Catherine Peters, author who wrote acclaimed biographies of Dickens, Byron and Wilkie Collins
Catherine Peters, who has died aged 94, had a lauded academic career that only began when she was 50; The King of Inventors (2016), is the standard life of Wilkie Collins, and she also wrote much-praised books on Thackeray (1987), Byron (2000) and Charles Dickens (2009).
She became a Fellow of the Royal Society of Literature in 1992, and that year was shortlisted for the James Tait Black Biography Prize, as well as being runner-up for the Southern Arts Literature Award. All this was accomplished despite a sometimes miserable and traumatic childhood and unhappy first marriage.
Catherine Lisette Peters was born in London on September 30 1930, one of two children of AD Peters, the literary agent whose formidable list included JB Priestley, CS Lewis and Evelyn Waugh. He had been born to Danish parents in Schleswig-Holstein as August Detlef Peters, which was changed to Augustus Dudley when he was adopted, aged three, by an aunt in London. Catherine's mother was Helen MacGregor.
The marriage ended in divorce, and Catherine and her brother stayed with their mother. In 1932 Helen married a client of AD Peters, Anthony Berkeley Cox – author, under a clutch of noms de plume, of popular novels, chiefly crime fiction, including his best-known, Malice Aforethought. This marriage ended in the late 1940s.
Catherine was two when her mother married her stepfather, and was in her teens when the marriage broke up. Cox sexually abused her (as she later told her eldest son, the writer Matthew Barton). Adding to this wretchedness, she lost her elder brother, Richard, who was killed in 1945 in Burma behind Japanese lines.
In January 1952, aged only 21, with the blonde good looks of a film starlet, Catherine married the saturnine, handsome John Glyn Barton, a solicitor, who would be prospective Liberal candidate for South Paddington in 1963 – and serial womaniser. They had four children, Matthew (poet and writer), Robert (biological anthropologist), Will (the actor, Will Barton), and Thomas, who died aged nine in a drowning accident.
Their mother, effectively a single parent, had taken them in 1966 on holiday to the west of Ireland, 'cramming us all into her tiny Mini car with luggage strapped precariously to the roof-rack, driving all the way from London to the ferry in Wales,' wrote Robert.
It was there that Thomas drowned. The reprobate husband turned up but took only two of the boys with him, leaving Catherine to deal with practical matters, the shock and the grief. 'He was a rogue,' said Will, 'and left us to pursue chaos. Women were his Achilles heel.' They divorced in 1965.
Catherine bore all this stoically – the one bright spot being Fleet House in the Vale of Health, Hampstead, a Victorian villa where they moved in the mid-1950s. It was located in the middle of the Heath, so it was more like being in idyllic countryside than in London.
There were lots of parties and long family walks: 'We children ran feral on the Heath making dens and climbing trees,' recalled Robert, and in summer Catherine was a regular at the ladies' swimming pond; their neighbours included the pianist Alfred Brendel.
While bringing up her three sons, Catherine worked for her father's agency, and as a publishers' reader for Jonathan Cape from the late 1960s to about 1973.
In October 1970 Catherine married Anthony Storr, the writer and Jungian psychoanalyst who had a passion for music, which Catherine shared. His marriage history was a source of confusion, as the first wife, whom he divorced the same year, was also called Catherine Storr, and also a client of AD Peters.
The first Catherine Storr was the bestselling author of children's books such as Clever Polly and the Stupid Wolf (1955). This is why Catherine Storr the literary scholar always published as Catherine Peters. (Following their divorce in 1970 Catherine, the first wife, married the economist Lord Balogh and styled herself Lady Balogh.)
Anthony Storr gave up his private psychiatric practice in 1974 and they moved to Oxford, where he was consultant psychotherapist for the Oxford Area Health Authority, a lecturer in psychiatry and member of the Senior Common Room of Wadham College; he later joined Green College. He published a dozen or more books and made frequent appearances on radio and television.
