"Man is what man is . . . nature's denial machine."

And Arthur Miller, who wrote those words, denied the existence of his son Daniel, born with Down syndrome and institutionalized almost at once (over the protests of his mother Inge Morath), for almost thirty years, only to leave him a full share of his fortune -- causing the state of Connecticut to sue for years of his care.  The story, by Suzanna Andrews in Vanity Fair:

In the days after his death, at the age of 89, Arthur Miller was eulogized around the world. [...] The Denver Post called him "the moralist of the past American century," and The New York Times extolled his "fierce belief in man's responsibility to his fellow man—and [in] the self-destruction that followed on his betrayal of that responsibility." [...] In a moving speech at the Majestic, the playwright Tony Kushner said Miller had possessed the "curse of empathy."

In his work, maybe; in his life, he was said to be cold and detached, a terrible match for the needy Marilyn Monroe . . . and, we learn now, a highly selective father, who doted on one perfect child, accepted two serviceable ones, and treated the fourth like a dark, rejected secret.

A writer, used to being in control of narratives, Miller excised a central character who didn't fit the plot of his life as he wanted it to be. Whether he was motivated by shame, selfishness, or fear—or, more likely, all three—Miller's failure to tackle the truth created a hole in the heart of his story. What that cost him as a writer is hard to say now, but he never wrote anything approaching greatness after Daniel's birth.

And Danny?  Despite spending his childhood in a grim institution, he learned to read,  to live independently, and to hold a job.  Says Connecticut disability-rights advocate Jean Bowen, who knows him well: 

"He doesn't have a bitter bone in his body [...] He's made a life for himself; he is deeply valued and very, very loved."

(H/T:  Wittingshire)

Comments

[Rod]

Man....nature's hypocricy machine.

[Meade]

For some reason, many of the world's greatest artists have been a**holes.

[dave]

What Meade said. I heard an interview with the author on NPR; very affecting story. At least Miller had the grace to give him an equal share of the inheritance.

[amba]

Yeah, artists are often truly rotten to the people around them. I don't know if it's always been so (people tend to invoke J.S. Bach as the model of the responsible, devoted family man and artistic genius) or whether it is the poison of the Romantic era. The notion is that the agonies and the fruits of creation justify ruthlessly using other people as raw material, muses and servants

[Randy (Internet Ronin)]

I saw this story a few weeks(?) ago and thought, "How sad." And, "How cruel." Fortunately, the boy apparently doesn't really understand, and Miller did the right thing at the very end. Still...

[amba]

As contemptible as I find Miller's behavior, it did occur to me to put it in cultural context: this is how too many families reacted then and earlier when a less than perfect child was born.

[Rod]

Very successful actors, artists, businessmen, and athletes, beautiful women and the very rich frequently get a pass from the "petty" morality imposed on the common folk, and they frequently abuse their privileges. Elevate ten people above the law and nine will be tyrants.

[amba]

And the tenth is George Washington.

[Rod]

amba:
Funny you should say that. I was thinking the same thing