[We apologize for the extraordinary, but absolutely necessary, length of this post]
According to John McEwen, writing in The Spectator, 11/10/14,
This accolade, with dozens more, is presumably the reason that Mr Cocker felt his opinions on other nature-writers are of value, and we have just read his article Death of the naturalist in New Statesman, 17/6/15.
In our view he was by no means as even-handed in his writing of it as was the editor, Jason Cowley, in his publishing of the piece. It may be remembered that it was Jason Cowley, then editor of Granta, who anthologized in Granta 102 (2008) what could be called the cream of ‘The New Nature Writing’, and we do wonder how thoroughly he had read this ‘lecture’ by Mark Cocker—considering its content.
Although, at first reading, it may appear to be a measured analysis of ‘what is wrong’ with nature-writers today, and we accept that there is much in the article which is sincere, we cannot help but discern a scarcely concealed sub-text. Mr Cocker was hardly subtle in this respect. He mentioned by name multiple-award-winning authors whose work in this field is accepted to be outstanding and yet whom he described, and not to flatter, as ‘New Nature Writers’. (Why he did so when he was himself included in that august company in Granta 102 is not clear.)
His arguments were not well-made; rather, he dwelt on what he now perceives to be the differences between ‘them and us’. ‘Us’ being those like himself and, of course, his good friend, Jim Perrin. ‘Them’, to give his own example, Robert Macfarlane. And this phony, in fact fabricated, vendetta has had life breathed into it by Mark Cocker previously; here he is, writing in The Spectator, 21/3/15:
In recent years there has been a fashion for so-called ‘New Nature Writing’, when the words are invariably heavy with emotion, while the descriptions of place and wildlife often serve as a hazy green backcloth against which the author depicts the main subject—their own personalities.
Whilst probably this is not the case in Mark Cocker’s own, and excellent work, it is distinctly the case with Jim Perrin’s and there are many who have pointed it out.
The writer of this article attempted to manipulate the ’emotion’ of his readers (a Jim Perrin trait) and hinted that they should pity Richard Mabey. ‘Poor Richard Mabey’, and he planted the thought that this most brilliant of true nature-writers, and a man of humility and great integrity, is seriously troubled to have been ‘supplanted’ (in this case a word used with derogatory intent) by Robert Macfarlane. This was churlish. And he quotes ‘Some ambitious young scribbler in every holloway, dingle or fen…’. It is utter and prejudiced nonsense. ‘Poor’ Richard Mabey is of finer fibre, and would never harbour those vain ideas. And to drag gender into the mix was not as innocent as first it might appear. It was a red-herring; there have been female nature-writers far into antiquity. It is true that men have ‘had it their own way’ for generations, with the early men-only universities and institutions; their publishing houses; their clubs and ‘friendships’. (Much of William Wordsworth’s nature-writing, though, was inspired by his sister, Dorothy’s own nature notes.) No, it was a red-herring, dragged intentionally into his article so that he could quote, specifically, Kathleen Jamie and to link the quote to Robert Macfarlane:
…A Lone Enraptured Male! From Cambridge! Here to boldly go…
Yet further on Mark Cocker pays lip-service to the truth that all nature-writers take example from those who have ‘boldly gone’ before. It is perfectly obvious that the intention behind this whole passage is unworthy; and that gratuitously to insult Robert Macfarlane was Mark Cocker’s only purpose. Jim Perrin has frequently done the same; which seems to us rather a meaningful ‘coincidence’. This was all unnecessary; worse, it was malicious. Mark Cocker should feel ashamed of entering the lists on behalf of his friend, Jim Perrin, for it is certain this was his motivation and one senses Jim Perrin’s smeared finger-prints throughout the text.
The article was written, in part, to be divisive and the author’s words were calculated to encourage readers to take a position in what is really a spurious distinction. And to make quite certain that his point was not overlooked he continued, openly, (but choosing his words carefully—it would not do to be thought using libellous language; another trick he might have copied from Jim Perrin who has devised a method of writing libel ‘libel-lessly’ and used it to great effect over the years…), to mention Robert Macfarlane in distinctly unpleasant terms—we wonder if he ‘caught this’ from his very good friend and confidant. ‘The person who has borne the brunt of the criticism [Robert Macfarlane]…’. Well, yes, most notably from Jim Perrin, under the protection of anonymity (aliases used include: Melangell, Llywarch / Tim Bartley, Arthur Dooley, Clem Fandango, Jago Wells and Jokerman-lemon and lime). And now, as was evident in the article, from Mark Cocker himself.
