Do we overly glorify the recently-dead in public life? I do not mean those dead who are close to us, but refer instead to the media’s treatment of celebrities and high-profile figures who have passed away. Do we suddenly create a saint out of them due to their death, no matter the actual facts of their life?
I have mulled over this for a while, but was finally prompted to write on it after the recent death of Cuban leader Fidel Castro. I am not going to talk about Mr Castro’s life, politics or legacy – certainly a minefield I do not want to navigate – but I will briefly discuss the reactions of the world to his death, as portrayed in the western media.
We might expect political figures who are considered to be on the left of the political spectrum to be more warm to Mr Castro than those on the right or in the centre. Certainly, Jeremy Corbyn of the Labour Party offered rather warm condolences; on the other hand, President-Elect Donald Trump seemed to almost praise the passing of the Cuban leader, denouncing him as a “brutal dictator”. Far more surprising was the praising tribute offered by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, who as a Liberal might be expected to deplore Mr Castro’s authoritarian form of rule. While this is an isolated example, it does somewhat exemplify my view that the less-savoury elements of a public figure’s actions are often ‘forgotten’ in the immediate aftermath of their death.
We have lost quite a few notable public figures this year, David Bowie and Alan Rickman being two early and prominent examples. After they passed away, the expected flood of tributes poured in from a multitude of figures across the globe. The dead are always portrayed as leading figures in their respective fields, great talents, inspirational people; tributes are usually gushing with praise. The media will be flooded with hastily-thrown together video clips and features on the dead individual; highlights of their careers will be repeated ad infinitum. Then, after whatever is considered a suitable period of elegiac mourning, we will not hear about them again, until the inevitable scandal surfaces a few months down the line. Dare I mention the elephant in the room, Jimmy Saville?
I am perhaps being a little flippant; in any case, I do not wish to suggest that these individuals did not contribute greatly to their respective fields, or that they do not deserve to be mourned. Certainly, they do. However, I do find a lot of the treatment they get from the Media rather unpleasant. Their deaths become front-page news, entertainment for the masses; eulogisers are almost masturbatory in their tributes, competing to appear the most grieving. After a few days, they are forgotten, as the public gets bored. I feel it somewhat strips dignity from their deaths – the funerals of several high-profile celebrities have essentially been made into entertainment spectacles.
Of course, this is all understandable. Nobody wants to think poorly of the dead – it is almost tacitly taboo to do so in our culture. I believe this is especially true of those who die young, who are often made into virtual saints as a result of their untimely deaths – a posthumous reputation that is perhaps unwarranted.
I will, if I may, take the example of Diana, Princess of Wales, who died so tragically in France almost two decades ago. Her sudden death led to a huge welling of public mourning, no doubt understandable due to her extremely-high popularity. Yet was she made into something more than she actually was?
My second example in John Lennon. I greatly appreciate his musical work, and his violent death was horrific. His impact on modern popular music was no doubt significant. Yet do people remember him through rose-tinted glasses?
In 2002, the BBC conducted a public survey of the “100 Greatest Britons”. This was an open television poll with a very vague premise, and so obviously reflects public opinion rather than rigorous analysis. In the final tally, Princess Diana was voted the 3rd greatest Briton, above even William Shakespeare and Sir Isaac Newton; John Lennon was decided to be the 8th, far above figures such as Alan Turing and Sir Tim Berners-Lee. I don’t mean to disparage the opinion of the Great British public, but really?
While the poll was obviously not serious and the methodology flawed, it does reveal how much the ‘cult of the dead celebrity’ has an impact on our views of public figures. Whatever you think of Princess Diana’s accomplishments, I find it hard to believe that anybody would think they were greater than those of Shakespeare. While John Lennon was undoubtedly influential, I think the major reason he was voted above his fellow Beatles in the poll was due to the fact that he was dead, had been so for some time, and had passed away in such violent (and sensational) circumstances.
There is, I guess, a cultural devotion to youth. The young are seen as more ‘pure’ than the old; physically they are generally more attractive and in better shape, and have had less time to accumulate both metaphorical and literal ‘dirt’. They pass away at the height of their careers rather than at the tail-end – John Lennon died as a rather rebellious icon and is remembered as such, while the rest of the Beatles have become establishment figures. Who is to say that he would not have done so himself, if given the chance to age and mature? Of course, all we can do is speculate, and the only concrete evidence we have is the life he led before being murdered. To suggest that he might have changed seems almost sacrilegious to many, who get defensive if you suggest criticism or alternatives to their view of their hero.
Death is always a tragedy, and I firmly believe that over-eulogising is a lesser evil than celebrating it. I remember being somewhat sickened by the celebrations seen in the United States over the death of Osama Bin Laden – no matter how terrible his crimes (and I do not suggest by any means that his assassination should have been mourned), to cheer at news of a death is to lose much of the moral high ground.
Nevertheless, the cult of celebrity that seems endemic to human nature becomes only stronger after death. The mass media love to milk our morbid interest in the still-warm corpses of dead celebrities. I remember a wonderful quote from Skulduggery Pleasant, a beloved book from my childhood: “Dead writers sell”. The deaths of famous figures are used to increase clicks, views and ad revenue, which is unfortunate. Furthermore, it suggests that their deaths matter more than those of the thousands of individuals who are enormously influential ‘behind-the-scenes’, but who do not have the public recognition of others. I would rather a quiet, sober and measured reflection of their life, as seen in so many wonderful obituaries published quietly every day in newspapers, than the glorifying beatification and entertainment spectacle that we often get on television and online.
A Paradoxical Millennial 
Agree that whenever someone dies they were always about to make it big!
