Publisher's Note — July 18, 2012, 11:00 am

Turning My Sincere Eulogy for Earl Shorris Into an Authentic One

Earl Shorris passed away on May 27, 2012. He was a long-time contributor to Harper’s Magazine, authoring more than two dozen reports and essays, including one on the development of the Clemente Course in the Humanities. His last feature for the magazine, “American Vespers,” ran in the December 2011 issue.

John R. MacArthur is publisher of Harper’s and author of the book You Can’t Be President: The Outrageous Barriers to Democracy in America. This column originally appeared in the Providence Journal on July 18, 2012.

I’ve delivered a few eulogies over the years, and they don’t get any easier with practice. If you’ve just lost someone close, the circumstances are particularly painful. How does one sum up a life, or even one aspect of a life, in a few minutes, in a few thousand words, when one is already so sad?

After my friend the writer and social critic Earl Shorris died, on May 27, I thought I might be asked to speak at his memorial service, along with others, and I fretted about what I would say. As it happens, one of Earl’s sons assigned me a topic: He wanted me to address Earl’s writing, which in some ways was a relief. Three other non-family speakers would each talk about another aspect of Earl’s life; I wouldn’t have to plumb the depths of my relationship with him.

So I compared two works of Earl’s fiction, which I felt would illustrate his compassion for the suffering of ordinary people, not just the poor ones Earl spent his life trying to help but also the comfortable upper-middle-class executive types whom he’d met in his advertising career. Since my comparison involved reading passages from the books, I soon passed the recommended three-to-five-minute limit. There was little time left to get personal.

When I sat down after I spoke, however, I felt like I’d failed. Something was clearly missing from my rendering of Earl’s texts—texts that I had selected for their insight and authenticity. I’m no actor, but I read the lines with as much verve as I could muster, and a few people even complimented me on my presentation.

But something seemed wrong. What exactly had or hadn’t I done? Imitate an English teacher? Conduct a mini-seminar in comparative literature? Get myself off an emotional hook by reading someone else’s words, even though the words were written by my late friend? I’d covered myself, and not with glory. In contrast with Earl’s writing, I felt, in a word, inauthentic when authenticity was most urgently required.

A few days after the memorial, to help me sort through my confused feelings, a friend recommended a book, Sincerity and Authenticity, by the celebrated literary critic Lionel Trilling, who had taught at Columbia for many years. On reviewing what I’d written, I concluded that I’d been sincere in my intentions to please, to play the correct role. But sincerity, as Trilling points out, is nowadays a poor second to authenticity.

“The last temptation is the greatest treason,/ to do the right deed for the wrong reason,” says Archbishop Thomas Becket in T.S. Eliot’s Murder in the Cathedral. Some would argue the contrary; “Whatever I was really feeling, at least I did the right thing by Earl and his family,” I hear myself say. This might be called the sincerity defense: I sincerely meant to do the right thing in my eulogy.

Nevertheless, as Trilling points out, “sincerity” isn’t what it used to be. We should be aware, he writes, of “the sharp diminution of the authority it once exercised,” since “the word itself has lost most of its high dignity.” Trilling’s book grew out of a lecture at Harvard in 1969–70, and I suspect that he was influenced by his observation of Presidents Lyndon Johnson’s and Richard Nixon’s patently false expressions of sincerity and candor during the Vietnam War (LBJ: “I come to you with a heavy heart”; Nixon: “Let me make one thing perfectly clear.”) But Trilling was onto something deeper. Shakespeare startles us, Trilling notes, when he selects the manifestly mediocre Polonius, in Hamlet, to exhort Laertes with such brilliance:

This above all: to thine own self be true
And it doth follow, as the night the day
Thou canst not then be false to any man.

Yet Shakespeare’s play is shot through with ambivalence about sincerity, and with dissembling behavior. If only it were easy to follow Polonius’s advice. “With what a promise the phrase rings in our ears!,” writes Trilling, but few of us are up to the challenge. As sincere as my “sincerity” may have been at the service, its “very considerable originative power” has been supplanted by what Trilling calls “the marvelous generative force that our modern judgment assigns to authenticity, which implies the downward movement through all the cultural superstructures to some place where all movement ends, and begins.”

So here’s what I hope is my authentic remembrance of Earl Shorris, one that goes beyond a merely sincere tribute: He was the most steadfast of friends, who remained by my side through thick and thin, who defended me against unfairness and calumny. I was his sometime publisher, but he was my mentor, in morals, philosophy and, not paradoxically, in business. He did more for me than I for him.

He grew up in El Paso and spent years traveling in Mexico and writing about it, including a novel based on the life of Pancho Villa. He loved the country and its various peoples (who would have included my cousins and uncle) with a passion I saw in only one other American—my own father—but Earl’s love was more genuine and more compassionate. He was deeply learned but he was never a snob about it. Earl was authentically generous: He wanted to share the humanities with poor people because he thought that they were just as entitled to learning, and humanism, as anyone else. He was a true democrat. And he was a nag whom I had difficulty refusing.

The last thing Earl wrote me was to see if I could reach George Clooney and ask him to rescue one of Earl’s Clemente Courses in the Humanities, operating in Darfur, that had lost its funding from a rich foundation: “I want to ask Clooney if he would help us get going again with IDPs [internally displaced persons] and perhaps in the Kalma refugee camp near Nyala.” I told Earl it was a tall order and dropped it. But what about it, Mr. Clooney?

Share
Single Page

More from John R. MacArthur:

Publisher's Note November 10, 2017, 5:29 pm

Industrial Tourism

NAFTA is an investment contract that protects American and Canadian goods and interests against Mexican expropriation, regulation, and pestering by local authorities.

