“Phineas I know has been even more startled than I to discover this bitterness in himself. Neither of us ever mentioned it again, and neither of us ever forgot that it was there.”
This question may seem like it should have a fairly easy answer, but it does not. Dear God does it not.
TL;DR: Almost certainly not. Also, never cite Wikipedia.
Let me explain how I got to that conclusion.
So this has bothered me for at least a year now: on Knowles' google info page, it says he was married to a women named Beth Anne Dyment Hughes from an unknown year to 2001 (presumably to his death, but perhaps she died earlier that year).
Huh. She was never mentioned in his New York Times obituary, but perhaps they didn't mention her because she didn't 'survive' him?
So I look up Beth Anne Dyment Hughes.
At the time of writing, there are only 9 matches on Google for the exact words "Beth Anne Dyment Hughes", one of which is just an ID lookup site.
The other 8 are from such reliable sources as Famous Birthdays, multiple Prezi presentations presumably made by high schoolers, someone's LiveJournal post, an eye-hurting Weebly site, and one reply on a site called MovieChat 14 years ago responding to someone saying Knowles never married.
So uh. I wasn't convinced.
Especially since this recent short biography of him, which goes into quite some detail about his life and cites multiple journal articles about him/ASP, does not mention a marriage. It's not an obituary, so you would think it would mention a wife even if she died before him.
But all these..."sources" cite the same specific name, and most of them also include that he married her at 19. So they must all be pulling from somewhere. But...where?
Where did this information come from??
This is the reason high school teachers told you not to cite Wikipedia.
The LiveJournal post, which dates to 2013, cites only one source: Wikipedia. So I decide to look through every edit ever made to Knowles' page to find where this marriage is mentioned, and hopefully finally find the actual source.
The earliest (dated) mention I can find of Beth Anne Dyment Hughes comes from this Wikipedia edit made on May 13th, 2009, by an IP user without an account (though one who made quite a few edits to not just Wikipedia in general, but Knowles' page specifically) - who I'll refer to as "The Editor" for clarity.
The text simply reads "He married Beth Anne Dyment Hughes at 19." No source is cited.
On October 29th, the t is removed from "Dyment", so now her name reads Beth Anne Dymen Hughes. This change seems to be intentional rather than a typo, as the rest of the sentence remains the same.
On November 2nd, his Early Life is expanded on using "offline Yale records". This could potentially point towards Knowles' marriage being mentioned in records I cannot access, but the editor says that the records regard "educational details" and nothing more is added to his marriage, so I don't think this is the case.
On December 8th, 2010, The Editor changes her name back to "Dyment".
On December 15th, as a result of vandalism, the page is reverted to the edit before Dyment was restored, so now her name is Dymen again.
On February 17th, 2011, The Editor changes her name back again to Dyment.
On April 2nd, Beth Anne Dyment Hughes is intentionally (i.e. not as a result of vandalism like previous removals) removed from the page for the first time.
On April 26th, The Editor makes an edit to the page stating that John Knowles' parents were "Brian Callaghan (BCAL the boss)" and Selena Gomez.
On May 5th, The Editor again edits the page, this time stating that John Knowles' dad is "Mark O'Brien, an AE muscle head". This is the last time The Editor interacts with Knowles' page. They did not add back Hughes.
On June 17th, user Lofty abyss adds Hughes back to the page. The wording is the same, and their edit is labeled "rvv" - I assume "revert vandalism" - so I think they believed that Hughes' removal was part of the vandalism?
On November 20th, 2012, someone changes the sentence to say "He did not marry Beth Anne Dyment Hughes at the age of 19". The edit is reversed by another user less than an hour later, but the edit comment labels it "good faith" (i.e. not vandalism).
On October 20th, 2013, her name is simplified to just "Beth Hughes".
On May 6th, 2015, Beth Hughes is removed from the page again. The page was undergoing copy-editing by multiple users at this time, so this may have been a result of the fact that in the previous 6 years, no source had ever been provided to corroborate her existence.
Beth Anne Dyment Hughes is never re-added. The Editor has not edited Wikipedia since 2013.
There is no "actual" source. There never has been.
So why did I tell you all that?
That not-brief history was provided to make two points:
For the six years that Beth Anne Dyment Hughes was stated to have been married to John Knowles, no source was ever provided.
The Editor has clearly vandalized John Knowles' page, particularly the section on his early life, at least two times.
