"The Dead Beat" by Marilyn Johnson
During the 19th century, obituaries were lengthy, overblown, and often wildly partisan. But subsequently the form declined in popularity and impact, until during the 1970s it was common for the obituary page to be the last stopping place for burned-out journalists just prior to retirement.
Since the mid-1980s, there has been an amazing revival of the obituary form. In the UK, newspapers started to write much longer and quirkier obits. In the US, there was a sudden move towards writing extended obituaries of "ordinary people" -- those whose lives would never previously have been celebrated.
Marilyn Johnson is clearly a fan, and indeed has worked as a freelance obit writer herself -- though she says that she was always preparing them ahead of time, rather than doing what "real" obit writers do, which is to write an intelligent and perceptive overview of someone's life on tight deadline.
This book got excellent reviews, and I think they are generally well merited. I know more about the UK papers than the US ones, and I think that Johnson gives a fair and balanced assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of the big four London newspapers. I didn't know so much about the US obituary tradition, and so I found that part of the book more interesting. For anyone who is interested in contemporary journalism, this book should be considered essential reading.
The book is well written and attractively printed. But it's a little bit superficial in analysis, focusing more on excerpts from obituaries than on why the form has become so much more popular over the last couple of decades. There are several areas that I wish she had considered in greater depth.
Firstly, to what extent is the resurgence of the modern obituary a reflection of libel laws? I believe that both in the UK and the US, it's impossible for someone to libel the dead -- the "de mortuis nil nisi bonum" principle (though Wikipedia points out that actually this particular tag has two contradictory meanings).
Thus, the obituary of a famous person is the first time that a journalist can actually come out and say that the deceased was a drunk or a plagiarizer or a bigamist or something else, without fear of being involved in a multi-million lawsuit. Johnson notes that there is a widely recognized and understood set of euphemisms attached to obituaries, presumably to spare the feelings of the family. But she also notes that there has been a steady loosening of the rules, and that it's now possible to find extremely outspoken obituaries which talk with astounding candor about what the deceased was really like.
Secondly, are her views of the "American" and "British" traditions affected by the specific publications that she is considering? Her description of the British tradition seems to be based entirely on the London press, whereas her analysis of American trends refers both to the big behemoths with national pretensions (the NYT, LA Times, Washington Post) and also to numerous local newspapers. It looks as though the "ordinary" obituaries don't appear in the big publications in either country. But I think there are plenty of "ordinary" obituaries in the city newspapers outside London, as far as I remember. I think what Johnson has identified is not really a US-UK distinction, but a national-local distinction.
Thirdly, is there any link at all between the increased attention to obituaries of "ordinary" people and the more general move in historiography and the social sciences towards attention to the non-famous? This trend began in France with the members of the Annales school, but has become one of the most important themes of the post-WW2 tradition in Anglo-American historical writing too. The move away from "kings and battles" is one of the most important trends identified in "Inventing the Middle Ages" by Norman Cantor (who died in September 2004), which is a fine introduction to how historians think about their own discipline.
From Johnson's description, it seems that the journalist who was responsible for developing the "ordinary" obituary, Jim Nicholson of the Philadelphia Daily News, was not motivated by any deep theoretical ideas. But it would be fascinating to know whether some of his disciples and followers saw things from a more political perspective. I wish that Johnson had also talked more about why the "ordinary" obituary has been such a success in the US, but has not (apparently) ever been emulated in the UK -- at least not in such a visible and important way.
Fourthly, she notes that virtually every major Anglo-American newspaper has an obituary page, except the Wall Street Journal. She comments that the WSJ could certainly have a world-class obits page if it wanted one, so why doesn't it? I can think of a couple of possibilities.
The first possibility is that the WSJ considers its role to be business themes which are at least potentially universal, rather than particular individuals who are mortal and thus can only ever be exemplars of more general trends (though this wouldn't be consistent with the weekly hagiographies directed towards Reagan). The second possibility is that the WSJ's core audience probably skews older and richer than is true for any other major newspaper. Maybe a daily reminder of mortality and "you can't take it with you" would be particularly unwelcome for this audience.
And finally... for anyone who is interested in obituaries and/or popular music, I would also recommend the novel "Basket Case" by Carl Hiaasen -- the main character is supposed to be an obituary writer who stumbles across the murder of a minor guitarist from the 1970s. A good introduction to Hiaasen's work, for anyone who hasn't previously been exposed to his particular variety of comedy thriller. And there are some reasonably good musical jokes there too.
