@St2station: I think Helen Andrews’s ‘Great...

I think Helen Andrews’s ‘Great Feminization’ thesis applies to men, too, and this is the sort of thing I mean. An obituary is an appreciation of a life, in the sense of its root: ‘to set a price,’ the way an auction house expert looks at a piece. Obituaries are, in a sense,

View Tweet

value-neutral, if they’re to be any good. Or rather they’re coldly clinical.

An obituary of Fidel Castro that didn’t use the word “charismatic” would be a poor obituary indeed, because that was an important thing about Castro’s life, and if you don’t understand that about him

you’ll have a hard time understanding his career.

Bin Laden, there’s no denying it, had a certain something, from his height to his taciturn manner, that clearly spoke to many hard men in his culture and faith.

It is a very classically Male-Coded thing to be able to

acknowledge a certain something in an enemy. One could add countless examples to this list but you get the point. Obituaries of enemies, appreciations of their life & times, shouldn’t be ‘he was a doo-doo head creepy loser buttface,’ like we’re 3rd grade girls.

Ho Chi Minh, say…Again, the guy had rizz, and a couple decades worth of French and American statesmen came to learn that to their cost. ‘This guy’s sharp and doesn’t quit.’ Giving such figures the ‘posterity silent treatment’ is a very sewing circle sort of thing to do…

Hugo Chavez. Yes, a strongman who beggared his country. But an obituary that didn’t stress that he had an avuncular, charismatic personality capable of great charm would have given readers a totally incomplete picture of how he came to hold so much power, and inspire devotion.

Not comparing him with the men above ofc, but: Bill Clinton. When he passes, a critical part of his obituaries will need to be: ‘The brother had the rizz,’ which he did, in his prime. He was smooth as hell. This is just a fact about Bill Clinton’s life & times!

Maybe the decline of faith—which has hit the Right as much as the Left, in its different way—has something to do with this. An obituary tells the story of a human life, warts and all, and at its best it’s one of the few sections of the newspaper that isn’t dripping in cheap

moralization and linen-sniffing. The judgements on a life will be handed down by a much higher tribunal than you or me, and there are no appellate courts to review. A proper obituary understands that, and leaves that highest of high courts to its work, and contents itself with a

recitation of the facts, cushioned, unlike a legal brief, with local color and atmospherics. It’s a fundamentally generous form of writing, that takes the human animal as it is. And maybe that’s why our ungenerous age is starting to misunderstand it.

From the Times of London’s first obituary of Napoleon : “Our business is not to apologize for Buonaparte; but so far as may be done within the brief limits of a newspaper, to analyze and faithfully describe him.”

“Thus terminates in exile and in prison the most extraordinary

life yet known to political history. The vicissitudes of such a life, indeed, are the most valuable lessons which history can furnish..They embrace both extremes of the condition of man in society, and therefore address themselves to all ranks of human beings.”

Some of my favorite books to dip into are the Daily Telegraph collections of obituaries; I highly recommend them. The late 20th century ones especially, as they’re full of military lives. They showcase the obit as a fundamentally, well, humanist genre. And if anything, over the

last couple of years I’ve come to believe that the NYTs obituaries were getting a bit better (American media used to be very bad at obituaries, they were never as fun as Fleet Street obituaries.) So it’s ironic to see people critiquing NYTs obits—it’s one of the few areas where

the American legacy media has been getting better over the last few years, so please let’s not discourage them! 😅