If I thought a candy-coated aphorism would help some particular persons feel better in their loss, I'd utter it willingly. But if I understood that there were among the thousands of bereaved many who would be hurt at a childish trivialization of their loss, I wouldn't indulge in it, but instead would treat their loss with the philosophical gravity it deserved.
Of course if one simply doesn't understand, one can only be accused of shallowness, and cluelessness, and childish magical thinking, and not meanness. (Not for a single second do I suspect Oprah of meanness. She is clearly a well-meaning person.)
There were, I assume, those who were comforted by Oprah's candy-coated angel conceit. Just as there were many, I'm sure, who thought Updike's remarks in the NYer were appropriate. "Glorious," perhaps.
I was viscerally offended by both, well-meaning as they both undoubtedly were.
Do you object to (ie 'dis') Leon Wieseltier's 'dissing' of Updike's piece on the bombing? To me, his objection to the facile Updike treatment, and to Oprah's airheaded remark, gave great honor to the dead, as Updike's piece and Oprah's comment did not.
thenewrepublic.com |