Since the mid-1980s, there has been an amazing revival of the obituary form. In the UK, newspapers started to write much longer and quirkier obits. In the US, there was a sudden move towards writing extended obituaries of "ordinary people" -- those whose lives would never previously have been celebrated.
Marilyn Johnson is clearly a fan, and indeed has worked as a freelance obit writer herself -- though she says that she was always preparing them ahead of time, rather than doing what "real" obit writers do, which is to write an intelligent and perceptive overview of someone's life on tight deadline.
This book got excellent reviews, and I think they are generally well merited. I know more about the UK papers than the US ones, and I think that Johnson gives a fair and balanced assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of the big four London newspapers. I didn't know so much about the US obituary tradition, and so I found that part of the book more interesting. For anyone who is interested in contemporary journalism, this book should be considered essential reading.
The book is well written and attractively printed. But it's a little bit superficial in analysis, focusing more on excerpts from obituaries than on why the form has become so much more popular over the last couple of decades. There are several areas that I wish she had considered in greater depth.
Firstly, to what extent is the resurgence of the modern obituary a reflection of libel laws? I believe that both in the UK and the US, it's impossible for someone to libel the dead -- the "de mortuis nil nisi bonum" principle (though Wikipedia points out that actually this particular tag has two contradictory meanings).
Thus, the obituary of a famous person is the first time that a journalist can actually come out and say that the deceased was a drunk or a plagiarizer or a bigamist or something else, without fear of being involved in a multi-million lawsuit. Johnson notes that there is a widely recognized and understood set of euphemisms attached to obituaries, presumably to spare the feelings of the family. But she also notes that there has been a steady loosening of the rules, and that it's now possible to find extremely outspoken obituaries which talk with astounding candor about what the deceased was really like.
Secondly, are her views of the "American" and "British" traditions affected by the specific publications that she is considering? Her description of the British tradition seems to be based entirely on the London press, whereas her analysis of American trends refers both to the big behemoths with national pretensions (the NYT, LA Times, Washington Post) and also to numerous local newspapers. It looks as though the "ordinary" obituaries don't appear in the big publications in either country. But I think there are plenty of "ordinary" obituaries in the city newspapers outside London, as far as I remember. I think what Johnson has identified is not really a US-UK distinction, but a national-local distinction.
Thirdly, is there any link at all between the increased attention to obituaries of "ordinary" people and the more general move in historiography and the social sciences towards attention to the non-famous? This trend began in France with the members of the Annales school, but has become one of the most important themes of the post-WW2 tradition in Anglo-American historical writing too. The move away from "kings and battles" is one of the most important trends identified in "Inventing the Middle Ages" by Norman Cantor (who died in September 2004), which is a fine introduction to how historians think about their own discipline.
From Johnson's description, it seems that the journalist who was responsible for developing the "ordinary" obituary, Jim Nicholson of the Philadelphia Daily News, was not motivated by any deep theoretical ideas. But it would be fascinating to know whether some of his disciples and followers saw things from a more political perspective. I wish that Johnson had also talked more about why the "ordinary" obituary has been such a success in the US, but has not (apparently) ever been emulated in the UK -- at least not in such a visible and important way.
Fourthly, she notes that virtually every major Anglo-American newspaper has an obituary page, except the Wall Street Journal. She comments that the WSJ could certainly have a world-class obits page if it wanted one, so why doesn't it? I can think of a couple of possibilities.
The first possibility is that the WSJ considers its role to be business themes which are at least potentially universal, rather than particular individuals who are mortal and thus can only ever be exemplars of more general trends (though this wouldn't be consistent with the weekly hagiographies directed towards Reagan). The second possibility is that the WSJ's core audience probably skews older and richer than is true for any other major newspaper. Maybe a daily reminder of mortality and "you can't take it with you" would be particularly unwelcome for this audience.
And finally... for anyone who is interested in obituaries and/or popular music, I would also recommend the novel "Basket Case" by Carl Hiaasen -- the main character is supposed to be an obituary writer who stumbles across the murder of a minor guitarist from the 1970s. A good introduction to Hiaasen's work, for anyone who hasn't previously been exposed to his particular variety of comedy thriller. And there are some reasonably good musical jokes there too.
posted by Chris_G at 8:14 AM
0 comments
