Join 3,554 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)


'A child's spirit is like a child, you can never catch it by running after it; you must stand still, and, for love, it will soon itself come back.'
August 20, 2007 9:06 AM   Subscribe

Arthur Miller's Missing Act :: For all the public drama of Arthur Miller's career ... one character was absent: the Down-syndrome child he deleted from his life
posted by anastasiav (50 comments total) 10 users marked this as a favorite

 
Wow.
posted by miss lynnster at 9:19 AM on August 20, 2007


ok, he dumped the retarded kid and salved his conscience with a last-minute bequest. what's the new york times' excuse for leaving the kid out of the obit? all the news that's fit to print, except that which would discomfort the deceased?
posted by bruce at 9:22 AM on August 20, 2007


That's an excellently written article.
posted by Nelson at 9:37 AM on August 20, 2007


the fact that great artists are seldom great men is, sadly, a reality of life. but when I read this story I couldn't avoid thinking of All My Sons, my favorite play in Miller's canon, and how you can write something that powerful and then, 15 years later, act the way Miller is supposed to have done.

it's jarring, in a way, to think of Joe Keller as a stand-in for Miller himself. but then, I wouldn't have wanted Dante for a father, either.
posted by matteo at 9:40 AM on August 20, 2007


Nice work on the title quote, btw.
posted by miss lynnster at 9:47 AM on August 20, 2007


I disagree with Nelson. I did not think the article was well written. Well, in parts, yes, but on the whole it waffled from guilt, to pity, to blame - very much so mirroring the emotions that I'm sure Miller felt (or at least should have). Great article, though. Makes me want to read After the Fall again. Also, great title quote.
posted by banannafish at 9:53 AM on August 20, 2007


Good article. When did Vanity Fair start putting content online?
posted by jamesonandwater at 9:56 AM on August 20, 2007


I was instantly reminded of the life of Rosemary Kennedy, even though the particulars are quite a bit different. It's good to know that in Danny Miller's case, he lives a contented life anyway.

Good link, anastasiav.
posted by briank at 10:02 AM on August 20, 2007


Wow. That's just saddening and infuriating.
posted by jonmc at 10:17 AM on August 20, 2007


I'm not inclined to blame Arthur Miller for putting the kid in an institution; institutionalization of retarded kids wasn't a rare thing at the time. And to Miller, it might have seemed plausible that four-year-old Rebecca's mental and social development would be stunted merely by forced association with a less able sibling.

But the whole thing where he wouldn't even visit the kid, or even acknowledge his existence? Yeah, that's less defensible, but I can still sympathize. Perhaps he was so ashamed of his early abandonment that he simply never found the courage to end it. I've messed up good friendships that way: inattention and self-absorbedness create the gap, and guilt, shame, and cowardice ensure that it is never breached.
posted by The Confessor at 10:26 AM on August 20, 2007 [1 favorite]


I hate the way that the media portrays children with disabilities. That they are the "light of everyone's life" and just happy and friendly and pure and innocent. It is degrading and implicitly suggests that they are too simple to experience the range of emotions that the rest of us have. It seems to be a vestige from the Victorian belief that the depressed are intellectually superior and the more complex the man the closer to reality (and thus existential angst) they must have.

I read this article several days ago, it seemed to me more telling of Arthur Miller's narcissism and ego than anything else. I like the mention of how "surprised" Arthur was at Danny's progress, as if he expected him to be drooling in a chair in some corner of a mental hospital. Here was a man, like the Kennedy's, who had enough money and clout to make their problems literally go away. He used it and continued to live the elitist lifestyle of championing social causes without actually having to get his hands dirty.

It does not nothing to degrade Miller's work, but it shows how corrupting high society can be.
posted by geoff. at 10:28 AM on August 20, 2007 [5 favorites]


oh my, that was quite depressing.

nice post.
posted by caddis at 10:38 AM on August 20, 2007


I'm glad that it's saddening and infuriating - that's an indication of how society as a whole has changed in terms of the hive attitude towards disabilities.

At the time of Daniel's birth it was considered status quo to institutionalize babies with Down syndrome. It would've been out of the ordinary for parents to choose to raise a child with Down syndrome.

Status quo was determined to be not so good when studies showed what Langdon Down had demonstrated: investing time and effort allows people with Down syndrome to flourish and live productive, public lives, whereas institutionalization does not - and it dramatically shortens average life span.

