Michael as Peter Pan

[TheWendybird]

(http://www.fragglerockforever.com/misc/epicbattle.jpg)

Haha, that was funny! 

But I think a more apropos comparison would be MLD as Mr. Darling.  Trying to make others take his medicine when he can't and won't swallow it himself. 

Oh my gosh thats the best...totally the right metaphor!

[andrew]

I have reluctantly ordered Dudgeon's book to see whether or not he provides source notes. If yes, I'll pursue them; if not, I'll toss the book where it belongs - in the trash can.

[Westh76]

Andrew - don't waste your money on his book.  Dudgeon writes:
"...since Uncle Jim gave him photographs of the beautiful, angelic, naked Michael to go on. He wrote to Sylvia: 'Frampton was very taken with Mick's pictures and I had to leave them with him,' but, no doubt to Michael's relief, "he prefers the Peter clothes to a nude child...".  However, although he cites the letter, he does not give its actual reference or source and the bit about giving Frampton the photos is written by Dudgeon, not Barrie's alleged actual words. I'm not saying that Dudgeon made it up, but why doesn't give his source - could it be because it's taken out of context? For all we know, there may well have been such pictures, but more likely similar to the very sweet and innocent ones of SLD and PLD in 1899 on the Rustington beach on an typical English summer day which feature in your book...

His book was interesting in parts, but I felt his main point was trying to prove that JMB was obsessed with George du Maurier's gift for hypnosis and his relationship with the Davies family was an attempt to emulate GdM in his talent for 'captivating' people and thereby harming them. It seemed to me that Dudgeon is trying too hard to force his theories to fit the facts at his disposal...

[Robert Greenham]

I was taken back to learn that the photos we often see of Michael dressed as Peter Pan were not the only photos sent to the sculptor.  Barrie took nude photos of Michael as Peter Pan.  I do not remember that in Andrew's book, but have checked sources and this is in print more than once.  The reference is in one of Barie's letters. Michael was I believe 6 at the time those were taken and for me this raises some questions.

Sorry, MLD, but it seems clear to me that you have misinterpreted what Piers Dudgeon wrote and, in doing so, you jumped to a conclusion which, as yet, has not been justified by you.  May I respectfully suggest that you re-read the pertinent paragraph of page 178 of Captivated, and then kindly retract your sentence that "Barrie took nude photos of Michael as Peter Pan".  And after that, an apology to Andrew, for the way in which you so rudely treated him in this thread, would be appropriate.

For everyone's benefit, here is what Piers Dudgeon wrote:

"Nobody associated Peter with the Devil. Nor is it clear how Frampton was supposed to capture this demon boy, since Uncle Jim gave him photographs of the beautiful, angelic, naked Michael to go on. He wrote to Sylvia: 'Frampton was very taken with Mick's pictures & I had to leave them with him,' but, no doubt to Michael's relief, 'he prefers the Peter clothes to a nude child . . .'"

MLD: Why would you think, from this, that it was Barrie who took the photographs of a naked Michael?  Is it not just as possible that the photographs were taken by Sylvia, or Arthur, and loaned to Barrie for the purpose of his loaning them in turn to Frampton?  And, not that it really matters, are not the scales tipped towards this second possibility by Barrie's words to Sylvia: "I had to leave them with him"?, which possibly implies an apology to her.  

Andrew: Dudgeon does not provide source notes for this particular issue, although his general source for this portion of the chapter, 'Peter Pan, a demon boy', is stated as Mackail's The Story of J.M.B.

 

I'll make it

[AlexanderDavid]

Thank you for finally clearing this up.    You've probably scared MLD away with that information which he should have given in the first place....

But what is the significance of "I'll make it" at the end of your post?

[Robert Greenham]

No significance whatsoever.  Sorry, I don't know how that got there. I don't remember typing those words, but I suppose I must have done, and I didn't notice them when I hit the 'Post' button.

[Holly G.]

God! I am late.
He or she did it on purpose, I guess. A little game. There are plenty of neurotic or simply stupid persons like that on forums. They have nothing to do in the whole day and they try to provoke people because they have nothing more in life. Find his or her IP's address and banish him or her from the forum. It's easy. I am for the "tyrannical" manner with these sort of décérébrés.
Piers Dudgeon's book is horse shit, that's all. Nothing more to prove or to discuss. He wants scandals, it's obvious. He is nothing. He is not even original in his false assertions.
Andrew is the man on Earth who knows Barrie the best and he is a talented man in many ways. No one did and will do better than him to explain Barrie's heart and soul. Take that, petite tête!
And MLD, if you read me and I am sure you do, pisse-froid, petit émasculé de mes deux, if you attack Barrie or Andrew, I consider that you attack me personally. Be careful, I am not as polite as the gentlemen and the women on this forum... Beat it!

[andrew]

Many thanks Robert, although I've now sent off for Dudgeon's book so will cast a jaded eye over it. I have never seen any photos of Michael naked, regardless of who took them. I would guess that Barrie loaned Frampton a clutch of photos, including perhaps those very beautiful ones he took of Peter naked on the beach at Rustington -- with Sylvia and Mary Hodgson looking on, btw, as can be seen from the other photos in the same set.

