August 18, 2007 8:34 AM
Arthur Miller had a son with Down syndrome - part 2
Read Part One first.
I had many more comments I wanted to make on this article, but I wanted to make sure you read it first because I so appreciated the skill with which the author took us on the journey and I wanted to leave you in her capable hands.
Holly, I agree with you that this is a sin I wouldn't/couldn't commit - but that's because I have become a believer and being a believer has made me a more authentic person. Miller's rejection of his son even while allowing himself to be put on a pedestal as some kind of great emphathiser /defender of those with lesser gifts - as in his appearance on behalf of the mentally-challenged convict - to me is just so emblematic of the left and their Do-As-I-Say-And-Not-As-I-Do political position.
I couldn't help but think of George Will, the brilliant conservative commentator who also has a son with Down syndrome and who brought him home and brought him up and discovered that a child doesn't have to be intellectually gifted to be gifted in ways that you want to share with the world.
It wasn't that I couldn't make the moral distinction to say this is a grievous sin. I could and it is. I just cried because my heart ached for the wrongness of the situation. I have spoken and written many times about the brave parents who refused the medical establishment's advice to "go home and try again" and who discovered that kids with Down syndrome had greater potential than anyone ever realized - all they needed was love to thrive and grow.
But the irony is that Miller should have been one of those people - one of those who thought outside the box, the nonconformist, the one who questioned authority, who thought for himself. How ironic, sad, and hypocritical to continue to live your live as though that was who you were when at the most crucial test you failed completely.
So my tears for Miller were only for the fact that he had missed perhaps the most glorious opportunity to allow himself to be changed and grow. I know that my own creativity was unleashed shortly after Jonny's birth. He was born in 1992, followed a year later by Madeleine. And then I began to write - even as we also began adopting more kids with Down syndrome.
My advice to writers is always not to cut yourself off from life to find yourself creatively, but to dive into it. I don't think it's an accident that Jesus picked up the dust from the ground and spit on it to make the blind man see. The willingness with which we embrace service to others some might deem lowly lights a fire within us that becomes a thing of beauty. Think of Henri Nouwen and his beautiful writing, who sacrificed high position within the church to become a pastor/shepherd for a community of developmentally challenged adults. Since then his writing has resonated even more.
Ted - I do not blame Inge at all. The article made it clear that she would not have chosen to institutionalize her son, but was bending to the will of Miller. I've seen this happen in the cases of the three children I've adopted - one parent willing to keep him, one not (and not always the father rejecting). The other parent goes along to save the marriage. that's just the way it is. Inge showed her devotion through her visits to Daniel. I don't for a moment think she approved of and condoned everything - I think she was just getting by with an extremely forceful personality.
I also think I answered your defense of Miller based on the fact of the negative advice prevalent about Down syndrome in those days. We all know that. But my point is that if Miller were the true brilliant outside-the-box thinker he was supposed to have been, he would have come to a different conclusion - like those couples from the heartland who did take their babies home and who proved what individuals with Down syndrome could do.
Our country is the best in the world for realizing and dealing with our mistakes. There is no better place for a person with disabilities to live (which is why we have one adopted child with Down syndrome from Taiwan - his parents could see he would experience a better life here). But we put the wrong people on pedestals - people like Arthur Miller who used his creativity to establish his elite credentials by telling us theatrically how messed up our lives were. While across America were nobodies in flyover country quietly making heroic decisions which would impact their families and their communities for good the rest of their days.
Holly, my tears weren't just sympathy for Miller, but just sadness at the human condition, at Miller's self-delusion and his missing what might have been the greatest opportunity of his life to expand and grow as a person, an artist and a mensch.
Related articles:
Down syndrome: There's a purpose
All MommyLife entries concerning Down syndrome
Photo album of my son Jonny - now 15
If you look at the photos of Jonny, you'll understand why someone with a person with Down syndrome in his or her life will bring a lot more to the reading of this article about Arthur Miler. It's important to remember that Daniel is the biggest part of this particular Arthur Miller piece - the heroism of who Daniel became in spite of the injustice committed against him. I thought the author did a very good job of weaving his life into the story - I would love to have seen some pictures of him because a picture says a thousand words and as you can see from Jonny's, the irrepressible joy is better captured by a camera than by words.
When the people who knew Daniel spoke of what a wonderful guy he was, I hope the readers of Vanity Fair could understand at some level what they were talking about, that they weren't just so disgusted by the whole idea of Down syndrome that they were sitting back in their expensive leather chairs going "hunh?"
And I was not surprised when the author mention Daniel Day-Lewis, the actor who married Daniel Miller's sister was appalled by Arthur Miller's casting him away. Remember, Daniel Day-Lewis had done a brilliant job in My Left Foot: the Story of Christy Brown showing the humanity of a person many would have cast away themselves. He had to know what a terrible and grievous sin this was.
Frankly, I was surprised that Vanity Fair pushed into this territory and that the reporter handled Daniel with such dignity and respect. I thank her for that. It provided a facet that made the piece shine like a perfectly cut jewel.
Let's not forget that at the center of this discussion are individual people - like the ones Miller purported to speak for when he was on a pedestal - who have the same need to be loved and are deserving of the same respect as even the most brilliant playwright on the planet.