They should do a little better on fact checking as heart defects aren't present in most people with Down syndrome, but around 40-50% depending on which source you look at.
posted by plinth at 10:38 AM on August 20, 2007


As horrible as this sounds, institutionalizing child with Downs was not uncommon at the time. My neighbor, who is a loving compassionate woman had a child with Downs in the mid-1950's. She wanted to bring the child home but her doctor worked for weeks to get her to institutionalize the baby. "It's what's best." Her family and husband were convinced and joined the doctor and she relented. The child died in the institution after 14 years.

Now I understand that my neighbor did visit, but I don't know the details. It seems harsh and horrible, but judging parent of Downs children from this point in time not quite equitable. Of course not visiting or acknowledging still horrible, but the quilt of all this may well have been something that drove Miller to for drive for "morality and pursuing justice."
posted by Red58 at 10:40 AM on August 20, 2007


And plinth beat me - sorry to repeat.
posted by Red58 at 10:41 AM on August 20, 2007


The great artist/scumbag person schism usually isn't usually hard for me to comprehend but I can't help but think less of someone whose public life and works were so concerned with morality and ethics pulling such a 180. It doesn't invalidate Miller's work or the causes he supported, but the rank hypocrisy of emotionally abandoning his son, apparently because of intellectual vanity and social cowardice, is pretty disheartening.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 10:42 AM on August 20, 2007


Men were often in dens, cigars and newspapers in hand, very coldly and quietly ignoring their children, in the 50's. Honestly, it was considered "unmanly" for men to do things associated with child-rearing. The more rich the man was the more this was true. I am not defending Arthur Miller, but he wasn't the only person to turn his back so completely on the mentally challenged. Why were the institutions filled to capacity in the 40's and 50's? Because that is what "was done" then.
posted by naplesyellow at 11:07 AM on August 20, 2007


I'd never heard of Rosemary Kennedy. Now I'm going to have nightmares. Jesus.
posted by small_ruminant at 11:11 AM on August 20, 2007


Just to descend into the crucible for a second here:

Until a few hundred years ago, we generally would have drowned or abandoned to nature children like this as being unfit and a drag on the survival chances of the parents, family and community. Institutional care was 19th and early 20th century society's version of this, once it became socially unacceptable for people or communities to kill their unfit offspring outright.

I'm not convinced that forcing parents to suffer the emotional, physical and economic hardships of caring for a child with severe developmental disabilities is that much more civilized than the old-fashioned ways that served us well for a few hundred thousand years (and that remain de rigeur for the rest of nature's children). Miller had the resources to raise his son, but for many other families the toll is severe, unearned, and not necessarily justified. It may be a requirement of complex, populous civilization that we carry all our members, no matter their disability, but it's no requirement of nature.

So while we can lambast Miller all we want for being a rich man who ran from responsibilities only belatedly foisted upon him by the march of social progress, it may be worth pausing to reflect on the nature and viability of this late twentieth century commandment that we should care for our children, however unfit they are. Much like institutional medicine's insistence on sustaining life as long as technically possible, I don't think this is as clear cut as we'd like at first glance to pretend.

I'm not advocating anything here, I'm just really not sure where we should actually stand on an issue like this one. What I am clear on is that it is very much more a social governance issue than it is a moral one, despite how we'd like to dress it.
posted by kowalski at 11:15 AM on August 20, 2007 [4 favorites]


"I'm just really not sure where we should actually stand on an issue like this one."
Really? I would only have a quandary about this if I ignored every advancement in medicine and the social sciences over the last 200 years or so.
posted by 2sheets at 11:39 AM on August 20, 2007


Why were the institutions filled to capacity in the 40's and 50's? Because that is what "was done" then.

According to the Vanity Fair article, Arthur Miller's son, Daniel, was born in 1966, most certainly not in "the 40's and 50's." In fact, I have a cousin with Down syndrome who is not only slightly older than Daniel Miller, but he has spent many noninstitutionalized years with family members who love him. (We forget how much notions of social justice changed among average Americans from the 50s to the mid-60s.) Not everybody succumbed to the pressure to institutionalize children with Down syndrome. I don't expect a Pulitzer Prize-winning playwright like Arthur Miller to be a totally hands-on father, but in 1966, Miller certainly had enough money to hire a full-time nanny or nurse to take care of his son Daniel.

