The Aldershot Story debunked by Kenneth S. Lynn

I recently acquired the book 'Charlie Chaplin And His Times' (1998), by Kenneth S. Lynn, and I've found it to be immensely eye-opening. Lynn seems to have done certain Chaplin research for the first time that one would think would have been done a long time ago by authors who instead apparently kept repeating a certain well-known story, namely, the story of five-year-old Charlie filling in for his mother onstage after her vocal breakdown at a music hall in Aldershot, stopping for a bit to pick up the coins thrown at him, then continuing his debut performance. It would seem that Lynn has debunked this tale by researching 'The Era', a weekly journal of the British theatrical profession which was published from 1837 to 1939.

'Through its exhaustive listings of theatrical presentations and its 'professional' card advertisements, Lily Harley's

What Robinson says is that the story is from Chaplin's autobiography, that Chaplin's memory is very good for things like this and that he's passing the story on. He also mentions that lack of bookings and evidence for this show. He does NOT mention if the venue (Canteen, Aldershot) would have advertised or not, which would appear to be rather important information. BTW, this is the revised version.

Robinson's lengthy review of and response to this book was published in the _Los Angeles Times_ around the time of its appearance. I don't have my copy at hand, but Robinson points out that Lynn's assumption regarding the exhaustive nature of the _Era_ listings is false. For example, the _Era_ does not list acts called in at the last moment as substitutes, which could well have been the case in this instance. Furthermore, if I recall correctly, Robinson points out that there is extra-era evidence that Hannah's career started earlier than Lynn assumes. I think the Aldershot story is basically true, though some of the details may be incorrect or embellished. Chaplin was quite young at the time.

Lynn also makes a big deal out of the fact that Chaplin did not live in the poorest section of London. Robinson responds to this at some length, pointing out the misleading nature of the evidence Lynn uses. My impression is that Lynn has visited Lambeth and drawn some false conclusions about the living conditions Chaplin experienced based on its present renovated condition. He also falsely equates abject poverty with the conditions Chaplin describes in his autobiography.

You can retrieve Robinson's review of Lynn from the L.A. Times archives, if you're willing to pay for it.

Let me just say that Robinson has a great advantage over Lynn as an authority on Chaplin's life, because he lives in England, has better access to information, and has been working on Chaplin for decades. But no biographer ever has complete information, and I believe Robinson is contemplating a revised edition of his boook which will incorporate additional material that he's gathered. Maybe he'll even be able to tell us more about those First Nationals.

There was discussion of Lynn on this newsgroup when his book was published. Some of his 'Freudian' interpretations of the films were considered rather bizarre.

Connie K.

The late Kenneth S. Lynn's hatchet job biography of CC was extensively covered here a few years ago. Check Google for the old threads.

Richard Carnahan

To borrow from another thread, Lynn's book is loaded with 'intellectual sloth' colored by a definite bias and a desire to support a particular point of view. Please see the several reviews appearing in various periodicals on the publication of Lynn's book, and the lengthy discussions held here at that time.

Lynn may raise questions about the veracity of Aldershot, but what he presents certainly does NOT prove it to be untrue.

Gee, sounds just like every single post you've ever made here.

Why don't you be explicit about what you think Lynn's 'bias' is?

(Quoting an obit)

In other words, if you aren't biased in favor of your subject, you have no business writing about it! ... and THIS from a supposed

If you want to throw words like 'fraud' around, Lynn is one who comes mighty close to qualifying. At least he gave Waverboy the impression that his The Era information was something new, when in fact that same info, along with 2 graphic repros of Lily Harley's professional card and text of a 3rd, appears in Robinson's 1st edition. Robinson also includes the information that a repro of the Program of Variety Entertainment for Feb. 8, 1896 sponsored by the Hatcham Liberal Club, where Lily Harley appears, is included in Chaplin's My Life in Pictures [MLiP p. 43]. The information that Mark just posted is also part of Robinson's 1st edition. [Robinson pp. 6-7,16-17]

That Lynn goes further to claim, or at least imply according to Waverboy, that a lack of concrete proof of Harley's appearance in Aldershot is proof that the story is apocryphal, is unfortunately exemplary of the style and methods Lynn employs throughout his book to 'support' his view of Chaplin as a commie pinko. So, far from 'scooping' Robinson, it appears Lynn has borrowed heavily from him (with or without attribution?).

Here is Robinson on Lynn: 'The problem is not with Lynn's politics or his dislike of Chaplin but with his uncritical use of sources.'

Now, that's an entirely different thing. I presume 'uncritical use of sources' means he thinks Lynn took as fact sources which he (Robinson) discounted. However, if Robinson wrote HIS book with rose-colored glasses on (and one presumes he did, given his earlier quoted comment), then naturally he would discount as 'uncritical' any sources which didn't agree with HIS outlook.

As for me? Give me Joyce Milton anyday!

Actually, what this says is that Robinson wonders why Lynn wrote the book when it seems that he really doesn't like Chaplin at all. I don't see anything that says that he SHOULDN'T have written the book, just that he wonders why he did it.

I wonder why sometimes myself. I wonder much more about the Milton book - she obviously HATES Chaplin, so much so that I wonder if she had to go vomit periodically to clear the taste out of her mouth from writing about someone she loathed so much!

I guess it's the almighty buck talking - I'm sure Lynn and Milton made plenty from their books.

Frankly, I don't give a red rats rear about Chaplin's personal life - I figure that I will only hear perhaps a quarter of the real story, regardless of who writes about it. I'm interested in the films and their history.