memories and surveys
When a person of note dies, there are, very generally speaking, two kinds of commentary that immediately appear. The first is the personal remembrance: So-and-So As I Knew Him, or What So-and-So Meant to Me. The second is the considered survey, the overview and summary judgment of a career. Of course, it’s possible to combine the two: Russell Arben Fox’s characteristically thoughtful reflection on Richard John Neuhaus does that, I think. But, you know, generally speaking.
In one of his several recent posts on Neuhaus — all of which combine deep criticism and sincere appreciation in varying proportions — Damon Linker mentions my own post on Neuhaus. He says that, though it’s one of those comments that “praise his many talents and accomplishments while denying any blemishes,” he “rather liked” it. I have a strange feeling that Damon thinks this is a compliment. “Among those who think that Neuhaus was immaculately conceived and at the end assumed into Heaven, you did okay” — that seems to be the message. I myself tend to think that there’s a difference between not mentioning blemishes and denying that they exist, but perhaps I am overly subtle.
It’s true that I didn't mention any of RJN’s blemishes, but that’s because I did not experience them personally; and I was writing a remembrance, not a survey of his career. What can I tell you? Father Neuhaus was uniformly kind to me and supportive of me, and I thought myself obliged to say so. People I know and respect have told me of their difficulties in dealing with Father Neuhaus — though almost always in the context of deep respect for the man — and I could have added those to my post, but as far as I’m concerned that would just have been retailing gossip. Among the remembrancers, let everyone tell his or her own story of Neuhaus, and the aggregate of them will create a lasting portrait of the man. And on the basis of that aggregate better summary judgments may also be formed.
Men perish memmories stay
— Freddy · Jan 10, 06:10 AM · #
I hope you have no need for such a thing anytime soon, but “here lies an overly subtle man” sounds like a cute epitaph.
— Justin · Jan 10, 06:15 AM · #
To be fairer to Linker than he is to Neuhaus, he didn’t specifically accuse you of denying Neuhaus’s blemishes, he used that phrase to characterize the sum total of a bunch of articles, that they were all praise and no criticism.
I think he might be clumsily making the same distinction you made, that among those giving us personal remembrances rather than even-handed evaluations of Neuhaus’s career, he liked yours best.
— Michael Straight · Jan 12, 09:01 PM · #
It’s certainly possible that that’s what Linker meant, Michael, but that’s not at all what he says. The syntax is unambiguous: there are a bunch of remembrances, “most of which” “deny the blemishes” in what Linker says is “the American style,” and mine is “among those.”
You comment raises an interesting question, though: is it ever charitable to assume that someone is writing badly? A true puzzle. (And thanks, by the way, for the kind comments on my first Neuhaus post.)
— Alan Jacobs · Jan 12, 09:59 PM · #
Sorry for intruding with an off-topic question, Alan, but are you planning on reviewing Laura Miller’s book? I’m looking forward to your thoughts.
— J Mann · Jan 13, 05:49 PM · #
It’s always more charitable to assume incompetence instead of malice, but it’s not necessarily more charitable to say so. I know I’d rather be denounced as a fool than a scoundrel, but perhaps not everyone feels that way.
— Michael Straight · Jan 13, 09:28 PM · #