There are only 4 photos extant of Michael dressed as P P, taken at Rustington in 1906. Two of them were in Peter's wife Pee's album (the one that mysteriously went missing after I returned it to Peter's son Rivvy in 1976, but which I had already rephotographed in 35mm), the 3rd was in Nico's album called "Sunny Memories" (the superb one on the cover of my book), and the 4th - of Michael and Barrie together (the photo on this website's homepage) was loose in a box. There may of course have been others, but to the best of my knowledge none have ever surfaced in the 30+ years I've been on the case.

Dudgeon's source notes sound very sloppy. Mackail makes no reference to the photos, and the quote from Barrie's letter to Sylvia (11 April 1909) comes from my book, p174:

"Frampton was very taken with Mick's pictures & I had to leave them with him. He prefers the Peter clothes to a nude child. It will take him at least two years. George's wife can unveil it. I don't feel gay, so no more at present, dear Jocelyn."

End of story.

[Peter Pan]

And MLD, if you read me and I am sure you do, pisse-froid, petit émasculé de mes deux, if you attack Barrie or Andrew, I consider that you attack me personally. Be careful, I am not as polite as the gentlemen and the women on this forum... Beat it!

Beat it! Just... Beat it!

Had to do it, cuz... you know... MLD/Taylor is a HUGE Michael Jackson fan. 

[Peter Pan]

Andrew - don't waste your money on his book.  Dudgeon writes:
"...since Uncle Jim gave him photographs of the beautiful, angelic, naked Michael to go on. He wrote to Sylvia: 'Frampton was very taken with Mick's pictures and I had to leave them with him,' but, no doubt to Michael's relief, "he prefers the Peter clothes to a nude child...".  However, although he cites the letter, he does not give its actual reference or source and the bit about giving Frampton the photos is written by Dudgeon, not Barrie's alleged actual words. I'm not saying that Dudgeon made it up, but why doesn't give his source - could it be because it's taken out of context? For all we know, there may well have been such pictures, but more likely similar to the very sweet and innocent ones of SLD and PLD in 1899 on the Rustington beach on an typical English summer day which feature in your book...

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. 

Even now in this age where people see pedophiles as frequently as American citizens saw "russian spies" during the cold war, nude children are a VERY common art subject. Painters do it, photographers do it, sculpters do it. And the further back in time you go, it becomes even more common. For just one example, one of the most recognizable fountain styles is that of the nude boy urinating into a pond. You can find these fountains practically anywhere in the world. Nobody seems to suggest that the artist made it as a pornography piece.

As for letters, whenever you get these censored blocks of text, you can never know what the original context of the message was.

Here's a nice example of how a reporter looking for sensationalism would quote my red paragraph above.

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

Sadly, this kind of reporting is perfectly legal.

[ecb]

Andrew stated:

the quote from Barrie's letter to Sylvia (11 April 1909) comes from my book, p174:

"Frampton was very taken with Mick's pictures & I had to leave them with him. He prefers the Peter clothes to a nude child. It will take him at least two years. George's wife can unveil it. I don't feel gay, so no more at present, dear Jocelyn."

I knew that I had read that letter before!  Nothing in the letter suggests that there are naked pictures of Michael as Peter Pan of course.  There is actually a nude picture of Michael at the beach - if you search 1906 in the Database, you will find a perfectly nice picture of Michael paddling at the shoreline - Jack is in the surf and Sylvia is in the water.  Michael is naked as any 6 year old boy at a beach like Rustington would be - nobody thought anything of it - nor should they!

[TheWendybird]

Amen...nudity doesn't automatically equal something sexual. If that's the case my mom should be going to jail for those bathtub pics at age 3 lol And half the parents on the planet

[TheWendybird]

Andrew is the man on Earth who knows Barrie the best and he is a talented man in many ways. No one did and will do better than him to explain Barrie's heart and soul. Take that, petite tête!
And MLD, if you read me and I am sure you do, pisse-froid, petit émasculé de mes deux, if you attack Barrie or Andrew, I consider that you attack me personally. Be careful, I am not as polite as the gentlemen and the women on this forum... Beat it!

Awesome and so true!

[andrew]

You're quite right, ecb - I don't think I ever really noticed that Michael was naked in that beach photo - actually a couple of them - but as you say, perfectly innocent, and I somehow doubt that these were the photos Barrie sent to Frampton as Michael is hardly striking a statuesque pose. As to MLD calling me an ass, it honestly doesn't bother me, but thanks for your support. Also I don't really regard it as "my" forum... it belongs to all of us.

[AlexanderDavid]

Amen...nudity doesn't automatically equal something sexual. If that's the case my mom should be going to jail for those bathtub pics at age 3 lol And half the parents on the planet

PRECISELY--it amazes me how foolish our culture has become to think that nudity or even the reproductive organs are always automatically equated with sexuality.  What's next, parents being forbidden from bathing their children unless the children are in their clothes (so they won't be naked)?  Parents being required to keep their kids in diapers until they reach puberty (or perhaps adulthood) so they won't see their privates until they're "ready" to be sexually active?