At this point, in 1977, with the children now grown, Catherine went as a mature student to read English language and literature at St Hugh's College, Oxford, and graduated in 1980 with the best First of her year. She then taught English literature at Somerville from the late 1980s to the early 1990s.
After her retirement, in her mid-sixties she taught evening classes at Oxford's Department of Continuing Education. In a 1996 interview in The Independent she said that her pupils tended to stay the course.
'What happens is usually we get a great crowd at the first meeting. Those who don't think it's going to live up to their expectations drift away, but there is a hard core which stays and completes the two terms, which is 20 evenings. Not only that, they come back year after year. There are a lot of retired people who say it is the only thing that keeps them going. They say it ought to be on the National Health.'
Catherine Storr also wrote poetry all her life, some of which was published in small collections, and was a regular reviewer for several papers and magazines.
She and Anthony entertained a good deal at their house in Oxford. She was a good and imaginative cook, the wine was poured generously, and the guests were drawn from the most interesting company Oxford had to offer, along with many from the London media and the music world.
After Anthony's death in 2001, Catherine moved to a modern flat, where her next-door neighbour was an old chum, Desmond Morris. Her three sons gave her much pleasure.
In her last years, suffering from mild dementia, she moved to a care home, which appeared to give her a new enjoyment of life. Life dealt her some rotten hands along with some tremendous gifts; she played them without complaining, and made the most of her talents.
Catherine Peters, born September 30 1930, died January 12 2025
Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles

Business Insider
2 hours ago
- Business Insider
Netflix hitmaker Scott Frank on Hollywood: 'People are afraid now.'
Scott Frank figured out how to thrive in Hollywood. Now he's doing it at Netflix. But the writer/director has advice for young people who want to follow in his footsteps: Try something else. If Frank were starting out his career in 2025, he said he wouldn't mess around with movies or television. "I'd want to go work in the gaming world, where I think there's some really interesting stuff going on," he told me this month. That's quite a comment coming from someone who spent years as one of the most in-demand writers in the movie business, and has now established himself as a reliable hitmaker for Netflix. " Dept. Q" — his third series for the streamer, following his "Godless" western and the pandemic megahit "The Queen's Gambit" — is his take on the British mystery genre, and it's been near the top of the Netflix charts since it debuted in May. But Frank says the wave of digital distractions and options makes it incredibly difficult for traditional movies and TV to capture audience attention today. For all of Netflix's massive success, it still lags behind YouTube in terms of time viewers spend on screens, he notes. And teens are now spending an astonishing two hours a day on TikTok. "So, how do you get people to go to the movies? How do you get people to pay attention to your show? There's so much stuff," he tells me. "Whereas gaming — you're not folding your laundry while you're playing a game. You're not texting while you're playing a game. You're involved. And that seems to me like an opportunity for storytelling." That won't be an opportunity for Frank himself — "I'm too old," he says — and he says he'll continue to try making movies and TV shows. He'd love to make a second season of "Dept. Q," which is based on a series of crime novels by Danish author Jussi Adler-Olsen. You can hear my full conversation with Frank on my Channels podcast. The following is an edited excerpt from our chat: Peter Kafka: Some Netflix shows and movies seem like they'll generate huge numbers, but don't feel like they have cultural resonance. But it seems like people are talking about your show. Do you feel that? Scott Frank: You're certainly correct in that a lot of the movies, in particular, don't leave much of a ripple. There's not a lot of cultural wake. That being said, they are watched a lot, and people enjoy watching them and seek them out. And Netflix has 300 million worldwide subscribers, so way more people are going to watch your movie. As opposed to something getting released in theaters that no one watches, and it doesn't create any kind of long tail, either. With the television shows, it's a little different. Because when they hit, they tend to leave a mark. They tend to resonate. What accounts for that? Is it simply because there's more of it? There's 10 episodes, so you're spending more time? And there's more reason to talk about it, because it's episodic — you can tell people, "Wait till you get to episode five?" Yes, yes, yes, and yes. I think that's why. It's a different sort of