In addition, Arthur Miller was almost certainly behind the curve in dealing with the issue of adequately providing for Daniel after his death via a special-needs trust. These trusts are often essential, because they often make it possible for the beneficiary to receive the health care they need without completely bankrupting the estate and leaving the beneficiary with nothing. (The Vanity Fair article already mentioned how there were attempts to assess fees against Daniel's inheritance for prior medical care, largely because of Miller's failures to do proper estate management.) In addition, these trusts serve as protection from the retarded or disabled family member from being defrauded. In fact, my younger brother is mentally retarded, and my parents have set up a special needs trust for him. In fact, I have even paid lawyer fees myself (at a time when I was a starving grad student) to make sure my will is properly integrated with my brother's special needs trust, if I end up predeceasing my brother. Any estates attorney would have known how to set up a special needs trust. Given the legal talent that Miller could have afforded, the only way Miller could have remained ignorant of the importance of setting up a special needs trust is if he had chosen to stay ignorant.

P.S. The article has given me newfound respect for Daniel Day-Lewis, who visited Daniel Miller and was appalled at how his father-in-law had abandoned Daniel.
posted by jonp72 at 11:44 AM on August 20, 2007 [2 favorites]


Just to add a piece of timeline trivia, up until 1961, trisomy 21 was still referred to clinically as Mongoloid Idiocy.

The special needs trust issue is very interesting. It's good to have well-informed parents, but parents need to go one step further and make sure that everybody else gets on the bandwagon. In the case of my family, I've have to have several long discussions with otherwise bright people to convince them to not leave a single penny to my daughter but to her trust. Without that, any funds or property in her name will get raped by the state and she, most likely, will not receive equivalent recompense in treatment/housing/training.

kowalsi's arguments don't follow. Social care is not uniquely human, nor is it a necessarily 20th century condition. This is argument by weak or false analogy.
posted by plinth at 11:59 AM on August 20, 2007


I'm not convinced that forcing parents to suffer the emotional, physical and economic hardships of caring for a child with severe developmental disabilities is that much more civilized than the old-fashioned ways that served us well for a few hundred thousand years (and that remain de rigeur for the rest of nature's children).

As the parent of a severely mentally and physically disabled child, let me be the first to humbly suggest that you have no frame of reference here, Donny. Your words "forcing" and "suffer" do not apply. In fact, I would argue that the people who were truly "forced" into anything were the parents of the 1960s like Inge Morath who had little choice but to disregard their own wants and bend to the learned opinions of the "experts" of the time and institutionalize their children.

Your statement is infuriating on many levels, but I will choose to give you the benefit of the doubt based on your lack of first-hand experience. I will say only that focusing solely on the emotional, physical, or economic hardships is a classic example of considering only one side of the coin. In many cases (certainly mine and those of other parents I know in similar situations) those hardships are easily outweighed by the experience of knowing, loving, and caring for such children.
posted by pardonyou? at 12:03 PM on August 20, 2007


I haven't read the article yet, but heard the author being interviewed yesterday.

My respect for him dropped. And yet, he always did look like a bit of a remote, cold fish. (OT: As much as I support abortion rights, I also get the same hinky feeling when some entertainer relates that they had an abortion because it just wasn't a convenient time in their career.)

And to reiterate what was said just above - in the interview, the author said this occurred at the very end of the time when people were institionalizing such kids, and that many other parents were already rebelling against advice to put the kid away.

The one thing that always bothered me about Beverly Sills is that she institutionalized her son, who (IIRC) was diagnosed as severely retarded. But at least she talked about him, persumably visited him and put a pic of him in her biography.
posted by NorthernLite at 12:04 PM on August 20, 2007


"According to the Vanity Fair article, Arthur Miller's son, Daniel, was born in 1966, most certainly not in "the 40's and 50's."


