Written by Alex Thorpe
Have you ever encountered a truly exceptional book that most people seem to agree upon, only to come across a rather irritable review that leaves you questioning whether the reviewer has actually read the same work as you?
I purchased Tina Wyngarde-Hopkins’ biography/memoir, ‘Peter Wyngarde: A Life Amongst Strangers‘, on its publication day in February 2020. I devoured the entire 532 pages in just two sittings, as I found it irresistibly engaging. I can sincerely assert that it is the finest book of its genre that I have ever encountered. It is frank, thorough, and sincere; crafted from the perspective of someone who had a close relationship with Wyngarde. Ms. Wyngarde-Hopkins has gone above and beyond by publishing many of the documents referenced in the book (see the A Life Amongst Strangers Companion) and has provided substantial supporting evidence through Peter’s letters and personal writings (see You’ve Read The Book… Now Read It In Peter’s Own Words). I am not aware of any other author who has undertaken such an endeavor.
Given this context, I have been astonished to read some of the absurd comments made online by anonymous individuals regarding the book in so-called ‘reviews’. I express this sentiment because none of the individuals who have penned these remarks seem to possess any genuine conviction in their statements. Why is that? Because they opt not to disclose their real names.
I know what you’re all thinking: ‘Everyone has the right to their own opinion’, and you are correct. The Oxford English Dictionary defines the noun ‘Opinion’ as follows: ‘A view or judgement formed about something, not necessarily grounded in fact or knowledge’. I urge you to remember the concluding part of that definition as you peruse the subsequent ‘review’ of ‘A Life Amongst Strangers’, which was submitted on Amazon on December 27, 2023, by an individual identifying as ‘City Bookworm’:
| As other reviewers have mentioned, this is a decidedly odd and not very well written book; it’s also something of a rewrite of history. It was fairly common knowledge within the theatrical world of that era that PW was gay, and has subsequently come out that PW had a 10 year off-on relationship with the actor Alan Bates. This has been corroborated by many respected actors and others. So, it seems delusional at best — and homophobic at worst — that the book goes to such great lengths to try and prove PW WAS NOT GAY! Aside from that, it’s a poorly written biography of muddled chronology and facts, and overall very disappointing. |
What I am about to undertake is a detailed analysis of this ‘review’, dividing it into sections and emphasizing some of the extravagant claims it contains:
“As other reviewers have mentioned, this is a decidedly odd and not very well written book“: The initial portion of this statement pertains to four additional ‘reviews’ that were submitted on Amazon in 2020; one of these was posted on the day PRIOR to the book’s official release, which raises significant doubts. It accuses Ms. Wyngarde-Hopkins of unfairly treating Wyngarde’s ‘blood family.’ However, the individual who authored this review, hiding behind the username ‘Fisherman Fred,’ fails to provide any specific examples of this purported mistreatment. Ms. Wyngarde-Hopkins asserts that she was unaware of the existence of this ‘blood family’ until the day of Wyngarde’s funeral on January 25, 2018, and he never mentioned them during their acquaintance. By their own admission, they had not seen or communicated with him since 1974!
Furthermore, another of these ‘literary critiques’ was written by a disgruntled ex-member of The Official Peter Wyngarde Appreciation Society Facebook group, who was expelled in 2019 due to his association with a group of anti-Semitic and homophobic trolls. A third review was authored by an individual named ‘Paul Kemp,’ whose poorly constructed narrative was presented ENTIRELY IN CAPITAL LETTERS—this to inform others about INFERIOR WRITING! Regrettably, ‘City Bookworm’ neglects to mention the ninety 5-Star reviews of ‘A Life Amongst Strangers’ that stand in stark contrast to his or her opinion.
When I asked Tina Wyngarde-Hopkins about the possibility of writing this article and asked her how she felt about reading something like this, she shared that when Steven Berkoff, the acclaimed actor, writer, and director, agreed to write the afterword for her book, he expressed nothing but admiration for both its content and her writing abilities. In fact, he was astonished that this was her debut book! This sentiment was echoed by Wyngarde’s long-time friend and agent, Thomas Bowington, who recounted: “Berkoff approached me directly at a theatre-related event in London to extol the virtues of the book: ‘A wonderful, fascinating book!’ he exclaimed. He is certainly qualified to make such a judgment.”
“Well done Tina. This is an essential work for anyone who values this extraordinary man and his work.” Steven Berkoff
“It was fairly common knowledge within the theatrical world of that era that PW was gay,…” As Ms. Wyngarde-Hopkins has frequently emphasized, both on this website and in other forums, the so-called “common knowledge” myth was introduced to the public by author Donald Spoto in his 2007 biography, ‘Otherwise Engaged: The Life of Alan Bates’. In letters penned by Peter Wyngarde in 2009 and 2011 (refer to the ‘A Life Amongst Strangers Companion’), he expresses his astonishment at the content Spoto included about him in his work and, reportedly, contemplated legal action against the author for libel.
“I cannot tell you how shocked I was when I read what that American biographer had said those unbelievable things about me.”
And,
“The American author signed a letter to say he would adhere to my request about omitting material, but managed to send it to me after the book was published which was of course too late.“
As for the “fairly common knowledge within the acting world that Wyngarde was gay…” assertion, ‘City Bookworm’, not unsurprisingly. fails to provide a single shred of evidence to reinforce this.
