What will happen to Michael Jackson's legacy? A famed writer's fall could offer clues

There’s no question that Michael Jackson changed music history. But how will history remember Michael Jackson?

Since HBO released the new documentary film “Leaving Neverland^[1],” which detailed allegations by two adults who say that they were molested by Jackson as children, the musician’s legacy – already complicated – is up in the air.

Jackson is not the first notable artist to be accused of sexually abusing children. Some, like Roman Polanski^[2] and Woody Allen^[3], are still living and producing art that provokes discussion.

But there are other alleged child abusers who have died and whose works, once considered great, have faded into obscurity, in no small part because it is almost impossible to memorialize them without creating the impression of condoning their behavior.

The writer Norman Douglas is a prime example. The subject of a biography I’m working on, Douglas had a reputation for molesting children. After his death, he became an off-limits topic for biographers, and while he had his defenders, he ultimately couldn’t escape historical erasure.

Rumors do little to dim a budding star

During the first half of the 20th century, Norman Douglas was a literary star. Friends with Joseph Conrad, D.H. Lawrence and Aldous Huxley, he was best known for his bestselling 1917 novel “South Wind^[4].”

Virginia Woolf sang its praises^[5] in the Times Literary Supplement. Graham Greene recalled^[6] how his generation “was brought up on South Wind.” When the hero of Evelyn Waugh’s “Brideshead Revisited^[7]” arrives at Oxford after World War I, he brings with him only two novels, “South Wind” and Compton Mackenzie’s “Sinister Street^[8].”

But today Douglas is entirely forgotten.

The reasons why artists’ works go forgotten vary. In Douglas’ case, it’s fair to say that his erudite writing style went out of fashion.

But there’s more to the story. During his lifetime, Douglas was notorious for his relationships with children^[9]. In 1912, he lived with a 14-year-old boy in London while he was working at The English Review. Four years later, he was arrested in London for acts of gross indecency with a 16-year-old. After his release on bail, Douglas fled to Italy, where laws regulating sex between men and boys were more lax. He settled in Florence, where his celebrity only grew.

Visitors to the city, like Huxley and Lawrence, would seek him out in the city’s cafés. The radical journalist and heiress Nancy Cunard, who met Douglas in Florence in 1923 and became a close friend, recalled^[10] the “aureole of legend” that surrounded him.

Douglas was always attended to by Italian boys who worked for him as messengers or cooks, and endless rumors circulated about Douglas’ relationships with these boys. A diary entry written by a friend of Douglas’ described how Douglas performed fellatio on a boy named Marcello. Brothers Sacheverell and Osbert Sitwell warned Cunard^[11] that Douglas was dangerous. D.H. Lawrence’s widow, Frieda, told her friend^[12] Dudley Nichols that Douglas was “the only wicked man I have known, in a medieval sense.”

Scrutiny grows

Britain’s strict libel laws, the norms of politeness and the power of Douglas’ celebrity seemed to prevent people from writing publicly about his sexual relationships with boys while he was alive.

But you can’t libel the dead.

When Douglas died in 1952, debate about his memory erupted in the press. The first signs of the battle to come appeared in the obituaries. British diplomat Harold Nicolson noted Douglas’ shocking “indulgences” in a death notice^[13] for The Spectator.

Nicolson’s article prompted 50 or 60 letters of protest from Douglas’ friends, but there was no holding back the tide. In 1954, Douglas’ former friend Richard Aldington published a book of vicious recollections about the writer titled “Pinorman^[14],” a portmanteau of Norman and his friend Pino Orioli^[15]. Aldington didn’t mince words. He called Douglas a pederast^[16] whose path in life was “strewn with broken boys and empty bottles.”

Douglas’ friends were outraged. Cunard wrote to Aldington’s publisher accusing him of libel and threatening to wage a “collective protest.” She rallied Douglas’ friends to lambaste the book in reviews. Her own review for the periodical Time and Tide was titled “Bonbons of Gall.” Graham Greene wrote to a friend that he intended to “kill” Aldington’s book, and he penned a review for The London Magazine that was so incendiary it could not be published for fear of libel charges from Aldington, who was very much alive.

Greene maliciously sent Aldington the review and asked for permission to publish it. Naturally, Aldington refused and reached out to friends for help putting together a pamphlet attacking Douglas’ defenders. Frieda Lawrence contributed a story about how Douglas once casually offered her a boy of 14, saying that he preferred them younger. But the pamphlet was so intemperate that a lawyer said it would run afoul of the libel laws and could not be published.

The danger of choosing to forget?

Aldington was forced to retreat. With “Pinorman” disparaged by its reviewers, Aldington was discredited. It seemed that Douglas’ friends had won the battle.

But Aldington won the war. The truth was out there, and Douglas’ reputation was permanently injured.

In the decades that followed many would-be biographers tried their hand at writing Douglas’ story; time and again they failed. Douglas simply could not be remembered as a great writer in the face of the allegations against him. Only one comprehensive biography, titled “Norman Douglas^[18],” has ever been published about him. It came out in 1976, during a rare moment of sexual openness; even so, the publisher almost nixed the manuscript after 10 years of work by its author, Mark Holloway.

Today Douglas is a forgotten writer. When the truth about his sexual relations with children was fully exposed after his death he became an impossible figure to memorialize.

Over time, it’s likely that Michael Jackson’s memory will be similarly eroded. The television show “The Simpsons” has already pulled its 1991 episode^[19] featuring Jackson. His name will likely be taken down from public monuments. People will be hesitant to produce new versions of his music. His influence will live on, but it will be difficult to commemorate his work.

Perhaps that is for the best. But maybe it isn’t.

Reluctance to preserve the memory of the extensive history of sex between adults and children leaves society ill-equipped to recognize and handle child sexual abuse today. A culture that is caught up in narratives that identify pedophiles as monsters has a hard time recognizing when beloved figures, like Michael Jackson, are molesting children right before its eyes^[20].

There is need for history to remember abusers and to remember them in all their complexity. If Jackson’s memory is preserved, maybe it will be easier to see the present more clearly.

References

1. ^{^} Leaving Neverland (www.imdb.com)
2. ^{^} Roman Polanski (www.theguardian.com)
3. ^{^} Woody Allen (www.nytimes.com)
4. ^{^} South Wind (books.google.com)
5. ^{^} sang its praises (books.google.ca)
6. ^{^} recalled (books.google.ca)
7. ^{^} Brideshead Revisited (books.google.com)
8. ^{^} Sinister Street (books.google.com)
9. ^{^} relationships with children (archive.spectator.co.uk)
10. ^{^} recalled (books.google.ca)
11. ^{^} warned Cunard (books.google.ca)
12. ^{^} told her friend (books.google.ca)
13. ^{^} in a death notice (archive.spectator.co.uk)
14. ^{^} Pinorman (books.google.com)
15. ^{^} Pino Orioli (www.romagnadeste.it)
16. ^{^} pederast (www.merriam-webster.com)
17. ^{^} Wikimedia Commons (upload.wikimedia.org)
18. ^{^} Norman Douglas (books.google.ca)
19. ^{^} has already pulled its 1991 episode (www.cnn.com)
20. ^{^} are molesting children right before its eyes (theconversation.com)