To the living we owe respect, but to the dead we owe only the truth.
Voltaire
Damien Murphy’s obituary for veteran journalist Alan Ramsey, famous for his weekly newspaper column — a must-read for many years — and his fearsome temper, is strikingly raw in places, especially given it ran in The Sydney Morning Herald, the paper that employed him for such a long time:
Ramsey’s personal life suffered hugely due to his commitment to his craft. Perhaps a childhood troubled by family rupture, war and the Depression did not help, but he went on to two failed marriages (the second to journalist Laura Tingle) that produced four alienated children and a number of affairs. By the end, he had turned from most old friends and spent his last years supported by close family members.
Other publications — The Australian for one — were far more uncomplicatedly glowing in their memorials.
Does the maxim “de mortuis nisi nil bonum” — of the dead, nothing but good — apply less and less to obituaries, particularly of people with less than exemplary personal conduct? May we speak ill of the dead?
As obituaries flow in for Diego Maradona, the flawed football genius who famously rose from poverty to stardom, the challenge to paint a portrait of an icon in all their shades is on display. Most publications are dealing with the star’s infamous cocaine habit with a split personality trope: there was one Diego on the field and another off.
It is interesting to contrast the treatment Ramsey gets with that received by actor Sean Connery — lots of publications did straight obits and then dealt with his history of domestic violence (not to mention his god-awful public pronouncements on the subject) in separate pieces.
This may be pronounced by the rush to get a “take” online to capitalise on the attention flooding the way of the deceased and, possibly, because even under Australia’s notoriously litigant-friendly laws the dead cannot be defamed.
When renowned Australian author Colleen McCullough died, The Australian famously ran a pre-prepared obituary — sans byline — which became notorious around the world for referring to McCullough as a woman “plain of feature” and “certainly overweight”, but somehow still capable of wit and warmth. The line was missed, according to sources at the time, in the rush to get the coverage together.
There may also be a sense that publications want to get out in front of the accusation of deifying flawed (or worse) people. Look at, say, the glowing tributes to writer Bob Ellis, which read very differently after allegations of sexual abuse — apparently an “open secret” — surfaced two years after his death.
Of course, Crikey has a history of running unflattering obituaries — often, as is Crikey‘s wont, as a corrective to unquestioning praise heaped on the deceased.
After cartoonist Bill Leak’s death elicited a mixture of hero worship and culture warring from his colleagues — “Bill Leak was the most courageous man I knew” — Guy Rundle took a not-ungenerous but clear-eyed look: “His oeuvre will last, but like most of us he’ll be forgotten in five minutes and this Stalinist hagiography he’s been used for will look embarrassing and cynical.”
And after a great deal of “I didn’t always agree, but I respected his principles” talk about senator Brian Harradine, Crikey — having waited until he had been buried — excoriated him for his opposition towards aid money being used for abortion services and the women’s lives it cost in developing countries.
An obituary is not an eulogy. The difference is crucial. An obituary that omits the flaws in the deceased (so far as they are significant) does not show respect to either its subject or its readers. It is lying by omission.
The Guardian faced a backlash last week for its obituary of Peter Sutcliffe, the notorious serial killer. At least the article left no doubt about the extent of his crimes and damage he did, but some readers seemed to think any obituary was too much – they imagined it was some sort of honour. But an obituary of such a person under the stricture “de mortuis nisi nil bonum” would be grotesque.
The paper still chooses who to publish an obituary of, and who not to. There is certain line of thought that to contribute to the notoriety of criminals is a sort of glamorising of crime.
Yes, there is that line of thought. It easily and quite logically expands to censorship and suppression of anything not totally wholesome and morally uplifting.
The first attempt AFAIK to erase a specific criminal from all records and therefore deny him the notoriety he craved concerned Ἡρόστρατος (Herostratus), the arsonist who destroyed the second Temple of Artemis in Ephesus. Two and a half thousand years later and he’s still not quite forgotten.
No, a paper setting priorities does not lead to erasing someone from all records.
Are you sure? If:
Then
Just read BK’s piece on Harradine.
Jesus what an arsehole: he hasn’t been missed.
I enjoyed reading the articles of Alan (glug, glug) Ramsay. He knew how to nail a politician – especially one that was no good. This applied to the Nationals particularly. I will quote and I hope I do not receive an “awaiting moderation” hold up from Crikey but here goes this brilliant missive on John Anderson published in the SMH in 2006:
“John Anderson doesn’t say a lot these days. It is 11 months since he quit as deputy prime minister, seven months since he sold his AWB shares and three months since he “declared” the sale to Parliament the day before it became public. Anderson is still an MP, on his cattle property in the north-west corner of NSW, and taxpayers still pay his salary. What he doesn’t seem to do is much to earn it”.
He referred to Larry Anthony (son of Doug Anthony) as not one of the All-stars.
He slowed down as the years and the grog took effect but I’m glad he was there during the dark years of the 90s recession and the 2000s boom to hold all leaders and politicians to account at all times.
Ramsay in his cups would outshine any of the current bien pissant brigade dutifully turning out their slabs of boilerplate, to the edification of few and delight of none.
This is a good article. Its a time to do good for the still. Seperate out issues to be dealt in principle if you must.
We shall not see his like again – today’s scribblers try to emulate his acerbic style & judgement but they lack the experience to have gravitas.