Publisher's Note October 5, 2017, 11:31 am

A Sad Heritage

Publisher's Note August 11, 2017, 5:34 pm

Le Chagrin

“Could I not avoid Trump and his bullshit, not even by crossing the Atlantic Ocean?”

Get access to 167 years of
Harper’s for only $45.99

United States Canada

CATEGORIES

THE CURRENT ISSUE

December 2017

Document of Barbarism

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

Destroyer of Worlds

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

Crossing Guards

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

“I am Here Only for Working”

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

Dear Rose

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

The Year of The Frog

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

view Table Content

FEATURED ON HARPERS.ORG

Article
Destroyer of Worlds·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

In February 1947, Harper’s Magazine published Henry L. Stimson’s “The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb.” As secretary of war, Stimson had served as the chief military adviser to President Truman, and recommended the attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The terms of his unrepentant apologia, an excerpt of which appears on page 35, are now familiar to us: the risk of a dud made a demonstration too risky; the human cost of a land invasion would be too high; nothing short of the bomb’s awesome lethality would compel Japan to surrender. The bomb was the only option. Seventy years later, we find his reasoning unconvincing. Entirely aside from the destruction of the blasts themselves, the decision thrust the world irrevocably into a high-stakes arms race — in which, as Stimson took care to warn, the technology would proliferate, evolve, and quite possibly lead to the end of modern civilization. The first half of that forecast has long since come to pass, and the second feels as plausible as ever. Increasingly, the atmosphere seems to reflect the anxious days of the Cold War, albeit with more juvenile insults and more colorful threats. Terms once consigned to the history books — “madman theory,” “brinkmanship” — have returned to the news cycle with frightening regularity. In the pages that follow, seven writers and experts survey the current nuclear landscape. Our hope is to call attention to the bomb’s ever-present menace and point our way toward a world in which it finally ceases to exist.

Illustration by Darrel Rees. Source photographs: Kim Jong-un © ITAR-TASS Photo Agency/Alamy Stock Photo; Donald Trump © Yuri Gripas/Reuters/Newscom
Article
Crossing Guards·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

The Ambassador Bridge arcs over the Detroit River, connecting Detroit to Windsor, Ontario, the southernmost city in Canada. Driving in from the Canadian side, where I grew up, is like viewing a panorama of the Motor City’s rise and fall, visible on either side of the bridge’s turquoise steel stanchions. On the right are the tubular glass towers of the Renaissance Center, headquarters of General Motors, and Michigan Central Station, the rail terminal that closed in 1988. On the left is a rusted industrial corridor — fuel tanks, docks, abandoned warehouses. I have taken this route all my life, but one morning this spring, I crossed for the first time in a truck.

Illustration by Richard Mia
Article
“I am Here Only for Working”·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

But the exercise of labor is the worker’s own life-activity, the manifestation of his own life. . . . He works in order to live. He does not even reckon labor as part of his life, it is rather a sacrifice of his life.

— Karl Marx

Photograph from the United Arab Emirates by the author. This page: Ruwais Mall
Article
The Year of The Frog·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

To look at him, Sweet Macho was a beautiful horse, lean and strong with muscles that twitched beneath his shining black coat. A former racehorse, he carried himself with ceremony, prancing the field behind our house as though it were the winner’s circle. When he approached us that day at the edge of the yard, his eyes shone with what might’ve looked like intelligence but was actually a form of insanity. Not that there was any telling our mother’s boyfriend this — he fancied himself a cowboy.

“Horse 1,” by Nine Francois. Courtesy the artist and AgavePrint, Austin, Texas
Article
Dead Ball Situation·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

What We Think About When We Think About Soccer, by Simon Critchley. Penguin Books. 224 pages. $20.

Begin, as Wallace Stevens didn’t quite say, with the idea of it. I so like the idea of Simon Critchley, whose books offer philosophical takes on a variety of subjects: Stevens, David Bowie, suicide, humor, and now football — or soccer, as the US edition has it. (As a matter of principle I shall refer to this sport throughout as football.) “All of us are mysteriously affected by our names,” decides one of Milan Kundera’s characters in Immortality, and I like Critchley because his name would seem to have put him at a vocational disadvantage compared with Martin Heidegger, Søren Kierkegaard, or even, in the Anglophone world, A. J. Ayer or Richard Rorty. (How different philosophy might look today if someone called Nobby Stiles had been appointed as the Wykeham Professor of Logic.)

Tostão, No. 9, and Pelé, No. 10, celebrate Carlos Alberto’s final goal for Brazil in the World Cup final against Italy on June 21, 1970, Mexico City © Heidtmann/picture-alliance/dpa/AP Images

Factor by which single Americans who use emoji are more likely than other single Americans to be sexually active:

1.85

Brontosaurus was restored as a genus, and cannibalism was reported in tyrannosaurine dinosaurs.

Moore said he did not “generally” date teenage girls, and it was reported that in the 1970s Moore had been banned from his local mall and YMCA for bothering teenage girls.

Subscribe to the Weekly Review newsletter. Don’t worry, we won’t sell your email address!

HARPER’S FINEST

Report — From the June 2013 issue

How to Make Your Own AR-15

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

By

"Gun owners have long been the hypochondriacs of American politics. Over the past twenty years, the gun-rights movement has won just about every battle it has fought; states have passed at least a hundred laws loosening gun restrictions since President Obama took office. Yet the National Rifle Association has continued to insist that government confiscation of privately owned firearms is nigh. The NRA’s alarmism helped maintain an active membership, but the strategy was risky: sooner or later, gun guys might have realized that they’d been had. Then came the shootings at a movie theater in Aurora, Colorado, and at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, followed swiftly by the nightmare the NRA had been promising for decades: a dedicated push at every level of government for new gun laws. The gun-rights movement was now that most insufferable of species: a hypochondriac taken suddenly, seriously ill."

Subscribe Today