According to Wikipedia, Henry James "loathed publicity and zealously guarded his own privacy. A few years before his death he burned masses of old letters that he had received, and he often begged his correspondents not to publicize - or better yet, to destroy - the letters he sent to them."
What's your opinion of writers' private correspondence being dug up after their deaths to be analyzed publicly?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I tend to think that there's a moment — if someone becomes a truly important figure in history — when the historic/public outweighs the personal/private. Jane Austen's sister destroyed a bunch of her correspondence, too, and in hindsight that seems perfectly criminal, but I'm sure it felt perfectly sensible and respectful to her at the time. Maybe she would have acted differently had she known that her sister would be venerated and studied and endlessly discussed for centuries to come. Or maybe not.
ReplyDeleteThere's also, it seems, an issue of privacy vs. image control. Is the material being suppressed because of genuine privacy concerns (i.e., nothing should be released)or is there an agenda to control the message (i.e., things that reflect well on the person should be released but nothing else)? If it's the former, I have more sympathy.
Makes me wonder what exactly was in this correspondence that Aspern's former lover was so intent on suppressing. Something that reflected poorly on her? On him?
I've heard that Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis stipulated that certain papers not be made public until X number of years after her children have died. That seems like a decent compromise between privacy and historic truth. The info isn't lost to history but it can't hurt the people intimately involved with it.
Great question, Erin! kc, I'm afraid I have to differ with you on this one.
ReplyDeleteI can sympathize because I would've loved to read Jane Austen's letters, but on the other hand I respect Cassandra if she wanted to keep her sister's thoughts and intimacies from public view.
As this was a private correspondence, I might have felt like I was snooping, so to speak, or eavesdropping on something that was meant NOT to be shared.
I confess I am torn, especially when considering such historical treasures as the diary of Anne Frank.
Perhaps the best route is the sort of compromise you mentioned, of waiting to release personal papers until any people who might be affected are dead.
I also thought of Austen when considering this issue. Her letters that did survive are so delightful and offer so much insight into her personality and life. I'm glad they exist. But I can see the privacy issues as well.
ReplyDeleteIt makes me think of celebrities these days -- how personal items and correspondence of celebrities sells to the highest bidder on eBay. Even Justin Bieber's used tissue, etc. People like that have no privacy, even if that private business will realistically serve no historical purpose.
As far as literary and political figures go, probably the example of the Kennedy papers is a good one. At that point (when everyone involved is dead), it does become more a matter for history than their privacy.