I’m gonna be very clear from the beginning of this review. This is one of the sloppiest, badly written, biased, unintelligent biographies and books I have ever read. And I’m not alone in this judgement. I now know why I was able to get this second-hand when it’s so hard to get hold of anything else either by or about Sayers.
Janet Hitchman is an elusive lass and it is very difficult to get any details about her off the internet. There is no bio on Janet in the book and there are many spare pages that could easily have been used for this purpose in the book. (An aside: I’ve recently become a production controller for a publisher and I now look at books in a very different way. I was twenty minutes late to meet a friend because I got distracted in a bookstore, just looking at the finishes on covers. How shame-making! But I know that if you've got blank pages in the end of a book, it costs you no more to whack something in them - like. an. author. bio.) I honestly have no idea how she got this book deal – she was apparently asked to do it by the publishers. The publishers, in turn, put out the Wimsey books. I’m going to put up a picture of the cover because every time I glance at it from more than one metre away, the illustration of Wimsey with the car behind him reminds me of a giant penis sticking out of Wimsey’s crotch. I’m not a usually dirty-minded person – but I think you’ll agree with me that it does evoke that image.
Janet has written a couple of other books, King of the Barbareens, They Carried the Sword, and Meeting for Burial. It is to her credit that these are all now completely unknown in the wider world, especially as one is her autobiography. I wouldn't mind reading it just to discover how she became so mediocre. I’ve spent at least half an hour on the net, searching for some sort of definite bio on Janet. I can’t find a thing.
Janet did not have access to any of Dorothy’s letters and did not interview any of Dorothy’s close friends. (whether that was their wishes or hers, I don’t know). So much of this bio is simply conjecture. And Janet is capable of that. She speculates on Dorothy’s childhood, her relationship (or lack of) with her illegitimate son, her sexuality (and Janet’s writing on lesbianism is naïve and almost homophobic), pretty much on every aspect of Dorothy’s life, Janet simply speculates. The blurb on the back states that she has employed almost Wimseyan methods to discover Dorothy’s lifestory. Well, Janet ain’t no Wimsey and is definitely no Dorothy L Sayers.
Ms Sayers was a secretive woman and apparently loathe for anyone to put out a bio on her. This one was published in 1975, seventeen years after Dorothy’s death. Janet just don’t seem to have cared and despite having no access to definite facts or documents, thought she would have a go. As a result, this is a bland bio. I constantly found myself doubting what she gave as Dorothy’s motives for doing this or that. I couldn’t figure out if I was just cynical or being very precious about one of my favourite authors. Turns out there are other people who agree with me on her credibility.
Dorothy was indeed considered a strange lady. But was she that strange for her generation? She was no more peculiar than any of the Mitfords, or Agatha Christie (disappearing for a week with no explanation ever forthcoming), or Vita Sackville-West. I mean, she was an intelligent woman who knew her own mind, her formative years were spent at a time when frivolity and eccentricity was encouraged in those who could afford it. Janet treats her as a curiosity and I get the feel of a point of view of knowing adulthood condescending to a truculent child. As someone else has commented, she dishes the dirt in a gossipy manner. This bio is not worthy of Sayers. I am disappointed that I read it. Her response to Dorothy’s treatment of her son is that she considers it an enigma. Come on, it’s 1923, you are a famous female author and you’ve gotten laid and you’re pregnant. Well, let’s just announce it to the world. Dorothy’s own writing well illustrates her awareness and thoughts on the weight of society’s opinions of the time and she acted accordingly. She is perfectly justified in thinking she needed to keep it secret. Why adopt out (which is what Janet thinks she should have done) when you have a cousin whom you know will look after your child? In fact your cousin takes on foster children, she is a perfect option for you. You can visit and keep in touch, it won’t be remarked upon that the woman has another child in her house. Dorothy was also worried about money for a large portion of her life. Why would you risk poverty and ostracism when you know you can have your child well-provided for? It appears to me quite the logical thing for Dorothy to do.
The Wimsey books too are dealt with in an objective and discursive manner. How can ANYONE be objective about Wimsey. He demands subjectiveness and adoration! He is one of the world’s most memorable literary characters and Janet does not do him justice. She goes into a lot of detail on Dorothy’s subsequent religious work – I suspect Hitchman is a devout Christian – her detail on this later work and her thoughts on many of Sayers’ life decisions appear to be informed by a religious sentiment. Her criticisms of the work and of Sayers are about as meticulous as mine are of her. She calls Harriet ‘tiresome’ and berates Dorothy for many silly mistakes. I don’t think I will go into the actual details of Sayers’ life as depicted by Hitchens for the reason that the motives attributed to Sayers’ every action and thought are just rubbish.
The only use this bio really had for me was to find out the basic facts of Sayers’ life and what else she wrote – I was much interested to discover she did a version of Dante’s Divine Comedy. I was also fascinated that she ended up married to someone whom she later discovered to be a complete dilettante and idiot. Much like a parallel author of her time, Nancy Mitford (forgive the repetition of this family twice in one post). I also knew nothing of her later passion for writing on religion. But I don’t feel that I know her anymore than from reading the Wimsey books. So, in my humble opinion, don’t get this book unless you want an unresearched and uninformed biography of one of the greatest ever detective novelists.
2 comments:
Janet Hitchman may not be a good biographer, as you suggest, but her childhood autobiography - King of the Barbareens, which went into several editions and was recorded as an audio cassette, tells of her orphan childhood, passed from one fostger carer to another, yet emerging with an honest view of her own shortcomings and a warmth and respect for the various adults who brought her up,
Dorothy L Sayers put a 50 year moratorium on biographies of her which is why Janet Hitchman, asked to write this memoir by the publishers 18 years after Sayers' death, had no access to letters etc. Janet Hitchman was a fairly regular contributor to 'Woman's Hour'. She committed suicide in 1980.
Post a Comment