Dearest Beverley,
I feel I must send you my profuse apologies following my review of your book “A Case of Human Bondage”.
While reading the book, with great enjoyment, I accepted your versions of events (which did, after all, include excerpts from your diaries) and felt that you were making a very heart-felt case for the friend you believed had been maligned. However, when preparing my review, and doing a bit of random searching online, I came across an extract from Selina Hastings’ “The Secret Lives of Somerset Maugham” which stated clearly that you had fabricated some of your claims. I confess I *was* disappointed and I think my review reflected this.
However, when posting a link to my review yesterday on LibraryThing, I noticed that there was only one other review of ACOHB, by someone who obviously didn’t like it. But – and this is a big but – this review stated quite strongly at the end that Hastings had “confused two separate episodes involving different people, and unfairly charged Nichols with a falsification” (the review is here). Apparently there were *two* incidents that eventful night – the one which involved Gerald and the banknotes, and another which involved Noel Coward surprising you in bed with his boyfriend. That must have been *some* wild night!!
So you *weren’t* being misleading in your book, and you *weren’t* trying to correct a lie with another one – you were simply relating the relevant experience from that fateful night which concerned Willie and Syrie.
And I should have followed my instincts – instead of blindly believing the Hastings book, I should have checked. It didn’t feel right that you would twist events quite so much, and even though you were writing with an agenda, I should have trusted you not to provide complete fabrications.
So I apologise, dear Beverley, and hope that your spirit (wherever it might be!) will forgive a foolish reader – one who has come to love your books and is very, very glad to have been proved rather silly on this occasion!
With fondest love and admiration,
Kaggsy
P.S. I have reserved your biography by Bryan Cannon at my local library and shall make sure I check my sources in future!
P.P.S. I further read that Rebecca West described Maugham as “an obscene little toad” when he published “Looking Backwards” and that Graham Greene described the book as “a senile and scandalous work”; so I really think it’s obvious which side I should come down upon!
Jan 26, 2014 @ 08:54:54
Still, episodes like this are interesting in themselves re what they tell us about the construction of biography. You have made me laugh here!
Jan 26, 2014 @ 11:26:55
🙂 I still feel bad about blindly believing the Hastings assertion. I’m sure Beverley was no saint, but this kind of fabrication would be silly.
Jan 26, 2014 @ 12:42:22
Jan 26, 2014 @ 16:22:04
How fascinating! Yes, the more research you do the more confusing it gets until you find something that makes sense. I do like Maugham, but I can see how something like this would get out of hand.
By the way, under your influence, I was reading and very much enjoying NIchols’ Crazy Pavements, which is available as an e-book, much to my amazement. And then the e-book broke. Really! It’s just this particular e-book, which my husband explains is something to do with software or something. So I’ll have to get it through interlibrary loan.
Jan 26, 2014 @ 16:24:49
I like the Maugham books I’ve read too – but I’m not sure I’d like him as a person!
I’m *so* glad you’re reading Beverley – “Crazy Pavements” was the first book of his I read. I didn’t know ebooks broke, which has put me off them even more! I hope the library comes up trumps with a real book!
Jan 26, 2014 @ 18:21:00
Ah now that is interesting – it was that biography I read – I wish I could remember the incident you refer to – but I am disapointed in Selina Hastings I thought she was a better biographer than that.
Jan 26, 2014 @ 19:00:49
Well. it may have been an simple mistake from not checking her sources properly – and I only have the other reviewer’s word for it that she *did* make a mistake. But I am inclined to believe that Beverley wouldn’t have produced an out-and-out falsification, however biased he was. I shall see if Bryan Cannon has anything to say on the subject!
Jan 26, 2014 @ 22:50:51
You should be able to trust a contemporary biographer to check sources, and to be aware when there are different accounts of the same events in circulation, so I’m sure Beverley will understand your mistake, and appreciate that you have the grace to apologise.
Jan 27, 2014 @ 08:46:11
🙂 I hope he will forgive me!
Jan 27, 2014 @ 09:21:25
Hmmm. I wouldn’t apologise to Beverley just yet… if memory serves the Bryan Connon biography also concludes that this book was inaccurate! But I don’t worry about these things with Beverley. It’s all artistic licence.
On Saturday I was in a wonderful Aladdin’s cave of a bookshop in Tideswell, Derbyshire, where I found ‘Women and Children Last’ – another one for the Beverley pile!
Jan 27, 2014 @ 09:25:07
Oh, I don’t think for a minute he’s *ever* 100% accurate. But I will be interested to find out about this particular incident because it seemed such a blatant fabrication!
And well done on finding another Beverley – that bookshop sounds wonderful!
Jan 27, 2014 @ 19:03:22
Hilarious, Karen! I’m sure he’d forgive you.
Jan 27, 2014 @ 19:32:13
🙂 I hope so!
Jan 29, 2019 @ 06:57:12