a bit closer to MJ's old dilemma... Roman Polanski has been being treated by the press (and consequently, the public) like a innocent Angel.

I figured that was what was meant, and I'm neither trying to suggest otherwise nor trying to put words into your mouth that you're not saying.

But as you said yourself, the media does its own censoring, and as I've said, I'm against ALL censorship, and that certainly includes the media deciding what's "news" and what isn't, what we need to hear and what we don't.

When the media tries to censor a movie, say because of its subject matter before it even comes out, that's when we know we need to see the movie--why are they keeping it from us?

Amen!
Title: Re: Piers Dudgeon and "Captivated"
Post by: Moondust on November 01, 2009, 01:50:24 PM
I first read Dudgeon's bitter, twisted nonsense in an article published in the Daily Mail, which says a lot about its objectivity...  ::)


It upset me at first. I actually cried in a library, which was fairly embarrassing. I think it was put down to exam stress by anyone who saw me though, which was OK. I just felt so frustrated that a cruel, misinformed man is entitled to put such slander into the public domain and present it as factual.

Reading his views, I couldn't help but question what he was hoping to achieve by publishing such horrible, biased insults. It was not a piece of literary criticism, or even an informed biographical piece. It was just slander. It was merely accusatory, insulting, inaccurate and all-assuming slander, spewed from the self-indulgent mind of a writer with little or no grasp of what informative journalism or writing ought to provide. I learned nothing from what I read of his piece, nor would anybody; all it had the potential to do is to warp people's opinions and turn them against a figure who, ultimately, none of us TRULY have the right to turn moral judgement on. He lived and died long ago, and why people think they have the right to insult and accuse him of evil when he cannot present a counter-argument eludes me.

Now, I'm all for speculation, exploration of facts, and theorising. But when it comes to pronouncing a widely celebrated and adored late author to be a heartless, loveless, mind-warping monster, I draw the line.

I mean, come on. I learned the concept of objectivity in writing when I was about 12. Surely as an educated man, Dudgeon should be able to comprehend the need for SOME form of subtlety.

Of course, I'm being terribly insulting and harsh towards him, like a hypocrite. But I'm a university student on an affronted rant. He's a published writer. I think I, of the two of us, have the right to be a bit ratty ;)
Title: Re: Piers Dudgeon and "Captivated"
Post by: ecb on November 05, 2009, 08:24:41 PM
Well it's finally come out in the U.S. under a slightly different title:

Neverland: J. M. Barrie, The Du Mauriers, and the Dark Side of Peter Pan

(Probably hoping to cash in on Finding Neverland).  I peeked at the few pages you can look at on Amazon - he sure makes a lot of assumptions based on very little.

Here is the NY Times review:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/26/books/26neverland.html

You can read the first chapter here - oh and by the way he calls Mary Hodgson , Nanny Hodgson.  I think Mary would have hated hated hated that!
Title: Re: Piers Dudgeon and "Captivated"
Post by: andrew on November 06, 2009, 12:03:59 PM
Hated it indeed she would - and the whole book by the sounds of it (I didn't want to risk raising my blood pressure by reading the whole thing). 'Tis a pity the NYT critic (and others?) didn't visit this site first before reviewing Dudgeon's turgid tale...
Title: Re: Piers Dudgeon and "Captivated"
Post by: ecb on November 09, 2009, 08:25:21 PM
I took a look at Neverland (formerly Captivated) at my local bookstore this weekend.  He even gets pictures wrong!  The picture of Michael which Barrie had on his window overlooking the Thames is labeled as being George [note - I reread the thread and see that Andrew picked that out right away].  A picture of Sylvia when she was in her thirties is said to be her in her last illness. Such sloppiness does not produce confidence - and that is even before you get to the equally sloppy text!

And that business of calling Mary "Nanny" throughout the book really sets my teeth on edge - all you have to do is look at this site and read all the many many letters written to her by the boys to see that she was and remained "Mary" to them! >:(

He mentions Daphne coming into town to uncover the blue plaque denoting George du Maurier's residence in London - only a very short time after Peter's death.  Daphne mentions it herself in a letter to Nico.  Dudgeon mentions that Gerald Millar also attended as did "Nico and his two sons".  Now I know that mistake came from a book about Daphne by Janet Cook.  I think it is possible that two of Peter's sons attended with Nico and Ms. Cook was confused.  However Dudgeon even has a family tree where it is very easy to note that Nico did not have two sons - or even one!  Again sloppy sloppy!
Title: Re: Piers Dudgeon and "Captivated"
Post by: robin bogart on January 07, 2010, 05:37:12 AM
As i sit here reading Neverland, by Piers Dungeon I feel compelled to take the time to vent my outrage.  Where is Dungeon's sense of journalistic ethics when he decides to invent some cockamamie fantasy involving six year old Jamie's culpability in his brother's death?  I've already noticed many inaccuracies, but at this point i feel like throwing this book into my fireplace (unfortunately I can't because I took the book out of the library).  I also blame the publisher (in the states, Pegasus Books).  I guess the lesson is that greed knows no bounds...if you can sell it and make money, to hell with integrity!
Title: Re: Piers Dudgeon and "Captivated"
Post by: Westh76 on January 08, 2010, 09:59:47 AM
You're not alone - as you can see from the various posts on this subject, and Andrew's letter to Chatto, the original publishers in the UK. At least by borrowing the book from the library, you didn't contribute to Dudgeon's royalties.
Title: Re: Piers Dudgeon and "Captivated"
Post by: andrew on January 15, 2010, 03:08:15 PM
btw, Chatto never bothered to reply! I shall be venting my own spleen @ JMB's 150th...
Title: Re: Piers Dudgeon and "Captivated"
Post by: Smee on January 20, 2011, 09:49:11 AM
I took a look at Neverland (formerly Captivated) at my local bookstore this weekend.  He even gets pictures wrong!  The picture of Michael which Barrie had on his window overlooking the Thames is labeled as being George [note - I reread the thread and see that Andrew picked that out right away].  A picture of Sylvia when she was in her thirties is said to be her in her last illness. Such sloppiness does not produce confidence - and that is even before you get to the equally sloppy text!

The pictures in "Captivated" are not only bad labeled but another way to twist real facts to make them fit in Dudgeon's peculiar fantasy about Barrie. In the paperback edition you can see two pictures, one of them labelled "Barrie, still impish in 1920 before Michael's death". But this is one of the portraits of 1912 with Michael and Barrie dressing in fishing gear in Lissie Caswell Smith's studio.

The next is labeled "Barrie inconsolable a year later. He is wearing the Trilby hat wich -in Daphne stories- is the symbol of Svengali's hypnotic power, it's appropriator  the personification of evil.” As a matter of fact the picture is one of the taken in 1928 -not 1921- with Barrie in a roof or a balcony and a misty background. The point is not the wrong date but the fact that Barrie is wearing his classic Homburg hat, not a Trilby.

Leaving aside the stupid idea that a man with a Trilby could be the "personification of evil", I wonder what kind of "personification of evil" represents for Dudgeon a man who wears a Homburg.
Title: Re: Piers Dudgeon and "Captivated"
Post by: Sylvia8 on August 21, 2020, 03:21:56 PM
I don't think I want to spend 10 £ to read his book.

J.M.B. had a Doctor's writing or even a fly's one! It's hard for a fly to try and write clearly, you know... Wasn't he writing with his not writing hand very often?

And of course, in the next paragraph of Sylvia's will, it can't be more obvious that he was a guardian of the boys.