Barry Diller, a legend in late 20th Century Hollywood circles, who people hate more than love, for reasons that only tell us, "You had to be there, I suppose...."* has deigned to disclose what he believes is his "secret" for his personal success. Diller says we should "forget" each success in an endeavor so that one may repeat the success. The little snippet from the interview is here, at Yahoo! Finance.
Um, Barry, you really don't forget success. Confidence tends to reek from people who are successful. In their private moments from time to time, they may have some doubts, but nearly every day is a day in which they bask in a warm sunlight known as economic prosperity. No, Barry. The key adage for what you are talking about is: "Money goes to money." Even a complete schmuck, as is our current president, can lose Brinks' vaults of money, fail at so many businesses, and remain living in a penthouse suite with gold plated rooms in upper Manhattan. The money, once it reaches into the centi-million level, and possibly anything more than $20 million, envelops and comforts you, and holds you together pretty much no matter what you do or don't do. You really have to work at the failure, most often through abusing alcohol or drugs, to permanently lose big chunks of the money previously made. Otherwise, the money in your various accounts flows like a solid, healthy river--and all your coupon clippings, little aphorisms you develop along the way, are just so much bullshit.
So, Barry, forget forgetting success. Learn a little humility by recognizing the Money is better and smarter than you are. That's money with a capital M. And this forms a part of what I mean when I say "The rich are overrated."
As I am finishing my sixth Louis Auchincloss novel over the past three months, I am reminded of what Auchincloss described as the theme of many of his novels: "It was perfectly clear from the beginning that I was interested in the story of money: how it was made, inherited, lost, spent." And, with lawyers permeating the narratives (Auchincloss, in his semi-day job, was a lawyer at a Wall Street firm for many years), he wrote about how money is maintained and used to promote, refine, and protect power. As Gore Vidal wrote about Auchincloss, in an essay for the NYRB in the 1970s: "Not since Dreiser has an American writer had so much to tell us about the role of money in our lives. In fascinating detail, (Auchincloss) shows how generations of lawyers have kept intact the great fortunes of the last century. With Pharaonic single-mindedness they have filled the American social landscape with pyramids of tax-exempt money, to the eternal glory of Rockefeller, Ford, et al. As a result, every American's life has been affected by the people Auchincloss writes so well about."
Vidal's essay-review of an Auchincloss book is one of Vidal's so many marvelous essays. Vidal, in this particular essay, makes fun of the literary academy for ignoring Auchincloss, quoting literary pooh-bahs of the time who denigrated or criticized Auchincloss for writing about a "little world" scarcely beyond Manhattan, but which Vidal notes, stretches into the power corridors of the Empire known as the United States. Vidal laments how the cultural cues Americans get not only from media, but in the literature academy, have blinded us as to how the management and control of money is an arbiter of power, and how it is not the "anti-hero" who should be studied, but those who exercise and wield power through money. One can say there is room for both, and Vidal knew that, but the lament requires an emphasis that may sound more as an "either/or."
Today, "social justice warriors" in the academy would have a field day with the racism, sexism, and anti-Semitism rampant in the society Auchincloss describes, and impugn Auchincloss as a racist, sexist, or anti-Semite. In doing so, they would confuse the writer with the character and society in which he lived and described. For Auchincloss' narration, unlike what I found with Booth Tarkington, does not betray him for the most part. He writes about women, Jews, gays, though rarely African-Americans or Puerto Ricans in upper Manhattan, with a marked sympathy and recognition of the obstacles and challenges they faced in American society from the late 19th Century through 1970s. I also believe such a criticism of Auchincloss and his novels would fail to recognize Auchincloss' inherent liberalism and sly critique of American society during that era. Auchincloss' perspective is essentially Vidalian, and more influenced in that respect by Theodore Dreiser than Henry James. Auchincloss also happens to write female characters better than most male writers of his or nearly any generation. One can only think of W. Somerset Maugham as a rival. Auchincloss' ability to perceive and write women characters as human beings appears to come from Auchincloss' self-professed admiration (and personal acquaintance) with Edith Wharton, and his respect for American female writers from the 19th and early 20th Centuries. I have written about Auchincloss before, but I thought I'd repeat myself as I believe it relevant to this post.
Oh well. Keep on forgetting, Barry. You don't have to know any of this. After all, money goes to money.
*From what I am about to impart, one would not know I happen to like Barry Diller, compared to the other legends from that era in the entertainment industry. If one watches the entire interview from which this blog post is emanating, one sees Barry Diller is a fairly liberal minded guy when it comes to politics.