The only person who seems to have had any knowledge about Beth Anne Dyment Hughes clearly had no qualms about adding nonsense to his article for shits and giggles.
There is absolutely no evidence that Beth Anne Dyment Hughes is any different.
If John Knowles ever married - and I cannot find any evidence that he did, and trust me I have looked - it was not to Beth Anne Dyment Hughes.
I cannot find any evidence that a woman by that name ever existed. Other than Knowles' google info box, there has been no mention of her anywhere online since she was removed from the Wikipedia page in May 2015.
This question may seem like it should have a fairly easy answer, but it does not. Dear God does it not.
TL;DR: Almost certainly not. Also, never cite Wikipedia.
Let me explain how I got to that conclusion.
So this has bothered me for at least a year now: on Knowles' google info page, it says he was married to a women named Beth Anne Dyment Hughes from an unknown year to 2001 (presumably to his death, but perhaps she died earlier that year).
Huh. She was never mentioned in his New York Times obituary, but perhaps they didn't mention her because she didn't 'survive' him?
So I look up Beth Anne Dyment Hughes.
At the time of writing, there are only 9 matches on Google for the exact words "Beth Anne Dyment Hughes", one of which is just an ID lookup site.
The other 8 are from such reliable sources as Famous Birthdays, multiple Prezi presentations presumably made by high schoolers, someone's LiveJournal post, an eye-hurting Weebly site, and one reply on a site called MovieChat 14 years ago responding to someone saying Knowles never married.
So uh. I wasn't convinced.
Especially since this recent short biography of him, which goes into quite some detail about his life and cites multiple journal articles about him/ASP, does not mention a marriage. It's not an obituary, so you would think it would mention a wife even if she died before him.
But all these..."sources" cite the same specific name, and most of them also include that he married her at 19. So they must all be pulling from somewhere. But...where?
Where did this information come from??
This is the reason high school teachers told you not to cite Wikipedia.
The LiveJournal post, which dates to 2013, cites only one source: Wikipedia. So I decide to look through every edit ever made to Knowles' page to find where this marriage is mentioned, and hopefully finally find the actual source.
The earliest (dated) mention I can find of Beth Anne Dyment Hughes comes from this Wikipedia edit made on May 13th, 2009, by an IP user without an account (though one who made quite a few edits to not just Wikipedia in general, but Knowles' page specifically) - who I'll refer to as "The Editor" for clarity.
The text simply reads "He married Beth Anne Dyment Hughes at 19." No source is cited.
On October 29th, the t is removed from "Dyment", so now her name reads Beth Anne Dymen Hughes. This change seems to be intentional rather than a typo, as the rest of the sentence remains the same.
On November 2nd, his Early Life is expanded on using "offline Yale records". This could potentially point towards Knowles' marriage being mentioned in records I cannot access, but the editor says that the records regard "educational details" and nothing more is added to his marriage, so I don't think this is the case.
On December 8th, 2010, The Editor changes her name back to "Dyment".
On December 15th, as a result of vandalism, the page is reverted to the edit before Dyment was restored, so now her name is Dymen again.
On February 17th, 2011, The Editor changes her name back again to Dyment.
On April 2nd, Beth Anne Dyment Hughes is intentionally (i.e. not as a result of vandalism like previous removals) removed from the page for the first time.
On April 26th, The Editor makes an edit to the page stating that John Knowles' parents were "Brian Callaghan (BCAL the boss)" and Selena Gomez.
On May 5th, The Editor again edits the page, this time stating that John Knowles' dad is "Mark O'Brien, an AE muscle head". This is the last time The Editor interacts with Knowles' page. They did not add back Hughes.
On June 17th, user Lofty abyss adds Hughes back to the page. The wording is the same, and their edit is labeled "rvv" - I assume "revert vandalism" - so I think they believed that Hughes' removal was part of the vandalism?
On November 20th, 2012, someone changes the sentence to say "He did not marry Beth Anne Dyment Hughes at the age of 19". The edit is reversed by another user less than an hour later, but the edit comment labels it "good faith" (i.e. not vandalism).
On October 20th, 2013, her name is simplified to just "Beth Hughes".
On May 6th, 2015, Beth Hughes is removed from the page again. The page was undergoing copy-editing by multiple users at this time, so this may have been a result of the fact that in the previous 6 years, no source had ever been provided to corroborate her existence.