Yes, but Miller himself was a product of the 40's and 50's and as such he handled things how he had seen them handled by others during his lifetime..but I completely agree with you, he could have looked around to see that things were changing. Look at how delusional he was about the whole Marilyn thing..the man clearly was out-of-touch on so many levels.
posted by naplesyellow at 12:29 PM on August 20, 2007


So he was a flawed man who couldn't cope with this situation. So what? History is a litany of such tragedies. The only problem is if you put him on some high pedestal of ethics or something, just because he could put words together well, and now your beliefs are dashed. Hey, newsflash for you: all humans are flawed. There is no such thing as a perfect human. If you held Miller in high esteem because of his writing, then you were the fool.
posted by Henry C. Mabuse at 12:36 PM on August 20, 2007 [1 favorite]


Good (and saddening) piece. (I can't help but be reminded of Gunter Grass's self-outing.) Thanks for the post.
posted by languagehat at 12:46 PM on August 20, 2007


The real issue is not that he put his kid away and for all "forgot him," but rather that his stature as a writer is in large part derived from his moral stance toward the family unit as practially a sacred unit. An then in his own life he rejected that notion. Putting youg children away not at all uncommon back then, and for many, ignoring them once they are "gone" also not unusual. That the son was finally acknowledge in the will indicates the struggle Miller must have gone through on this issue.
posted by Postroad at 12:48 PM on August 20, 2007


...the rank hypocrisy of emotionally abandoning his son, apparently because of intellectual vanity and social cowardice, is pretty disheartening.
Alvy Ampersand: You cannot have the slightest idea of Miller's feelings and thoughts in the matter.
posted by semmi at 12:50 PM on August 20, 2007


his stature as a writer is in large part derived from his moral stance toward the family unit as practially a sacred unit. .. Putting youg children away not at all uncommon back then, and for many, ignoring them once they are "gone" also not unusual.

I think you've nailed the issue. Miller's "place" is as a writer who called upon us make the moral choice even when the immoral was considered normal and acceptable.

Yes, what he did was normal for the time, but that's precisely the problem-- he was supposed to be the person who did what was moral, regardless of whether it was normal.
posted by deanc at 1:18 PM on August 20, 2007


semmi: True, all I can do is read the article and infer, hence my "...apparently...". As others have mentioned, institutionalization was on the wane at the time of Daniel was born and Miller had the resources (Financially, at least) to address any special needs that raising his son at home would require. The impression I got from Miller's actions - or inaction - and from the interviewees was that he was ashamed.

And agreed, deanc - why is Miller held in high esteem while Elia Kazan still has shadow over him? That the former had feet of clay shouldn't be a surprise, but it is still a disappointment.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 1:32 PM on August 20, 2007


The idea that because miller espoused an ideal, he must've lived that ideal seems insanely naive. If the Beach Boys could make a living writing about surfing, without touching the water, I don't see what's so amazing about someone who can think of characters more moral than himself.
posted by nomisxid at 1:37 PM on August 20, 2007


I worked with people with developmental disabilities for seven years, and I got to see the full range of parental reactions. Half of the parents stayed far away, and the other half were occasionally involved. I got to see first-hand just how hard it was on even the best of them.

Go easy on Miller, you guys. Having a developmentally disabled child is hard, no matter what you do about it, and who's to say you wouldn't do the same thing if you were in his shoes?
posted by mullingitover at 1:48 PM on August 20, 2007


Social care is not uniquely human, nor is it a necessarily 20th century condition.

True. However, widespread social care for mentally retarded individuals is very much a modern condition. I'm sure you can find counterexamples here and there, but people with Down's Syndrome and the like were commonly left to die or otherwise abused throughout most of history, usually with the blessing or indifference of society. Also, notice that kowalski said "until a few hundred years ago", not "until the 20th century".

As for social care not being uniquely human: no, it isn't, but I think it's pretty clear that long-term caring for incapable offspring is more than just social care. It does happen -- elephants and some primates have been known to do it, at least for a time -- but it's the rare exception to a vast and unsympathetic rule.

Of course, none of this speaks to the morality or lack thereof of either approach, but let's be honest about the fact that widespread adoption of our current ideas about mental retardation is quite recent, and quite singular. I think the "weak analogy" here belongs to those who would pretend as though post-Enlightenment Western morality has applied to all times and all cultures, or that a few examples of caring should be seen to negate the uncaring majority. Infanticide is a common behavior throughout the animal kingdom, including humanity, up to and including this very day; to claim otherwise is just plain wishful thinking.
posted by vorfeed at 1:48 PM on August 20, 2007


Indeed, one must be morally flawed as an artist to be able to competently create characters more moral than oneself, in order to make plain the difference between them & the less moral, & make sense of it for the rest of us.
posted by Henry C. Mabuse at 1:48 PM on August 20, 2007


What puzzles me about threads like this is why people find it odd that a man clearly obsessed with morality and ethics would institutionalize his own son -- or vice-versa, why a man who institutionalized his own son and tacitly denied his existence, would go on to spend his life critiquing ethical behavior through art.