Who is Mark Cocker that he should write in such a manner what—it is plain to see—is an attempted verbal assassination? And why did he go to lengths to diminish the work of other authors in his ‘thoughtful’ discourse? His own extensive body of work stands alone, regardless of the category into which it falls: he should feel, with justification, proud of his literary output and his success. Is this not sufficient? Should it not be? Instead, through the sophistry in his article, he maligned individual fellow writers: he was disingenuous. Ah, the lure of politics in the literary world… (And we must not disregard what is surely an entrenched loyalty to Jim Perrin.) His seemingly well-thought-out opinions should hold no weight when the words he chose to use, however ‘cleverly’—and under the guise of ‘measured consideration’—were used to disparage others (but so ‘gently’ it might have been missed).
Indeed we wonder if they are his own words or if there has been input—maybe considerable collaboration—from his close friend, Jim Perrin: an author who in so many of his own articles, reviews and comments (even in an article on the Sherpa he did so) regularly makes opportunity to write nastily about ‘The New Nature-Writers’ in general, and Robert Macfarlane** in particular; and who, to harm the reputations of those of whom he is envious—infinitely superior authors—frequently skates to the very brink of libel. (Of course there was the famous case of Curran v Perrin where he, for once, did not get away with it! ) His motivation may well be jealousy and pique.
Has Mark Cocker been contaminated by association? We think there may be a rational explanation for the continual sniping; rather more elegantly in Mark Cocker’s prose as compared to the poisoned arrows which Jim Perrin aims at his targets. It is this: Jim Perrin, the ‘pre-eminent’ author (as one reads endlessly in the author-information given out about him) was NOT included in that seminal edition of Granta. And we do know, as a certainty, that he was not invited to contribute. Thus were the readers deprived of an ‘illustrious’ writer in the genre: what a loss to all concerned and to the world of ‘New Nature Writers’… Had Jim Perrin been involved one might guess that none of the subsequent diatribes, or the negative thoughts—his own or those of his supportive friends (or cronies)—would ever have crossed their minds; and this, we believe, lies at the root of all the ‘anti’ New Nature Writers’ brouhaha. Pure malignancy and spite. ‘Hell hath no fury like Jim Perrin scorned’…
* * * * *
The categorizing of nature-writers could be thought fanciful. Fashions come and go, in writing as in hem-lines, and each will write in their own way. Does Helen Macdonald, for instance, author of H is for Hawk—and whom Mark Cocker was at pains to particularize (as did Jim Perrin in his Guardian Country Diary entry of 7/3/15, except with an almost Machiavellian oblique barb)—ever declare that she considers herself to be ‘a nature-writer’, new or otherwise? Her book was written from the heart and as such it has been recognised and has touched the hearts of thousands: this is why it has achieved an outstanding success. A success perhaps that some other authors might envy? She was not concerned to be put into a ‘category’. So why has Mark Cocker written as he has done with (despite much diplomatic flattery) an element of almost-disdain? It seemed patronising and un-gentlemanly.
As to Jason Cowley’s approval of Mark Cocker’s article; he cannot be unaware that Jim Perrin launched a personal attack on him—that is of his introduction to ‘Granta 102’—in his ‘William Condry Memorial Lecture’ of 2010. Again, as in this article by Mark Cocker (when he refers to Robert Macfarlane) part of Jim Perrin’s lecture was quite deliberately focussed on Jason Cowley. His brazen intention was to insult him—we were later told that ‘it was his revenge for not being invited to contribute to Granta 102.’ While this invidious behaviour can be seen as Jim Perrin’s ‘stock in trade’ we had not thought Mark Cocker would ape his style or stoop so low.
And has Jim Perrin’s influence on Mark Cocker guaranteed him a mention in the article in which he was given much credit for his ‘views’ and thus ensured for him a suitable elevation among his ‘peers’? Not only that but he was hailed as having written ‘a searing memoir’! Might it be that Mark Cocker’s continuing alliance with Jim Perrin is ill-judged?—given his interest and expertise there is no pun intended when we repeat the old adage: ‘Birds of a feather flock together’ and as we had thought so highly of his books we would be saddened if this was the case.
