{"id":176103,"date":"2026-07-08T08:00:13","date_gmt":"2026-07-08T12:00:13","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.sheilaomalley.com\/?p=176103"},"modified":"2026-07-08T09:31:35","modified_gmt":"2026-07-08T13:31:35","slug":"janet-malcolm","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.sheilaomalley.com\/?p=176103","title":{"rendered":"“Art is theft, art is armed robbery, art is not pleasing your mother.” — Janet Malcolm"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"<\/p>\n

\nIt’s her birthday today. She died in 2021.<\/p>\n

I started out with The Silent Woman<\/i>, many years ago, her book on the challenges of writing about Sylvia Plath, particularly in lieu of the draconian Plath estate, run – Shakespearean-ly – by Ted Hughes’ sister Olwyn who always hated Sylvia. It’s a fascinating and troubling book about the issues of legacy, narrative, who gets to tell whose story, who “holds” the story, and – finally – acknowledging the upsetting fact that Sylvia Plath has been “silenced” by her own estate. (This is no longer the case, 30 years later. About time.)<\/p>\n

Many of Malcolm’s books are about the art of writing itself. She was ambivalent on the subject. Similar to Susan Sontag’s ambivalence in re: photography, Malcolm wondered if writing – particularly non-fiction writing and reportage – served any purpose at all. Malcolm’s eye was unsparing. She interviewed people, and they crucified themselves by their own words.<\/p>\n

\n\"\"<\/p>\n

All writers should read The Silent Woman: Sylvia Plath and Ted Hughes<\/a><\/i>. Malcolm’s writing was so dominating it often got her into trouble: there were numerous controversies in re: her quotations. On more than one occasion, Malcolm had to produce her original notes in order to prove such-and-such conversation took place. On more than one occasion, Malcolm could not locate said notes. Not good. She was often “in trouble” like this. So: take this for what you will. In other words: don’t take what she says as the gospel truth. <\/p>\n

\n\"\"<\/p>\n

\nMalcolm is probably most well-known for The Journalist and the Murderer<\/a><\/i>: her most brutal book. Malcolm was incensed by Joe McGinniss’ best-selling “true” crime book Fatal Vision<\/i>, about convicted family annihilator Jeffrey MacDonald. What angered Malcolm was McGinniss’ trickery. The writer pretended to be MacDonald’s friend and supporter in order to gain the accused murderer’s trust, McGinniss pretended the book he was writing would be a defense of MacDonald, when in actuality it was going to be an indictment. Very unethical. Malcolm didn’t care about MacDonald’s case, but she went after Joe McGinniss hard<\/i>. She was appalled, you can feel it in the prose. The book started out as an article, which caused a sensation. Her thoughts went against the almost universal accolades Fatal Vision<\/i> received – and she elaborated the article into a short fiery polemic-book. I don’t think it’s an exaggeration to say that Malcolm destroyed McGinniss’ reputation. He never recovered. He’s still defending himself. To Malcolm, McGinniss was a symptom of a larger issue: Malcolm’s real interest was journalism itself, which you can also see in The Silent Woman<\/i>, which is about Plath, but it’s really about the challenges of literary biography. Malcolm was not afraid to go after the entire journalistic profession:<\/p>\n

Every journalist who is not too stupid or full of himself to notice what is going on knows that what he does is morally indefensible. He is a kind of confidence man, preying on people’s vanity, ignorance, or loneliness, gaining their trust and betraying them without remorse. <\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Joe McGuinness’ book was a huge hit but was also “called out” for the author’s manipulations. Was it ethical to tell a subject you wanted to write a book hoping to exonerate them, and then … do the opposite? This was Malcolm’s beef. <\/p>\n

Malcolm’s book about Plath is an investigation into Plath’s estate, showing the author’s grappling with her discoveries. She thinks out loud<\/i> in her writing. Malcolm leads you through a maze of possibilities, and clarity vanishes: there are no answers in the book, no one villain. <\/p>\n

I miss coming across her byline, in The New Yorker<\/i>, or the New York Review of Books<\/i>. <\/p>\n

 
\n 
\nThank you so much for stopping by. If you like what I do, and if you feel inclined to support my work, here’s a link to my Venmo account<\/a>. And I’ve launched a Substack, Sheila Variations 2.0<\/a>, if you’d like to subscribe.<\/em> <\/small><\/p>\n