investment. When you're sitting down to watch a show, you are hoping that it's something you're going to stick with. Whereas when you're watching a movie, you know: "I have a couple hours, an hour and a half, I'm gonna watch this thing." I don't have an easy answer other than to say that, for me, the engagement and narrative in the world right now have never been higher. During the Hollywood writers' and actors' strikes a couple of years ago, AI didn't start off as the big issue, but then became one, or at least the dominant talking point. What did you make of that discussion then? And how are you thinking about AI and tech now? Tech has been a bit of a disaster for the country in many ways, but it's also been an amazing boon to the world. I just think that these guys run the companies, so many of them are compromised and … Let's narrow it down to your world. We could have the other discussion … But I think it affects my world because they now own my world. We probably were striking against the wrong people that time. Because we're owned by tech people now. This is increasingly more and more a tech business. And so, ultimately, we're at the whim of these people at the very top of these companies. We saw after, after the election, everybody's sort of paying, essentially bribes to [ Donald Trump ]. So that affects us. That really does affect the business. People are afraid now. And so you see that. You see people are too careful. They're afraid because of the political climate, or they're afraid just because it's an era of consolidation and there just aren't that many places to go if you upset a studio chief? I think all of the above. I just think it's all at the same time. Also, the ground is shifting. This business hasn't landed where it's going to land yet, and people keep looking backwards and saying, "No, we just need to get moviegoing back to where it was." That boat's sailed. That's not gonna happen anymore. So we're not thinking about, "Well, what is the business now? What does the business want to be?" The audience is trying to tell us, and we're not listening. How do you feel about using tech and AI in your work? There's one theory that says someone's going to type in a prompt and the AI spits out an entire movie. The more conservative argument is, "We're going to improve flows, and instead of using 10 visual-effects people, you could do it with four or eight." The even more positive spin is, "Those eight to 10 visual-effects people could do much better work." We've always used versions of that. If it wasn't proper AI, there were always ways to shortcut those kinds of things, to create a smoother workflow and all of that. If an actor couldn't do a certain stunt, and we wanted to put their face on something else, that's been happening, and that's going to get easier. Which is scary if you're an actor. I think the bigger problem is not making stuff with AI, but deciding what to make with AI. That's the bigger threat, at least for me, in the immediate sense. Have you played around and asked ChatGPT to write a script in the mode of Scott Frank? Yeah. It was silly. But if you want to write a letter, a business letter or something … my wife needed to write this letter, and she just thought, "Let's see what ChatGPT said," and she sent me the letter and it was damn good. It was really good. I think it's more about the future of the algorithm. The algorithm is great for marketing after something's done. [But] it's death to the industry to use it to decide what to make because you're gaming something. And if everybody's using the same algorithm, it becomes a snake that eats its own tail eventually. That's my big fear. You started in Hollywood the old-fashioned way — you moved there and spent years trying to get work as a writer. I wrote one script over and over that no one wanted — " Little Man Tate" — until somebody wanted it. What would that path look like for you now if you wanted to get into making movies or television? Would you move to LA, for starters? That's easy. I wouldn't go into movies or television. I'd go into games. If I were 24 now, I'm not gonna fuck around with movies or television. I want to go work in the gaming world, where I think there's some really interesting stuff going on. Other than the fact that lots of people play games, what's appealing to you? They seem pretty narratively limited. But they're at the beginning, in a way. I mean, the first movies were narratively limited, too. And I wonder what you can do with them. I'm really curious. I just feel like that world is way more interesting. You know, more people watch YouTube stuff and TikTok stuff than Netflix. YouTube is No. 1 [for time spent] and Netflix is way down [the list]. And then the next closest thing, Disney, is way down. And people on average spend two hours a day on TikTok. So that's what you're competing with. So your next project is an immersive game … No. I'm too old. There's a series of "Dept. Q" books. Will you do more of them? I'd love to. It's up to Netflix. I would absolutely love to.