These seem to me to be pretty clearly connected things. Not contradictory at all. Sad, certainly, but not surprising.
posted by lodurr at 1:48 PM on August 20, 2007 [2 favorites]


pardonyou?

I find it interesting that you dismiss kowalski's insight given his emotional distance from the subject, but seem not to have recognized the extent to which your close association with it may have impacted your own judgment.

When I see apparent love, fondness, and caring by the more able member of an utterly asymmetrical relationship, I always wonder whether something akin to the Stockholm Syndrome is at work, in which love develops because the situation would be unsurvivable in its absence.
posted by The Confessor at 2:42 PM on August 20, 2007


When I see apparent love, fondness, and caring by the more able member of an utterly asymmetrical relationship

My point was that it's not an asymmetrical relationship at all, although it may appear that way if you haven't personally experienced it. The love and fondness that is returned simply takes different forms.

And I don't buy your argument that my closeness interferes with my perspective. kowalski characterizes things as parents being "forced" to endure "suffering." I'm not forced, and I don't feel like I'm suffering (even though it's extremely hard). Nor do the other parents I know (even though everyone will admit that it's certainly difficulty and trying -- but so is life). kowalski wouldn't know that, but I would, so I feel like my view is entitled to a bit more weight.
posted by pardonyou? at 3:01 PM on August 20, 2007


kowalski wouldn't know that

Unless you actually know him and his situation, you don't know that.

Also, there are certainly people who do suffer over this, and who do feel forced. I've met some. Your anecdotal experience is no more or less valid than theirs is.
posted by vorfeed at 3:17 PM on August 20, 2007


Elia Kazan still has shadow over him

Kazan will always have that shadow because he was a snitch. because he ruined people's lives and careers only to keep his nice lifestyle.

Miller's coldness toward his son is indeed disturbing and will be analyzed by scholars and biographers, if and when his daughter chooses to give more information (the picture, however ugly, is not complete now).

Kazan's case on the other hand is closed -- he ratted out his friends and threw them overboard in order not to lose his money/power/prestige. Kazan not only ruined lives but gave McCarthyism a huge boost, shame on him, and God bless McKellen and Dreyfuss and that half-crazed Nick Nolte and all the others for sitting on their hands while Hollywood gave Kazan that appalling honorary Oscar for Best Snitch In a Leading Role -- actions have consequences, and shame does not have an expiration date.
posted by matteo at 4:23 PM on August 20, 2007 [1 favorite]


pardonyou?

I'll admit that I'm approaching this from a position of ignorance; I never had a close relative suffer from a mental handicap, and my sole first-hand experience with someone afflicted with such a handicap was an extremely trying working relationship.

My surfeit of empathy may also be at fault here; I find that it often skews my perception of interpersonal relations.

The way you've casted these relationships as experiential phenomena reminds me of the way many religions insulate themselves from external criticism by claiming prior belief as a prerequisite for a valid critique. And there is a convenient corollary for apostasy which states that claimed belief, later abandoned, was never really valid in the first place.

If your perception of the relationship dynamic is accurate, it's a frustrating end to this conversation, since the theory can never be proven or disproven, only experienced or not.
posted by The Confessor at 4:24 PM on August 20, 2007


Infanticide is a common behavior throughout the animal kingdom, including humanity, up to and including this very day and it's still argument by weak analogy, no matter how you dress it. Because some animals do it and some humans do it is no justification for infanticide.

Here's an example: if a male lion takes over a pride, he will often kill all the cubs from the previous male. Should it then be acceptable for a man who marries a widow to kill all her children? Of course not.

Was kowolski advocating infanticide? No - merely that we consider it. I have, and I find it a poor argument, clumsily made.
posted by plinth at 4:24 PM on August 20, 2007


What an ass.
posted by TorontoSandy at 5:11 PM on August 20, 2007


I was born in 1954 and by 1960 had been diagnosed with ADHD. When I acted contrary to my fathers expectations, he would grab me and pull me in, nose to nose. He would tell me that " I can easily send you away to the state hospital forever anytime I want. You will never have a family and you will be forgotten...I can do that!" The terror was in knowing that it was not an idle threat .
posted by Rancid Badger at 6:04 PM on August 20, 2007 [1 favorite]


Here's a take on it from a mom of 4 Down's syndrome children (One biological and three adopted.)
posted by konolia at 6:27 PM on August 20, 2007


I hope I would have the strength to make more compassionate choices than Mr. Miller did. However, knowing what I know about the statistics of how special needs children tend to affect the marriages of their parents, I'm not sure I wouldn't be incredibly resentful.

