introducing readers to writers since 1995
January 28, 2004
American Sucker, Stay Away From Me
by Ron HoganAs somebody on some blog somewhere points out, and I wish I could find the original cite, today marks the third time the Times has either reviewed American Sucker or profiled David Denby in the last week and a half. (The other review came last Sunday.) And, amazingly enough, although every single article in the Times concedes Denby went on his stock market adventure as a reaction to the breakup of his marriage, nobody seems to consider it worth mentioning that his wife left him for another woman.
OK, granted Denby doesn't confront the issue directly in his first chapter, noting only that "she had mysteriously changed in her affections. Not just in her affections. She had changed in her being, and she was no longer whole, she was broken, and I was not the one to fix what was wrong."
But it's not like they don't know who she is. Because they do. And she herself has mentioned the "change in her being" (albeit in passing) in The New Yorker. So why not at least mention it, if only as obliquely as Denby himself does?
I suppose you could argue that the matter is only of tangential relevance to Denby's chronicle of his own mental state and the misadventures it led him into, but it seems, at least from the excerpt I've read, that the specific nature of his marriage's dissolution might have had some influence on his frame of mind and that acknowledging the possibility isn't necessarily an invasion of privacy, since she's not in the closet about her choice. And then it strikes me as funny that the Times is ready to lavish heaps of attention on a guy "brave enough" to admit his failings as an investor; in the dotcom bust, losing money on the stock market hardly makes you special. While at the same time they help, consciously or unconsciously, distract readers from aspects of his story that are much more unique--and thus not without some potential interest.
Guilty as charged on the cite.
And you're right about the pussyfooting NYT keeps doing about Schine leaving DD for another woman. Maybe they're afraid they'll have to feature the new couple in Vows if they get hitched.
Posted by: cinetrix at January 28, 2004 07:25 PMwhat i find irksome (well, there are a lot of things, i'm a tiny bit of a denby hater) is the his statement "She had changed in her being, and she was no longer whole, she was broken, and I was not the one to fix what was wrong," [granted, taken out of context here] seems to imply that discovering you're attracted to the same sex and not to your whiny windbag of a husband is somehow the manifestation of irreparable internal damage. oy, the man drives me crazy. he's so willfully clueless, it seems, and then demands all this attention for it. i wonder what sort of person feels the need to act softly towards him--or at least, his work. someone with greater reserves of compansion than i.
also, i'd thought that Cathleen Schine was fairly open about the situation, her book titled, "She Is Me", features a character, "Greta has taken up with Daisy, a movie director who is a friend of her daughter's. ''Would she have felt better if she were more of a cliché, if she'd been waiting to have an affair with a man instead of a woman?'' Greta wonders." i seem to remember reading that her leaving denby for a woman was common knowledge (although perhaps that doesn't qualify as being out of the closet. i need a chart or something, miss manners-style).
Posted by: liz at January 29, 2004 08:27 AMThat remark struck me as awfully self-serving as well, but I was willing to give him credit for an interpretation that suggested Schine was "broken" not because she was attracted to other women, but attracted to other women and in a situation that precluded her following through with that attraction to the extent of partnering up with one.
Still, it's a fairly lame choice of words. Not as bad as the business book I read earlier this week which suggested, in the context of the queer boycott of Coors, that it might take "the death of an entire generation" of gays and lesbians for the animosity towards Coors to finally fade out, but still pretty lame. (I got the impression, though, that the author was completely oblivious to any possible subtext to the remark.)
I must concur; I would let him off on self-absorbed obliviousness and resulting mental flaccidities alone, *s. Thanks for the note, btw. I just discovered this weblog via Pullquote, another favorite of mine. I also need to get a better blogroll! Cheers,
Liz
Posted by: Liz at January 31, 2004 12:56 PMyour PayPal donation
can contribute towards its ongoing publication.