But: Mr Cocker knows about our website and we have spoken with him; two conversations, albeit the second was brusquely curtailed. (We suppose that between the two, and the first was friendly enough, he had communicated with Jim Perrin.) He was told that ‘Melangell‘—who had written several sycophantic comments on The Guardian‘s website about his work (they are still there), was actually his friend, Jim Perrin, using an alias. He would not believe it then, perhaps to his credit, (yet even to this day he seems so besotted with Jim Perrin that he cannot accept the possibility). This well might be because Jim Perrin can be very persuasive—’plausible’ is his middle name—whenever he is challenged on the subject of ‘jacssisters’ we know that his response is always to say that it is full of lies; that our family ‘has it in for him’, and that ‘he is the victim of malicious gossip which is being spread about’. He also exhorts any over whom he has power not to read our site at all—to do so would be tantamount to the gravest disloyalty; so, in good faith, Mark Cocker has presumably been ‘loyal’ to Jim Perrin. And at the time of our telephone conversation he simply could not believe what we told him. ‘No’, he said, when we told him the dreadful truth, ‘she is a woman’… He would not believe us. He genuinely had no idea until our conversation and he refused even to countenance the possibility. He did not want to know. (Similarly he has accepted ‘DrudwyBranwen‘, at face-value and seems without suspicion.)
This ‘trust’, bordering perhaps on naivety, or to be cynical, on self-interest has certainly ensured that Jim Perrin has a firm support in Mr Cocker and through him the entrée to other opportunities; so many of which have indisputably been closed to him since the establishment of our site—his work at the ‘Ty Newydd’ writing centre in Wales, for one example. He has needed all the help he can muster and Mark Cocker has continued to be his right-hand man. We are inclined to wonder whether Jim Perrin has some ‘hold’ over him; if so it seems powerful. And what reason, what obligation, could have induced him to reference the ‘searing memoir’ of his best friend’s book ‘West’? The book of which even its publisher, Toby Mundy*, said to us, in speaking of Jim Perrin: ‘It is a book that he should never have written’. (Yet, after all, perhaps it was the book which was destined to reveal by its ramifications the ‘real’ Jim Perrin.) It was ‘the book’ in which its author told so many lies; not only about his relationship with our sister, Jac, but also about her family and friends, her ex-husband and her previous partners (each identifiable as he intended them to be, to those concerned). His former lovers who had learnt the truth of his nature and dismissed him were salaciously written into ‘West’ and even, and the ultimate disloyalty, he wrote of one of his ex-wives—the mother of the son who was so tragically driven to suicide: she was lied about most shamelessly. It is proved beyond doubt that Jim Perrin is an accomplished and manipulative liar, and someone who has many and worse ‘crimes’ to answer for. Why Mark Cocker should feel so beholden we cannot know. Why he fits so tightly in his pocket (as it seems) is a mystery. We only wish that he would show more sense and sensitivity than to ally himself with such a man.
In our opinion his article in New Statesman was not entirely what it purported to be. Its ‘cleverness’ was merely a vehicle—an exercise in knocking down (however flatteringly) other authors, and interestingly Jim Perrin seems to have had a hand in the project—perhaps two… We feel that Mark Cocker, even if he stands loyally by his friend, would be wiser not to be further involved with him in the continuing factitious attacks on ‘The New Nature Writers’. It puts him in a very bad light indeed and is not the way to ‘win friends and influence people’. Really, he might do better to concentrate on his own admirable work, his acknowledged speciality: the birds of the world…He does not need Jim Perrin, and his career might well be tainted by his association; this would be a tragic outcome for one who has achieved so much on his own merits; and even if at first he really had no idea of the serious flaws in Jim Perrin’s character—and he is adept at concealing them as he chooses—by now he cannot have failed to realise that all is not as it seems and he should remember that ignorance is no defence.
Whatever the circumstances which link Mark Cocker to Jim Perrin, we dearly hope he manages, if in the future he feels the need, to disengage himself without trauma. There is a reservoir of love, respect and understanding for him and his work; so many people have been utterly hoodwinked by Jim Perrin and we know from personal family experience how hard it is to come to terms with it.
* Toby Mundy resigned from ‘Atlantic Books’ in 2014, after founding it in 2000 and being its Chief Executive Officer. The company ‘showed a loss of £ 1.8m on a turnover of £6.9m’ in a ‘dreadful 2010′ which was the year that they published ‘West’! We know, from what Toby Mundy told us, that Jim Perrin’s book did not help the situation. He said that he considered that more people now read our website than have read the book with which we took such issue…
** As the 2013 Defamation Act ‘inversely’ puts it: “A statement is not defamatory unless its publication has caused or is likely to cause serious harm to the reputation of the claimant.” We wonder whether Mark Cocker’s comprehensive ‘reporting’ of only derogatory remarks and references regarding Robert Macfarlane constitute grounds for legal action by him.
Since making this post we have had our attention drawn to a remarkably perceptive article in The Times Literary Supplement by Richard Smyth, entitled The Limits of Nature Writing. It describes Mark Cocker, not without justification, as “perhaps England’s leading contemporary nature writer” and mentions other well-known nature writers; however his acknowledged friend Jim Perrin’s name is not included; did this omission spark Mark Cocker’s article? Was he writing as an exercise in loyalty?