My heart doesn't ache for Daniel. He's an overcomer. I would love to meet him some day!
Posted in Down syndrome | Permalink
Comments
"A character,is defined by the kinds of challenges he cannot walk away from. And by those he has walked away from that cause him remorse." Arthur Miller, Timebends....
I grieve for Arthur Miller.... what he missed experiencing...and consequently what he could have shared through the gift of creativity Our Heavenly Father endowed him with. It is in walking through the difficulties and challenges we experience as sons and daughters of Our Father that we can catch a glimpse of His heart and how to become more complete.....In Chapter 12 of Paul's letter to the Romans, Paul gives us the recipe from God on His view of this.."Let love be without hypocrisy. Abhor what is evil. Cling to what is good. Be kindly affectionate to one another with brotherly love, in honor giving preference to one another; not lagging in diligence, fervent in spirit, serving the Lord; rejoicing in hope, patient in tribulation, continuing steadfastly in prayer; distributing to the needs of the saints, given to hospitality. Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse. Rejoice with those who rejoice, and weep with those who weep. Be of the same mind toward one another. Do not set your mind on high things, but associate with the humble. Do not be wise in your own opinion."
Posted by: Tripp | August 18, 2007 12:26 PM
Even if Inge Morath "bent to the will" of her husband, then it is still her fault. As a mother and a wife, she could have stood up for her son. She apparently did not, and then continued her life as it was, interrupted by the occasional visits. That is certainly tantamount to condonation and tacit approval. Why does it matter what her original feelings were?
Posted by: ted | August 18, 2007 1:48 PM
Ted-
If you will go back an re-read what I wrote, you will see that I answered your charge against Inge. I've experienced three instances where a reluctant parent agreed to give up a baby with Down syndrome in order to save their marriage. Based on my experience, I suspect the Millers may have had this going on.
You're kind of new here - you've left three argumentative comments so far. You know all about me and the experience I have to back up my opinions. We don't know much about yours. Care to share?
What is your interest in defending Arthur Miller?
I found this interesting analysis of the interplay between Miller's art, politics and personal life here: http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=1852
This quote is worth pondering: "Miller was never capable of the self-examination and insight found in truly great artists."
While he was eager to dramatize all that is wrong with American culture and ordinary people and to appear quite the idealist, he certainly left a sad legacy himself.
Obviously AM was a very domineering me-first guy. Are you saying that because she didn't divorce him and bring up her two children on her own that she shares the guilt. I just don't think it's a 50-50 split.
And besides, Inge wasn't out representing herself as the champion of just the sort of people that AM championed publicly. The moment at a pro-developmentally-disabled-rights rally (or whatever you want to call it) when he ran into Daniel as a grown man and self-advocate was poignant beyond words. Did you read the article, Ted? Miller didn't even know his son. Inge had visited Daniel over the years and obviously did the best she could - short of divorcing her husband.
Posted by: barbara | August 18, 2007 2:13 PM
I love your point about inauthentic / authentic lives Barbara. You are right in that becoming a believer includes the call to come out of the dark and into the light.
I have to disagree with the following though- "Miller's rejection of his son... to me is just so emblematic of the left and their Do-As-I-Say-And-Not-As-I-Do political position."
I see this less of a problem of the left and more as the problem / result of sin. Sadly, both men (and women) from both sides of the aisle live inauthentic lives of sin while allowing themselves to be placed on public pedestals. Too many names from both parties come to mind, specifically regarding the sins of adultery/homosexuality.
Posted by: Katie B. | August 18, 2007 10:24 PM
I don't disagree with a word you write, Barbara. You make the case beautifully.
I, too, find it so odd and upside down the way our world chooses heroes. It seems (and I see this so much!) that it doesn't matter to us what a person DOES - but much more what he SAYS. We see it in politicians, preachers, and our Hollywood idols. Strange. Our heroes should be the Daniels, and the Jonnys of the world.
I don't blame Inge, either. The article stated several times that she wanted to keep Daniel, even as an infant, and that she visited him. Does that mean she loved Arthur more than her own son? Not necessarily. Just as institutionalization was viewed differently then, so was the husband/wife role. A wife just might not have stood up to her husband like that, even in something as important as this. She might have felt she had no choice.
I thought the article was well written, also. The author did a good job.
Love, Holly
Posted by: Holly | August 18, 2007 10:33 PM
I was wondering if you have ever read the novel The Memory Keeper's Daughter? Its an excellent novel about the two options that were available to parents of babies with Down Syndrome, and the results of both.
Posted by: Molly | August 19, 2007 4:38 PM
I saw this article on Touchstone's blog Mere Comments. I couldn't even finish it, I was so disgusted. I know that we're all human and that we fail, but seriously!
Great post!
Posted by: Lucy | August 19, 2007 10:02 PM
So let's say we forgive Miller for being a horse's ass and having his flesh-and-blood placed in an institution. I assume that Miller occasionally watched TV and managed to see the story of Willowbrook. And yet he still did nothing about his son. For his entire life he denied that he had a son because that son had a disability. That makes what Miller made much more than a mistake. It makes him an evil, hard-hearted man.
Posted by: Tom | August 21, 2007 12:28 AM