Beth Anne Dyment Hughes is never re-added. The Editor has not edited Wikipedia since 2013.
There is no "actual" source. There never has been.
So why did I tell you all that?
That not-brief history was provided to make two points:
For the six years that Beth Anne Dyment Hughes was stated to have been married to John Knowles, no source was ever provided.
The Editor has clearly vandalized John Knowles' page, particularly the section on his early life, at least two times.
The only person who seems to have had any knowledge about Beth Anne Dyment Hughes clearly had no qualms about adding nonsense to his article for shits and giggles.
There is absolutely no evidence that Beth Anne Dyment Hughes is any different.
If John Knowles ever married - and I cannot find any evidence that he did, and trust me I have looked - it was not to Beth Anne Dyment Hughes.
I cannot find any evidence that a woman by that name ever existed. Other than Knowles' google info box, there has been no mention of her anywhere online since she was removed from the Wikipedia page in May 2015.
Hello. I’m finally looking to cast my fan-made A Separate Peace musical. I don’t need amazing singers. I just need someone who can sing better than me (a low bar)
I have 7 songs with demos that are ready:
The Summer Session
Be Someone
When You’re in the War
A Secret Peace
Leper Was There
A Hard Truth
Finale
Admittedly, the demos aren’t super high-quality, since I’m not a singer, but I think they get the spirit of the songs across
Roles:
This is a fan project, funded entirely by me, so I don’t have a lot of money to spend on singers. But I do want to compensate singers for their time
Gene: $100 total (7 songs)
Finny/ensemble: $50 (3 songs as Finny, 2 as ensemble)
Brinker/ensemble: $50 (3 songs as Brinker, 2 as ensemble)
Chet/ensemble: $20 (1 song as Chet, 3 as ensemble)
Bobby/ensemble: $20 (1 song as Bobby, 3 as ensemble)
Mr. Hadley: $10 (1 song)
Older Gene: $10 (1 song)
I can pay through either PayPal or Venmo
Email me at [email protected] if you’re interested, with a sample of your singing. And let me know if you can read sheet music or not. It’s not a requirement but it’s helpful for me to know. I’ll try to get back to you as soon as possible.
I have a hc that as sloppy as Finny is, he actually has really good handwriting and a knack for script/ calligraphy (possible from secretly practicing so he can sign autographs for when he’s a world renowned athlete)
I love you the outsiders, I love you the picture of Dorian gray, I love you a seperate peace, I love you dead poets society, I love you homoerotism, i love you classic books with queer themes, I love you.
To be honest, I might have believed John Knowles and what he said about no homoeroticism being intended.
IF it weren't for the way the pink shirt scenes changed between "Phineas" and A Separate Peace. Because I think the details added genuinely, truly could not have been unintentional.
Excuse me using the Tumblr post version of "Phineas" (thank you, fuckyeahaseparatepeace), but two things to note about this iteration of the scene.
Firstly, the part about only Finny being able to wear it comes immediately after the description of the shirt - the pinkness is what makes this shirt embarrassing.
Secondly, and more obviously, in this version Finny is not described as looking gay. Dizzy just means he looks weird. Hell, it's reminiscent of the term "doll dizzy", which was used as slang for a man who was girl-crazy.
In ASP, Gene says Finny looks gay, and then Finny remarks that the only one thinking about him being gay is Gene. And then after this description Gene mentions that only Finny is able to wear the shirt.
Subtextually, it is now not only the pinkness that Finny is able to get away with. He is the only one, in Gene's view, who can get away with being perceived as queer.
And Gene is jealous of him for that.
The mirror scene has a more subtle change. In "Phineas", the final sentence implies that as Phineas, Gene no longer has to worry about being his flawed self. Finny, unlike him, is perfection in Gene's eyes.
In ASP, however, when he sees himself in Finny's shirt Gene feels that he now knows who he is.
Gene only feels like he knows himself when he puts on Finny's gay shirt. I'm gonna jump off a building. Jesus Christ John Knowles.
There is only so far I am willing to suspend my disbelief about the subtext in this book and this goes past it. These things were intentionally changed from the first draft.
With some of the other Subtext™, you could argue it just develops Gene and Finny's close friendship or co-dependence and we only view them as gay because we want to or whatever. There is literally no other reason for this.
So yeah, this book is drowning in intentional gay subtext and I feel 100% confident stating that definitively.
