THE DIARIES OF EVELYN WAUGH [Paperback]

My two-star rating is based on the editing of Evelyn Waugh's diaries, not the diaries themselves (which are fascinating: five-stars!).

These diaries provide an intriguing insight into Evelyn Waugh's view of the world. They were not quite as shocking as I expected, although peppered with many amusing, often acerbic, observations and anecdotes. It is disappointing, though, that the published form was edited by Michael Davie.

Michael Davie's approach is simultaneously self-righteous and faint-hearted. In the Preface he uses the phrases: 'in my opinion' . . . 'again in my opinion', suggesting that it is his viewpoint, not that of the author, nor the reader, which is paramount. On page viii, Davie states that he has taken it upon himself to remove twenty-three 'libellous' references, and another twenty phrases 'not because they are libellous, but because I have concluded that their publication would be intolerably offensive or distressing to living persons or to the surviving relations of those recently dead'. After reading these diaries it seems to me that this is a specious justification and a misuse of Davie's editorial responsibility. It is quite sad that the lifelong catalogue of a great novelist's experiences should be subject to such presumptuous pruning. Davie, with his effete sensibilities, was entirely the wrong person to edit the diaries of someone with strong and caustic views like Evelyn Waugh.

In excising references, Davie claims his motivation was circumspection and expediency, albeit subjective. I suggest that his approach was unnecessarily censorial and over-sensitive. Clearly (one would hope) Michael Davie was aware of, or had taken legal advice on, the criteria and parameters related to libel, for example, applicable time limits, the position if the libelled person is deceased, and defence of 'fair comment'. It would seem that if Davie was in possession of this advice he largely ignored it in deference to his opinion.

Many of the names removed, and the offending events to which they are linked, are together present in other books available not many years after the diaries were published, for example, biographies of Evelyn Waugh by Byrne, Hastings, Stannard and others, and incidental references both in contemporary articles and in publications by, and about, other authors and public figures with whom he associated. This fact undermines Davie's rationale for censoring specific entries.

Michael Davie's unsympathetic editing of these diaries is no credit to his posthumous reputation. One major aspect of Evelyn Waugh's personality responsible for the mordant quality of his novels was his acid wit; for that to be diluted in any way is to emasculate his perspective on the events he recorded. Hopefully, someone with a more mature understanding of an editor's responsibilities will review these excisions and reissue the diaries, verbatim.

› Go to Amazon.com to see the review  2.0 out of 5 stars