She was gay, an alcoholic, suffered from lifelong clinical depression and had a tough upbringing, not really a combination that will produce an easy person given her times. But she gave us Tom Ripley and, incredibly, made us root for him somehow. That's a rare talent.
> She was gay, an alcoholic, suffered from lifelong clinical depression and had a tough upbringing, not really a combination that will produce an easy person given her times. But she gave us Tom Ripley and, incredibly, made us root for him somehow. That's a rare talent.
Isn't how that how most works of art are inspired?
I don't think anyone knows how any works of art are inspired. Certainly, it doesn't seem obvious that gay, alcoholic, depressed people produce more than any other demographic.
" ...she sought exile in Europe, settling finally in a
fortress-like home in Ticino, Switzerland, where she stewed
in her racism and outspoken anti-Semitism..."
"...She espoused vile antisemitic views, telling people she was a “Jew hater” and calling the deaths of six million Jews “the semicaust” because she was disappointed more had not been murdered in the camps."
"Many of her spiteful remarks about Jews were made to friends. She called the Holocaust “Holocaust Inc” in front of them, as if it were a successful industry that later benefited Jews.
She would cause outrage at dinner parties, telling guests at one “I’m sick of the Jews”, and later offending friends at her house in Switzerland, when after going into her kitchen for a few minutes she reappeared with a concentration camp number written in biro on her wrist.”
The work must be judged on its own. If the work itself espouses hate then that is a different matter. It is also a different matter when talking about the author themselves, then yes, we must consider all aspects of their life before putting them on a pedestal, or pulling them down from one.
But when discussing the novel itself, the author should be immaterial, as far as possible. Otherwise these kind of spurious connections can lead to absurd stuff like targetting her descendents, or anyone with the same name for that matter.
Does it matter? If one limits their reading to authors who are "good people"—whatever that is supposed to mean—they're not going to be left with much to read.
She's a great crime novelist, regardless of how she was as a person.
> Would we praise Mengele's writings ?
(1) She's no Mengele.
(2) If Joseph Mengele is a good writer, then yes we should praise his writings. Why would we not? John Lennon was a heck of a song writer; beating his wife doesn't change that.
You respond to the article (and to her) as if she's in need of absolution. If the article is true to Highsmith's character, I'd doubt she'd want that, or that she'd really care.
Writing (and reviews of that writing) aren't generally meant to absolve the writer of whatever sins they've committed. Writers are entertainers trying to make a living, and they are successful to the extent they are entertaining (and lucky.) If you find a writer entertaining, then the writer's done their job, nothing more. If you don't want to read an author because you despise them, that's on you. No absolution required.
13 comments
[ 43.0 ms ] story [ 106 ms ] threadIsn't how that how most works of art are inspired?
"...She espoused vile antisemitic views, telling people she was a “Jew hater” and calling the deaths of six million Jews “the semicaust” because she was disappointed more had not been murdered in the camps."
"Many of her spiteful remarks about Jews were made to friends. She called the Holocaust “Holocaust Inc” in front of them, as if it were a successful industry that later benefited Jews.
She would cause outrage at dinner parties, telling guests at one “I’m sick of the Jews”, and later offending friends at her house in Switzerland, when after going into her kitchen for a few minutes she reappeared with a concentration camp number written in biro on her wrist.”
Using pseudonyms, Highsmith would also write regular letters expressing anti-Israeli sentiments to European and American papers when living in France and then Switzerland. " https://www.theguardian.com/books/2021/jan/17/patricia-highs...
Does good writing really outweigh that ?
Does writing a few well reviewed crime novels absolve her of that ?
Would we praise Mengele's writings ?
Edit: I didn't read the article because it's behind a paywall.
But when discussing the novel itself, the author should be immaterial, as far as possible. Otherwise these kind of spurious connections can lead to absurd stuff like targetting her descendents, or anyone with the same name for that matter.
Does it matter? If one limits their reading to authors who are "good people"—whatever that is supposed to mean—they're not going to be left with much to read.
She's a great crime novelist, regardless of how she was as a person.
> Would we praise Mengele's writings ?
(1) She's no Mengele. (2) If Joseph Mengele is a good writer, then yes we should praise his writings. Why would we not? John Lennon was a heck of a song writer; beating his wife doesn't change that.
Her writing doesn't become worse because she's a racist.
She is still racist, however great her writing was.
Writing (and reviews of that writing) aren't generally meant to absolve the writer of whatever sins they've committed. Writers are entertainers trying to make a living, and they are successful to the extent they are entertaining (and lucky.) If you find a writer entertaining, then the writer's done their job, nothing more. If you don't want to read an author because you despise them, that's on you. No absolution required.