Letters

The Bounty debate GREAT ghosts of Pitcairn Island! Even

William Bligh himself rarely displayed

the fury which now emanates from the wounded egos of consulting psycholog ists with pretensions to historical scho larship. I refer to the letter in PlM’s April issue in which Sven Wahlroos (PhD) takes me to task for failing to take his book Mutiny and Romance in the South Seas: A Companion to the Bounty Adventure , a product of what he refers to as “lifelong research”, seriously. In truth it was hard to do, although I did say that the production was first class and (he book “enviably attractive”.

However, since the good doctor ac cuses me of being “unfair”, “inaccurate”, “uninformed”, “misinformed”, “inconsis tent” and “petty” (Have I left some thing out? At least I am not described as “unstable and psychologically thin skinned”, like poor old Fletcher Christ ian) it seems appropriate to respond.

In doing so though 1 am at a slight dis advantage, since 1 no longer have Dr Wahlroos’ book in front of me. PlM's editor wanted it back and 1 more than happily complied with his request.

Let me lake the accusations in that order. Apart from my failing to give the work an unqualified rave, my unfairness appears to relate to the use of the term “trivia” in reference to part not all, notice of the “companion”. Trivia I said and trivia I meant. Given the usual application of the term, many entries in the companion could not be described any other way. Dr Wahlroos’ airy dismis sal of my objection to his casual handling of Fijian orthography as “minutiae”, apart from being offensive to speakers and writers of the language, reveals that it is he who is being inconsistent, since the section in which it appears places great importance on the significance of place names and similar details.

It was not Dr Wahlroos’ evident en thusiasm for collecting facts which 1 was referring to in questioning his “scho

larship”. Read the review again, Sven.

What I said was that I doubted the cause of scholarship would benefit from his psychological diagnoses. I still do, and so do a number of other Pacific scholars to whom I mentioned them. At least one of them is still laughing. Unfortunately, there is also evidence in this paragraph and in the book that Dr Wahlroos like many zealous amateur, historians may think that accumulations of fact consti tute history. How else does one interpret the phrase “. . . one single inaccuracy of history or fact?” As to my not being able to come up with a convincing explana tion of the mutiny, I was unaware that reviewers were under an obligation to produce a counter-thesis, especially to “explanations” which are so patently fee ble in the first place. Library shelves are

already bulging with explanations far

more convincing than the one in the book.

The inaccuracy, inconsistency and so on evidently relate to my comments on the Australian films of the Bounty story where I am also said to be misinformed. 1 regret to say that it is Dr Wahlroos who is both inconsistent and misin formed here. Filming for the 1916 film

by Raymond Longford was also carried

out in Tahiti, besides New Zealand and Norfolk Island. So say newspapers of the period, at least, although New Zealand Maoris were later chosen for acting parts. Whether the Tahitian footage was ever used is another matter, since no

Letters To The Editor Must In

clude writer’s full name, address and home telephone number. All letters may be edited for purposes of clarity or space.

Letters should be addressed to: Pacific Islands Monthly PO Box 1167 Suva

Fiji Islands

Fax: (679) 302011

print of the film is known to exist.

Charnel's film was not only shot in part on Tahiti, but included scenes of Tahitian dancers which originally caused the Australian censor great concern since in some scenes the female dancers were bare-breasted. To suggest that they were actually Tongans is fatuous: Tongans don’t dance that way, and then as now would not have been likely to display their breasts for a film. In any event, most of the first Hollywood film of the Bounty was shot on Catalina Island off the Californian coast, yet it is mentioned in the book. Inconsistent . . .?

As to Bligh and the “discovery” of Fiji, Dr Wahlroos is attempting a double take here. Commemorative stamp issues not withstanding, the words in the book which are quoted in my review read “as the principal discoverer”, not “the prin cipal European discoverer" as Dr Wah lroos has it in his letter. Even amateur historians should be aware of the differ ence, since it is considerable.

But it is the last paragraph of Dr Wah lroos’ letter which really gives the show away. My real sin is that my review is “unappreciative of romance and adven ture and humour.” Oh dear! Presumably these are qualities which Dr Wahlroos possesses in abundance. I must say it did not occur to me to displav my fondness for romance and adventure in the re view, but my ex-wives and my passports could attest to some of it. As for the humour. Dr Wahlroos may be assured that the review occasioned quite a bit of mirth among readers of PIM. so I am told. But in case I did not make the point clearly enough the first time, let me make it again, briefly. For all his professed lifetime of research. Dr Wah lroos has not written a very good book, and all his fantasising about adventure and romance and his self-inflicted Huz zahing for Otaheite will not alter that. As far as 1 am concerned, this correspond ence is now closed.

Norman Douglas

Alstonville , NSW.