Submitted by Alonzo LaMont, Jr., Mar 26, 2007 12:40

I haven't read the book, but have spoken with someone about it. That someone was, of course, ready to promote Ms. Didion for Sainhood. I think the basic question from your article is one that affects large portions of Society. Anyone who's experienced anything that even vaguely falls under the umbrella of "personal tragedy" is annointed with absolute moral authority. The subsequent "art" or "political position" they create or espouse does not fall under the perview of criticism. The mere fact that they've "suffered" is enough in and of itself. It's a contagious disease that affects a large realm of academia and, particularly, the arts. It doesn't matter how worthy Ms. Didion's book or play actually are, the verdict is already in. If, say, your lover has died of AIDS and you write a play about it----well, the play itself assumes a secondary nature to the event. It was awful, therefore, the play is amazing. Victimhood wins the day. I'm not surprised the Amazon readers had different accounts of her book. The rest of the country doesn't share the same AWE over hardship-as-personal-account-as-Creative-Ascension. Hardships are real. Ms. Didion's were tragic. But, does this make the Art good? Somewhere along the way, we became seduced by "memoir." And so, playwrights, authors, (mothers who lost their sons in the war) needn't worry anymore about the quality of their work. Book become hits, plays become hits, regular citizens become martyrs strictly based on the politically correct qualities of their suffering.

Note: Comments are screened, and in some cases edited, before posting. We reserve the right to reject anything we find objectionable.