“…and has subsequently come out that PW had a 10 year off-on relationship with the actor Alan Bates.” Once again, this narrative is derived from Donald Spoto’s previously mentioned biography, which asserts that Wyngarde and Bates resided together in a London flat from 1956 to 1966, a common practice among young, aspiring actors at that time and likely still prevalent today. However, Mr/Miss/Ms. ‘Bookworm’ describes this as an “on/off relationship” (I would argue it was more “Off” than “On”). In her publication, Ms. Wyngarde-Hopkins presents evidence indicating that Bates did not move into Wyngarde’s flat until late 1958 or early 1959, owing to his work obligations in the USA (the original rental agreement signed by Wyngarde in late 1956 can be viewed here). During the period from 1958 to 1960, Wyngarde was romantically involved with Vivien Leigh, a fact that is well-documented. From 1960 to 1962, Bates resided with Rock Hudson in California for 18 months. Subsequently, he vacated the flat to move into a house he had purchased in St. John’s Wood, London. Thus, the decade-long relationship claimed by Mr. Spoto is reduced to merely a few months, as the two ardent lovers were relegated to the status of ships passing in the night. (According to the Electoral Roll, Bates was registered as living at Wyngarde’s flat from 1959 to 1964, contradicting Donald Spoto’s assertion of 1956 to 1966).
“This has been corroborated by many respected actors and others.” ‘Once more, ‘City Bookworm’ refuses to offer even a single name from this tumultuous group of performers to support his/her assertion, leading me to believe that we are simply meant to accept their statement as truth.
“So, it [‘A Life Amongst Strangers’] seems delusional at best — and homophobic at worst — that the book goes to such great lengths to try and prove PW WAS NOT GAY!” Tina Wyngarde-Hopkins maintained a 30-year relationship with Peter Wyngarde. This fact has been supported by numerous respected actors and others, all of whom are mentioned in ‘A Life Amongst Strangers’ and other sources. I would like to inquire of ‘City Bookworm’ how the act of quoting directly from letters penned by Wyngarde himself, publishing photographs of PW with various girlfriends, and referencing legal documents that are easily accessible in the public domain can be deemed as going “to such great lengths to try and prove PW WAS NOT GAY!” What did he/she expect the author to do – fabricate correspondence, manipulate legal documents stored in public archives, and alter images of Wyngarde at male-only gatherings merely to affirm someone else’s erroneous beliefs?
In addition to all of the aforementioned points, the most egregious aspect of this ‘review’ is the claim that the book, and presumably the author herself, is “homophobic,” which, to paraphrase ‘City Bookworm,’ is at best insulting and at worst defamatory!
“Aside from that, it’s a poorly written biography of muddled chronology and facts, and overall very disappointing.” We can easily disregard the assertion of it being “poorly written” based on the remarks from Steven Berkoff (as mentioned above) and the esteemed Hollywood Reporter, which referred to it as being, “Scholarly written.” I am uncertain about the origin of the claim regarding the “muddled chronology,” as the narrative follows a clear timeline: it starts with Wyngarde’s birth and concludes with his death in 2018. Quite simple! It is hardly the fault of Ms. Wyngarde-Hopkins if Mr./Ms. ‘City Bookworm’ found it difficult to follow. Perhaps it would have been beneficial if he/she had provided specific examples of these “muddled facts” and clarified the criteria used to assess the alleged discrepancies: perhaps 50-year-old tabloid gossip? Internet rumours? Who can say!
While ‘A Life Amongst Strangers’ significantly contributes to dispelling numerous myths surrounding Peter Wyngarde over the years, it seems that the aspect which has most disturbed ‘City Bookworm’ is its inability to affirm their preconceived notions regarding the actor’s true sexuality. Clearly, this individual’s primary concern appears to be focused on Wyngarde’s sex life, which comes across as somewhat voyeuristic. They seem to lack interest in any matters beyond his activities in the bedroom. In this context, it is appropriate to introduce the term Confirmation Bias, which psychiatrists associate with individuals who dismiss information that contradicts their established beliefs. Thus, it could be argued that ‘City Bookworm’ harbours a misguided – indeed, “deluded” – perspective of Wyngarde, which has led them to express their frustration through a spiteful ‘review’.
It has also occurred to me that Mr./Ms. ‘Bookworm’ may very well be a proud member of the LGBTQ+++++++ community themselves, feeling aggrieved because they had always considered Wyngarde to be one of their own (for the record, I identify as gay). They certainly seem to harbor resentment towards Ms. Wyngarde-Hopkins for her long-standing relationship with the actor.
I will venture a bold guess and suggest that the esteemed ‘City Bookworm’ likely never approached within a 100-mile radius of PW or anyone familiar with him, yet possesses enough arrogance to dismiss “the person who knew him best”—a title attributed to Tina Wyngarde-Hopkins by Flash Gordon himself, Sam J. Jones. We appear to be inhabiting a reality where facts have been supplanted by mere opinions. This phenomenon is fostering a widespread rejection of truth across nearly all areas of life. We now find ourselves in a predicament where individuals lacking any authority, personal experience, or knowledge on a topic are striving to undermine those who do possess such qualifications.
I frequently contemplate why individuals who disparage others people’s books don’t write one of their own to demonstrate how it should be accomplished. Or is this merely another instance of those who cannot, simply resorting to criticism?
With very special thanks to Pam, Tina and Thomas of the Official Peter Wyngarde Appreciation Society
PETER WYNGARDE: The Official Website 