n eagle-eyed well-wisher has contacted us with the following contribution.
* * * * *
Quite often the secondary, and even the primary, purpose of the Dedication or Acknowledgments section in a book is, by dropping ‘names’, to lend a spurious authority to the work, perhaps beyond its merits. Jim Perrin is no exception to this common practice, but he takes it to a different level.
It is known that one book dedication, at least, was made by Perrin without the prior knowledge, still less the permission, of the distinguished named person* (a grave lapse in etiquette, but cunning, particularly as the permission referred to might very well not have been given); also that certain of his acknowledgments are of people not enamoured of him, who are nonetheless now permanently associated with him in print, an insidious form of irreversible literary stalking. Continue reading
When the author Jan Morris reviewed West on 25/12/2010 she posed this question: ‘Is it good or bad to be proprioceptive?’ Jim Perrin had written of our sister—with a reference to her former husband which was virtually libellous—and described, with distasteful relish, injuries which he claimed she had received. He said: ‘A previous man in her life had beaten her savagely about the head, and her corrective balance was gone.’ And on page 220, describing an accident, he wrote: ‘She had fallen in the night at the flat where she was staying, had cracked her lumbar vertebra.’ He could not have known this—there was no medical examination. (See Jac’s accident to read his description of another accident which befell her.)
We responded to this review: ‘The point ”proprioceptive” is most pertinent to our sister’s story. Jim Perrin has made cleverly libel-less statements in these passages. We know to whom he refers—as do others also. He knows that we know (as they say) and it is a serious matter which we will be writing about it in a future blog.’ This is the blog… Continue reading
Presumably Jim Perrin was paid by the ‘Sunday Telegraph’ for his recent full-page article – in Glorious Technicolor – on the topical issue of Sherpas versus mountaineers, (5/5/13); and we wonder if they were aware that by publishing it verbatim they had allowed him the opportunity to engineer and incorporate into the article what surely might be considered by some to be a libellous remark: certainly a sly dig – yet another in what we know to be a long list of these – towards people against whom Jim Perrin would appear to harbour a grudge or bear resentment.
He does not accuse the Sherpas, nor indeed the other main subjects in the article, of being ‘non-performers’ but with his considerable ‘skill’ in these matters – (we have experienced his distasteful ways at first hand, note the virtually libellous comments in ‘West’ and on the ‘Guardian’, against us, by Melangell) – he has managed to disparage in his carefully crafted use of that phrase the authors of ‘Mountains of the Mind’, ‘The Mystery of Mallory and Irvine’ and ‘Into the Silence’: it is quite obvious what Jim Perrin has done, and shows him to be without qualm or conscience. Continue reading