Death of a Salesman
An interesting article was published at The American Thinker, written by Thomas Lifson. The subject of the article: Arthur Miller, famous playwright. It seems that Lifson is not a big fan of Miller’s work. For one thing, he considers Miller’s plays to be too negative about America. Besides that, he also believes Miller was something of a moralistic phony.
Recently, he was confirmed in that opinion: it seems that Arthur Miller has a 41-year old son, named Daniel. Nobody outside of the immediate family knew anything about Daniel. The reason: Miller kept his existence secret.
Daniel suffers from Down Syndrome. Instead of trying to deal with it and giving Daniel a good of a life as possible, Miller decided to put him in a mental institution when Daniel was one week old. If you want to read more (of my opinion) I suggest clicking here.
opinions powered by SendLove.to
11 Responses to “Death of a Salesman”
Why would that make Miller “a moralistic phony?” That’s what parents were advised to do 40-50 years ago and that’s what they did!
And keeping him out of his will? Pretending he didn’t exist?
There have been many famous people- like Benjamin Franklin who were lousy as parents or even as human beings. Greatness in one area doesn’t necessarily guarantee greatness in all areas.
Except to “mongoloids”.
Before his death Miller made his son Daniel a full heir, co-equal with his siblings.
It’s easy to kick the dead, and as an icon Miller is a prime target. But it’s more complicated in real life. I recommend Suzanna Andrew’s article in Vanity Fair for further reading.
I’ve always thought Miller’s work later work was badly off-key. This new information sheds some light on that. He suffered for his decision (as well he should have) and I don’t think he ever realized how much until after his wife died, when he tried to make amends.
All gods have feet of clay.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1653653,00.html
Holly’s right. Institutionalization was advised decades ago, and there’s no telling if he was in a hole or a nice place. But the above link from Time mag says alot about how our culture now obsesses on the Downs kids and retards over those with real greatness.
Interesting how the priorities shift, and the price we’re paying at the other end of the pendulum.
Institutionalization was advised decades ago, and there’s no telling if he was in a hole or a nice place.
Actually, it can be told. Check out the Vanity Fair article, which highlights how a good institution became a frightening one. And how the family had an example of a succesful Down’s child handy–and Miller disregarded it.
It’s easy to make simplistic attacks or defenses of Miller. But the reality goes past the superficial, and speaks to the human. Andrews’ article is excellent, and there’s a major book and/or movie in there for someone who can draw that picture for a popular audience.
From the article:
‘Miller apparently called his son “a mongoloid” and told a friend: “I’m going to have to put the baby away.”
Although his wife wanted to keep the child, Miller refused because he didn’t want Rebecca to grow up with him.
Daniel Miller is said to have lived in an overcrowded Connecticut institution that was sued in the 1980s over its poor living conditions.’
Perhaps blog readers are so conditioned to dudgeon that they cannot tell, but this sort of writing is called a ‘hatchet job.’
Unnamed sources, unsourced quotes, and all this coming out over a recently deceased man.
This is not a ;fine article,’ or it would be sourced. Miller’s dead so cannot sue for defamation nor libel. This is cowardice, and writ with an ax.
There are many giveaways, such as the claim that ‘Down Syndrome people can and do live useful lives. They come equipped with souls, emotions, and everything else that makes us worthy children of God. Judging by the few I have met, many of them are better human beings than most of us. I know of parents who speak of the incredibly deep bonds of love with their Down Syndrome children.’
When the violin ends, what is not told is the constant abuse such children face from not only regular kids but other handicapped kids. Are they happy? Yes, because they are too ill equipped to understand their misery.
Lifson manifestly has an ax to grind against MIller the artist and man, which is his right. But, it would have ben a bit more courageous to write this expose when Miller was alive to comment. Miller’s politics ruined his later work, and his ego was certainly a part of the man that could be seen ill or worse, but this is a bad piece of journalism, if one even wants to call it that.
A Murdoch tabloid is better suited for it. Or, as the writer might say, ‘Yet another another wannabe hack blogger/journalist who turns out to be all bile and no real substance.’
“De mortuis nihil nisi bonum†(Of the dead, say nothing but good) is a fine conservative sentiment. In Arthur Miller’s case, I prefer the more liberal “Fiat justitia ruat caelum†(Let justice be done, though the heavens fall”).
Why so you find it disconcerting that a man who made his living lecturing the bourgeoisie should be held accountable for his own moral failings? His critics can hardly be accused of cowardice when it was Miller’s own contrivances that kept the facts hidden during his life.
Oh well, another demigod toppled from the Progressive Pantheon. If you need a replacement, I’d suggest Daniel Day-Lewis. His behavior seems as admirable and praiseworthy as Miller’s was not.
GW- if that’s addressed to my comment, I am not disconcerted in the least. There is nothing to suggest that Miller did anything wrong, save a slanted (and obviously so) article in a hilariously titled blog called American Thinker, that seems a cross between NPR and the National Enquirer, ripping a dead man for institutionalizing a retarded son.
While he may have paid more attention had conditions been as bad as claimed, is not the state the fall guy here? What does Miller’s strengths or failings as an artist have to do with his personal life? Nothing.
While I loathed Reagan, his not going to church and ignoring his own healthy children have nothing to do with his disastrous Presidency.
And as for ‘the facts,’ it seems he kept nothing hidden, for it was no one’s business. If you were a cross-dresser who loved pink tutus and eating bon bons while in ballet outfit, would you be ‘hiding’ that info if you do not speak of a thing that’s no one else’s business.
The real problem here is voyeurism, and not getting the full facts, only that from a muckraker with an ax to grind.
And, I am not a fan of Miller’s- the man nor his plays. Tennessee Williams and Eugene O’Neill, as well as August Wilson and even Neil Simon, were better playwrights.
BTW- the photo is oddly lit- I almost thought Miller was Malcolm X at first.