Business Insider
5 hours ago
- Business Insider
The man behind Netflix's 'Dept. Q' thinks the future of entertainment is … games
Scott Frank figured out how to thrive in Hollywood. Now he's doing it at Netflix. But the writer/director has advice for young people who want to follow in his footsteps: Try something else. If Frank were starting out his career in 2025, he said he wouldn't mess around with movies or television. "I'd want to go work in the gaming world, where I think there's some really interesting stuff going on," he told me this month. That's quite a comment coming from someone who spent years as one of the most in-demand writers in the movie business, and has now established himself as a reliable hitmaker for Netflix. " Dept. Q" — his third series for the streamer, following his "Godless" western and the pandemic megahit "The Queen's Gambit" — is his take on the British mystery genre, and it's been near the top of the Netflix charts since it debuted in May. But Frank says the wave of digital distractions and options makes it incredibly difficult for traditional movies and TV to capture audience attention today. For all of Netflix's massive success, it still lags behind YouTube in terms of time viewers spend on screens, he notes. And teens are now spending an astonishing two hours a day on TikTok. "So, how do you get people to go to the movies? How do you get people to pay attention to your show? There's so much stuff," he tells me. "Whereas gaming — you're not folding your laundry while you're playing a game. You're not texting while you're playing a game. You're involved. And that seems to me like an opportunity for storytelling." That won't be an opportunity for Frank himself — "I'm too old," he says — and he says he'll continue to try making movies and TV shows. He'd love to make a second season of "Dept. Q," which is based on a series of crime novels by Danish author Jussi Adler-Olsen. You can hear my full conversation with Frank on my Channels podcast. The following is an edited excerpt from our chat: Peter Kafka: Some Netflix shows and movies seem like they'll generate huge numbers, but don't feel like they have cultural resonance. But it seems like people are talking about your show. Do you feel that? Scott Frank: You're certainly correct in that a lot of the movies, in particular, don't leave much of a ripple. There's not a lot of cultural wake. That being said, they are watched a lot, and people enjoy watching them and seek them out. And Netflix has 300 million worldwide subscribers, so way more people are going to watch your movie. As opposed to something getting released in theaters that no one watches, and it doesn't create any kind of long tail, either. With the television shows, it's a little different. Because when they hit, they tend to leave a mark. They tend to resonate. What accounts for that? Is it simply because there's more of it? There's 10 episodes, so you're spending more time? And there's more reason to talk about it, because it's episodic — you can tell people, "Wait till you get to episode five?" Yes, yes, yes, and yes. I think that's why. It's a different sort of investment. When you're sitting down to watch a show, you are hoping that it's something you're going to stick with. Whereas when you're watching a movie, you know: "I have a couple hours, an hour and a half, I'm gonna watch this thing." I don't have an easy answer other than to say that, for me, the engagement and narrative in the world right now have never been higher. During the Hollywood writers' and actors' strikes a couple of years ago, AI didn't start off as the big issue, but then became one, or at least the dominant talking point. What did you make of that discussion then? And how are you thinking about AI and tech now? Tech has been a bit of a disaster for the country in many ways, but it's also been an amazing boon to the world. I just think that these guys run the companies, so many of them are compromised and … Let's narrow it down to your world. We could have the other discussion … But I think it affects my world because they now own my world. We probably were striking against the wrong people that time. Because we're owned by tech people now. This is increasingly more and more a tech business. And so, ultimately, we're at the whim of these people at the very top of these companies. We saw after, after the election, everybody's sort of paying, essentially bribes to [ Donald Trump ]. So that affects us. That really does affect the business. People are afraid now. And so you see that. You see people are too careful. They're afraid because of the political climate, or they're afraid just because it's an era of consolidation and there just aren't that many places to go if you upset a studio chief? I think all of the above. I just think it's all at the same time. Also, the ground is shifting. This business hasn't landed where it's going to land yet, and people keep looking backwards and saying, "No, we just need to get moviegoing back to where it was." That boat's sailed. That's not gonna happen anymore. So we're not