The whole Diana thing was awful, rather mawkish in my view,
LikeLike
They’ll do anything to sell a newspaper 🙂
LikeLike
Unfortunately, all too true
LikeLiked by 1 person
A very well written article 👍
LikeLike
Thank you very much!
LikeLike
What a strong post. I don’t think we only do that to celebrities. It seems that with death people become saints.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank you for your kind words. Indeed, I think there is something in human nature that makes us elevate the dead. Traditionally, it has taken the form of ancestor worship and beatification of saints; now, we ‘worship’ the rich and famous.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Reblogged this on M. Matheson and commented:
A very well written and thought out article. Even people that are not saints or celebrities often become much nicer people upon their death. I’ve officiated a lot of funerals and helped family through the process of grief. Even the most mean spirited unpleasant person very often becomes such a nice thoughtful person after their demise.
I think it might be a dynamic of self protection to manage memories that could do the most damage by recreating it into something we wish they were when still alive.
I’ve seen some of the most awful people turned into virtual heroes. It baffles the one on the outside looking in but to the survivor it makes perfect sense.
Perhaps, we have no right to take that way from them.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Many thanks again for your kind words! Your thoughts on self protection are interesting – I have to admit I did not think of it in that way, but it certainly seems to make sense.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The case of Castro is very different to that of Princess Diana or indeed James Dean, who gave rise to one of the first modern cults of a recently-dead person. Castro was a very old man, openly in failing health. His death was expected. Some leaders and commentators will be kinder to a person who has just died, than they would be ten years earlier or later; but I don’t think the reaction to Castro’s death has been very different from the reaction to the living old man. He was a dictator who replaced another dictator in a country used to dictators. His brand of ruthlessness affected more people than that of his predecessors, some for the better, some for the worse. It was not for being a dictator that the US found him repugnant, but because he was anti-U.S., unlike many generals installed by the U.S., and because of the Cuban missile crisis and the presence of many Cuban exiles in the U.S. (in a large, marginal state).
Princess Diana, though, was just entering middle age, was active and much in the news and died suddenly and unexpectedly. She was popular (though disliked by a substantial minority) and the reaction to her death in the U.K. did come near to mass hysteria stoked by most of the media. I remember hearing a presenter on the radio saying, “The whole nation…” (is mourning, or something like that) and I thought, “The whole nation? Have they asked every person in it? Have they asked me?”.
In between is the case of Elvis Presley. When he died he was well past his best as a singer and in poor health for reasons mostly down to him. But people remembered him at the height of his powers and it was that Elvis they imagined might still be alive.
LikeLike
Thanks for commenting! You put forward a few fair points. While I agree that Castro was a very different beast from Lennon or Diana, the generally-positive (or at least neutral) response to his death from Western politicians did still strike me as surprising. In any case, I meant for the Castro episode to be an introduction more than a main point; as I wrote, it is what got me thinking seriously about the topic.
Thanks for bringing up Elvis – I didn’t think of him before, but he certainly falls into the category of mythologised celebrities, being “The King” and all.
LikeLike
Well written, concise, respectful and completely literate, which is to say, a tribute to journalism in editorial form. My reply to your content is that so much of life these days is spent through vicarious living. We exult with the winners, mourn with the losers, especially when they are a favorite sports organization. When a hero, whether perceived or actual is cut down and no longer fulfilling our need via the vicarious role they filled, we suffer a let down, and a major one at that. Finally, I believe that this vicarious mindset very often results in a co-dependency of a form. It is almost as if the death of a non-hero becomes aggrandized in our minds because we were their foils in the plot of life’s story. Once they are gone we all view our own temporal lives with a sense of fear and doubt, and this can change our view of the past in a hurry. Perhaps some think that how we view a tyrant, whether applicable or not, will impact our own eulogies when our day comes.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Many thanks for your words – I greatly appreciate the feedback! Certainly, I believe that ‘living your life’ through celebrities has become more and more popular in our culture – just look at the proliferation of “reality” tv and the non-entities whose life they portray, or the countless magazines who cover the lives of celebrities in exhaustive detail. Your comment on tyrants is fascinating – I never thought of it in that way, but certainly there appears to be an element of ‘covering your bases’ in it.
LikeLike
Reality tv and the like simply gives folks what they want. Part of it springs from lazy brain syndrome which is fairly pandemic in Western culture, sadly. It isn’t a plague yet but whereas in earlier generations even leisure time involved some form of “meeting of the minds” whereas today and for about 20 years now, we have corporations “marketing to the minds.” Even the media forms have not altered this. Look at all of the potential good on the Internet. Then look at what sites are flocked to most readily. Even when we group people according to age demographic data, the time spent wasting the mind is mind boggling. Yes, I planned the double meaning. BTW, your response sets the standard I hope many others are paying attention to, for their own benefit.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I found myself needing to make some comment on Castro’s passing on that winter morning as well, which may be found in my post A New Face in Hell.
I like your observations about how dead celebrities are lionized at their passing. This is a true phenomenon, to be sure, which says something rather more about the living than those parted. Part of the pathetic fawning on the part of media types is a rare observance of some decorum on their part. It is practically dictated that this sort of protocol is observed. Have you ever noticed that on TV game shows when contestants are introduced there is the obligatory mention of the spouse and children? And it always seems to be ” my darling wife” or “the love of my life” and ” our adorable and talented children”. It is never ” Yeah , in the front row there is my fat, scolding ratbag of a wife and my two snivelling and ungrateful little bastards.” Even if the latter cases were true one would never hear it in those circumstances. Rather the same dynamic at work there I suspect 😄
LikeLiked by 1 person
I couldn’t agree more!
LikeLike