The documentary pattern—Crawford’s supportive public statements before the ceremony, Davis’s allegations offered years later, the absence of corroborating witnesses—does not resolve the central question. It merely establishes the shape of the evidence.
—
SHAUN CONSIDINE, DAVID STENN, AND THE BIOGRAPHIES
The biographical literature on Crawford and Davis is extensive and of variable reliability. Two books are particularly central to the understanding of their relationship as it has come down to public consciousness.
Shaun Considine’s *Bette and Joan: The Divine Feud* (1989) is the text that codified the rivalry narrative in its most accessible and dramatically satisfying form. Considine drew on interviews with a range of people connected to both women and constructed a narrative that is vivid and specific in its details. It is also, as the debunking advocacy site notes, a text that other scholars have questioned at points—not categorically, but in the way that any biography drawing on oral sources over a long chronology must be questioned.
Davis was still alive in 1989 and apparently cooperated with Considine’s research, or at least did not publicly contest the book’s account of her perspective. This means that the book’s version of Davis’s grievances represents, at minimum, Davis’s version of Davis’s grievances as understood at the end of her life. It does not mean those grievances were objectively accurate, and it does not mean they accurately described Crawford’s motivations.
David Stenn’s work on Crawford, and other biographies including Donald Spoto’s and Bob Thomas’s, offer supplementary perspectives. The challenge for any serious reader of this material is distinguishing between claims that rest on documentary evidence, claims that rest on interview testimony from people who had reason to present events in particular ways, and claims that entered the literature through repetition rather than original research.