Feb
16
The Ethics of Life Writing
February 16, 2015 | 1 Comment
- “Thus to be a friend is to stand to another in a relationship of trust, for the sake of one’s friend; to be a writer is to stand ready to violate that trust for the sake of one’s story” (108). Do you agree with this statement? Is there a difference between writing one’s story and including shared experiences with friends or sharing information they provided in the course of the friendship? Are both considered a violation of their trust?
- “I reject storytelling that violates professional codes of confidentiality, storytelling motivated by malice….storytelling that fails to exhibit appropriate care and respect for the stories told (as in the talk show broadcasting of stories). Storytelling must be done with sensitivity and concern both for the stories themselves and even more for the persons, for the human beings, whose stories these are. (114) Are celebrities and people in the public eye exempt from, “the exhibition of appropriate care and respect for their stories” by talk shows or is it par for the course? Is it considered oversharing if one shares another person’s information and not their own?
- ”I don’t think bad people deserve the protections that good people do…In my sharing of stories with friends, one of my delights is to tell the truth about bad people. Bad people deserve to be known for who and what they are” (118). These particular lines seemed like a contradiction to her comment on page 108, “I feel sick when past offenders are labeled for life and denied any opportunity, ever, at public redemption.” Who determines “bad” people? What constitutes a “bad” person? Do the families of “bad” people deserve for writers such as Claudia Mills to comment about her delight in telling the truth about them with little regard for their families because, “bad people deserve to be known for who and what they are”?
Comments
1 Comment so far
1) The following section, Resolving the Tension, does address this issue of trust. Namely, this reoccurring assumption that trust = a vow of absolute silence. Mills notes that “it wouldn’t make sense to tell [her] “Don’t talk about the relationships at all to others outside the relationship.” If I couldn’t talk about my relationships, I simply couldn’t have them” (106). She goes on to list various benefits and dangers, but ultimately concludes that the sharing of stories goes both ways, and all parties are made equal where no story is exempt from sharing.
2) Celebrities are not exempt. They are human, and enjoy all rights of discretion and privacy that any other person does. That the public eye chooses to invade and disregard their rights is NOT cause to exempt celebrities. That these violations have been normalized is NOT good reason to accept these actions as morally permissible.
What celebrity chooses to share is their own choice. What information is made public by said choice is public and subject all forms of interpretation and criticism.
3) These lines are mostly contradictory (although there is a distinction I am reading that Mills never makes. Read below for that distinction). They also contradict your quotes in question 2.
“Bad” here (108 quote) means criminal, as is revealed by “past offender.” The law, in this example, determines who is “bad.” I do not believe she is discussing “moral bad” here. However, the 118 quote seems to be discussing a bad that is moral rather than legal.
Final Q) Do the families of “bad” people deserve for writers such as Claudia Mills to comment about her delight in telling the truth about them with little regard for their families because, “bad people deserve to be known for who and what they are”?
You seem to have disregarded her 108 quote in this question, and have also added an additional party (the family) into the conversation.