I don't disagree. But 'temporary fix' implies he hoped it would stay secret forever, which may not be true; maybe he himself hoped the truth would come out, but didn't think it was right for him to be the one to do it.
I still love biography (how could I live without Walton and Johnson and Boswell...) but I am wary of biographies of the living. That's one reason so many of the subjects of Second Act are long dead. Archives have many answers that journalism does not.
Fascinating examination. As a former journalist, it's a question which I had to struggle to answer: how much do you say of what you know about the living or the dead? Should the threshold of death change anything? What about the feelings of relatives, or associated tarnish, versus the value of truth? Is truth ipso facto more valuable than the emotional needs of those most invested in the 'story' - their own lives and recent memory? One man's assiduous, Pulitzer-winning investigative revelation is another man's moral demise. One man's prurience is another's justice seen to be done.
In French political journalism, for example, there is a code of omertà concerning the sexual exploits of leaders that is completely foreign to UK 'hacks'. Who is doing the greater service to the reader?
I'm a free speech person and I think in cases like this it's clearly better to tell the truth. Once there had been a conviction it seems bizarre for this to have been kept quiet... The feelings being saved here were not those of the victim, which seems significant to me.
This is some of your best work, Henry -- short, sharp, incisive, comprehensive.
The fear of being or seeming prurient is one of the great evils and weaknesses of the mainstream literary world. The deep human desire to hide what we do not like is one of our very worst qualities.
Related to this topic...curious if you've read Claire Dederer's Monsters. (I'm halfway through and reserving opinion.) I don't love the overly personal, naval-gaze, American-style insert-yourself-into-everything style of essay writing, I do think reckoning with the idea of how to enjoy the 'art' of flawed creators is worthy of exploring.
I think we can and should be interested in artists' lives without letting it colour our appreciation of their work, though in many cases (i.e. Jane Eyre) it gives us a basis for understanding the work also. Haven't read the book... will have a look in the library next time I'm there, thanks!
I don't disagree. But 'temporary fix' implies he hoped it would stay secret forever, which may not be true; maybe he himself hoped the truth would come out, but didn't think it was right for him to be the one to do it.
yes that's true, all I meant by temporary was that sooner or later his concealment would be pointless. It never does stay secret forever.
Why I don't read literary biographies! Great piece.
I still love biography (how could I live without Walton and Johnson and Boswell...) but I am wary of biographies of the living. That's one reason so many of the subjects of Second Act are long dead. Archives have many answers that journalism does not.
Fascinating examination. As a former journalist, it's a question which I had to struggle to answer: how much do you say of what you know about the living or the dead? Should the threshold of death change anything? What about the feelings of relatives, or associated tarnish, versus the value of truth? Is truth ipso facto more valuable than the emotional needs of those most invested in the 'story' - their own lives and recent memory? One man's assiduous, Pulitzer-winning investigative revelation is another man's moral demise. One man's prurience is another's justice seen to be done.
In French political journalism, for example, there is a code of omertà concerning the sexual exploits of leaders that is completely foreign to UK 'hacks'. Who is doing the greater service to the reader?
I'm a free speech person and I think in cases like this it's clearly better to tell the truth. Once there had been a conviction it seems bizarre for this to have been kept quiet... The feelings being saved here were not those of the victim, which seems significant to me.
Absolutely. I agree in this case. But there's no universal maxim here. The nature of the matter in general is it doesn't withstand generalisation.
This is some of your best work, Henry -- short, sharp, incisive, comprehensive.
The fear of being or seeming prurient is one of the great evils and weaknesses of the mainstream literary world. The deep human desire to hide what we do not like is one of our very worst qualities.
Oh thank you! I guess my long-standing interest in biography makes me weirdly niche for stuff like this
Devastating news about Munro. I don't even know how to compute the news, let alone the role of a biographer.
Yes the whole thing is startling...
Related to this topic...curious if you've read Claire Dederer's Monsters. (I'm halfway through and reserving opinion.) I don't love the overly personal, naval-gaze, American-style insert-yourself-into-everything style of essay writing, I do think reckoning with the idea of how to enjoy the 'art' of flawed creators is worthy of exploring.
https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/589194/monsters-by-claire-dederer/
I think we can and should be interested in artists' lives without letting it colour our appreciation of their work, though in many cases (i.e. Jane Eyre) it gives us a basis for understanding the work also. Haven't read the book... will have a look in the library next time I'm there, thanks!