thinking about, "Well, what is the business now? What does the business want to be?" The audience is trying to tell us, and we're not listening. How do you feel about using tech and AI in your work? There's one theory that says someone's going to type in a prompt and the AI spits out an entire movie. The more conservative argument is, "We're going to improve flows, and instead of using 10 visual-effects people, you could do it with four or eight." The even more positive spin is, "Those eight to 10 visual-effects people could do much better work." We've always used versions of that. If it wasn't proper AI, there were always ways to shortcut those kinds of things, to create a smoother workflow and all of that. If an actor couldn't do a certain stunt, and we wanted to put their face on something else, that's been happening, and that's going to get easier. Which is scary if you're an actor. I think the bigger problem is not making stuff with AI, but deciding what to make with AI. That's the bigger threat, at least for me, in the immediate sense. Have you played around and asked ChatGPT to write a script in the mode of Scott Frank? Yeah. It was silly. But if you want to write a letter, a business letter or something … my wife needed to write this letter, and she just thought, "Let's see what ChatGPT said," and she sent me the letter and it was damn good. It was really good. I think it's more about the future of the algorithm. The algorithm is great for marketing after something's done. [But] it's death to the industry to use it to decide what to make because you're gaming something. And if everybody's using the same algorithm, it becomes a snake that eats its own tail eventually. That's my big fear. You started in Hollywood the old-fashioned way — you moved there and spent years trying to get work as a writer. I wrote one script over and over that no one wanted — " Little Man Tate" — until somebody wanted it. What would that path look like for you now if you wanted to get into making movies or television? Would you move to LA, for starters? That's easy. I wouldn't go into movies or television. I'd go into games. If I were 24 now, I'm not gonna fuck around with movies or television. I want to go work in the gaming world, where I think there's some really interesting stuff going on. Other than the fact that lots of people play games, what's appealing to you? They seem pretty narratively limited. But they're at the beginning, in a way. I mean, the first movies were narratively limited, too. And I wonder what you can do with them. I'm really curious. I just feel like that world is way more interesting. You know, more people watch YouTube stuff and TikTok stuff than Netflix. YouTube is No. 1 [for time spent] and Netflix is way down [the list]. And then the next closest thing, Disney, is way down. And people on average spend two hours a day on TikTok. So that's what you're competing with. So your next project is an immersive game … No. I'm too old. There's a series of "Dept. Q" books. Will you do more of them? I'd love to. It's up to Netflix. I would absolutely love to.
Yahoo
a day ago
- Yahoo
Catherine visits behind the scenes at museum stores
The Princess of Wales has visited the Victoria and Albert Museum's storehouse in East London, seeing a project that wants to make the museum's huge collection available to a wider range of people. The museum, which has its main building in South Kensington, has more than 600,000 objects in newly-opened store rooms at the Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park. Catherine had a behind-the-scenes tour, where she praised how the public will be able to get a closer view of more of the museum's historic items. The V&A East Storehouse is a purpose-built arts storage centre, intended to widen access and "unlock" the collection of art, design and fashion items, much of which is not usually on display. "What a fantastic idea to have all these pieces to learn from - so they're not just behind the scenes and stored away somewhere. You can see them in person and up close," said Catherine. "What an opportunity for everyone to see historic pieces first hand," she said, praising the "eclectic" collection. Catherine was shown around the store's cavernous rooms by the museum's director Tristram Hunt and she saw examples of conservation work on textiles in the collection. Mr Hunt showed the princess some examples of textiles by the Victorian designer, William Morris, and she said how much she liked the foliage design. She spoke to the museum director about how some of the historic textiles on show could still look contemporary. The museum stores, free to visitors, has an "order an object" service which allows visitors to book an appointment to see an object close up and get information about it from museum staff. According to royal sources, the purpose of the visit was to highlight the importance of creative opportunity and to celebrate the "power of creativity". Sign up here to get the latest royal stories and analysis every week with our Royal Watch newsletter. Those outside the UK can sign up here.