Anecdotally I've been acquainted with two couples who had children with Down's syndrome. One got a divorce, and in the other instance the husband convinced the wife not to get an abortion, and their relationship afterwards was quite cold.
posted by BrotherCaine at 7:34 PM on August 20, 2007


I don't know that much about Miller, aside from his HUAC stand and having read the crucible, so I've never had him on the pedestal that most people here seem to have had. So I have to say, reading this article, I don't find it particularly sad, which seems to be the dominant reaction in this thread. Instead, I see a man who produced great works, and still struggled in his personal life, and eventually came to an incomplete, broken, and belated resolution. The conflict here between the ideal and the fallen reality seems to me to be much more interesting, and even inspiring, than the perfected ideal alone would be.

It was pointed out in a blog I read recently that different people go different ways on what they're inspired by:

One of the reasons that history textbooks suck – and they do – is because of pressure from parents. They don’t want to know that Columbus started the slave trade. They don’t want to hear that Lincoln was a functional depressive with a genuinely insane wife, and that FDR was a man involved in a long-term extra-marital affair.

That’s because they draw inspiration from different things than I do.

To me, it makes me feel better to know that Lincoln suffered from some of the same feelings that I do, and still functioned as one of the best Presidents we ever had. When I'm despairing about my lack of success as a novelist, I like to know that greater men than I have faced far more hopeless situations and felt awful and still triumphed.

The people who want Washington to be a Godhead, however, are driven by different motivations.

Those people don’t take inspiration from the weakness of others. The idea that this is all there is to humanity – that there’s no escape from uncertainty, despair, and frustration, no matter how wise or strong or accomplished you are – is something that bogs them down. They want to say, “I feel bad right now, but Washington never despaired!” so that they themselves can tamp down their feelings and carry on – and to do that, they need a perfect model. They need superheroes.



This seems like another instance of this.
posted by Arturus at 7:58 PM on August 20, 2007 [3 favorites]


Because some animals do it and some humans do it is no justification for infanticide.

Yes, that's very true. It's merely a fact, not a justification. However, you said earlier that "kowalski's arguments don't follow. Social care is not uniquely human, nor is it a necessarily 20th century condition." Those statements are misleading and somewhat incorrect in the current context, as I pointed out earlier, and they don't back your argument whatsoever. They seem to be an attempt to build a weak analogy of your own ("our current system occurs in nature, too!") to counter his. In short: because some humans (and animals) don't do it is no justification for a moral injunction against infanticide.

And there's the problem -- you seem to like dismissing other people's arguments as "poor" and "clumsily made", yet your own posts have made no argument as to why infanticide should be considered unacceptable. Sorry, but "of course not" won't cut it. kowalski justified his position with more than just the nature/anthropological analogy, but I'm not seeing that from you.
posted by vorfeed at 9:47 PM on August 20, 2007


The idea that because miller espoused an ideal, he must've lived that ideal seems insanely naive. If the Beach Boys could make a living writing about surfing, without touching the water

AFAIK, The Beach Boys were never convicted of Contempt of Congress for refusing to name names for a witchhunt - there is more to Miller's legacy than his dramatic writing. That said, perceptions of artists and their work are informed by their lives outside of their artistic endeavors, ie: Kazan. The argument could be made that Miller's artistic reputation is strongly rooted in his politics and personal positions, factors that are often integral parts of any great artist's work. Is that fair to the artist, or is it necessary - maybe even beneficial - towards gaining deeper understanding of their art? Like I said before, it certainly doesn't invalidate his achievements and no, we don't have the whole story and quite probably never will, but it does add a new angle to how we can interpret Miller's oeuvre.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 9:53 PM on August 20, 2007


I'd prefer early detection & abortion, but an institution sounds wise if you end up with one. Why ruin more lives? So I applaud him for setting a good example.
posted by jeffburdges at 2:04 AM on August 21, 2007


« Older Skee-Ball!...  |  Crochet artwork.... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments