Latest news with #TheNewYorkTribune
Indian Express
6 days ago
- Entertainment
- Indian Express
From Nevermore to Forevermore: How Edgar Allan Poe's rival tried and failed to bury his legacy
On Netflix's Wednesday, the fictional Nevermore Academy stands beneath the brooding gaze of an Edgar Allan Poe statue, its raven-topped pedestal a shrine to the macabre. For millions of viewers, it is a clever ode to the master of Gothic fiction. Off the page, the macabre clung to him, even in death. When Poe collapsed on the streets of Baltimore in October 1849, delirious and dressed in another man's clothes, he left behind unfinished stories, poems, and an unsatiated nemesis. Within hours of Poe's burial, the rival struck. On October 9, 1849, The New York Tribune published an obituary under the pseudonym 'Ludwig' that began: 'Edgar Allan Poe is dead. He died in Baltimore the day before yesterday. This announcement will startle many, but few will be grieved by it.' The author, as the public soon learned, was Rufus Wilmot Griswold — minor poet, major anthologist, and Poe's self-appointed literary executor. This act of posthumous literary vendetta went on to outlive both men. Griswold's eulogy would become one of the most infamous posthumous betrayals in American letters, launching a character assassination so complete that even today, Poe's reputation still bears the scars. Their relationship began almost amicably in 1841. Poe, then a rising critic with a caustic pen and an appetite for literary skirmishes, initially gave Griswold guarded praise. In his 'Autography' series, Poe called Griswold 'not only a polished prose-writer, but a poet of no ordinary powers.' That early warmth faded quickly. Griswold, a failed Baptist minister and career anthologist, considered himself the cultural gatekeeper of American poetry. When he began assembling his anthology, The Poets and Poetry of America in 1842, Poe sent him poems and names of promising writers. But Griswold's selection was, to Poe's eye, a betrayal of taste. 'It is a most outrageous humbug, and I sincerely wish you would 'use it up',' Poe fumed in a letter to JE Snodgrass. Later, Griswold paid Poe his 'usual fee' to review the anthology. The result was a mix of reluctant praise and veiled disdain: 'We disagree then, with Mr Griswold in many of his critical estimates… he has scarcely made us amends by introducing some one or two dozen whom we should have treated with contempt.' Griswold published the review to avoid appearing petty. 'I am rather pleased that it is to appear, lest Poe should think I had prevented its publication,' he admitted in a letter. What began as literary rivalry soon calcified into personal loathing. In private, Poe dismissed Griswold as a pompous fraud, telling Lowell, 'He certainly lacks independence, or judgment, or both.' Griswold, in turn, bragged about puffing books 'without any regard to their quality,' and was, in turn, described by publisher John Sartain as 'a notorious blackmailer.' In 1843, Poe toured the lecture circuit criticising The Poets and Poetry of America, reserving 'witheringly severe' jabs for Griswold. That same year, the Saturday Museum published a scathing anonymous review, penned by Poe's friend Henry Hirst, that called Griswold a 'toady' and predicted 'he will sink into oblivion, without leaving a landmark to tell that he once existed.' Griswold, perhaps rightly, suspected Poe's involvement. Still, their enmity was not without its brief armistice. In early 1845, Griswold solicited Poe's work for a new anthology, writing, 'Although I have some cause of personal quarrel with you… I retain, therefore, the early formed and well founded favorable opinions of your works.' Poe, ever in need of money, softened: 'Your letter occasioned me first pain and then pleasure: — pain because it gave me to see that I had lost…an honorable friend: — pleasure, because I saw in it a hope of reconciliation.' That fragile peace did not last. By the time Poe died in mysterious circumstances in Baltimore in 1849, Griswold was lying in wait. Claiming (falsely) that Poe had named him literary executor, Griswold obtained Poe's manuscripts from his grieving mother-in-law, Maria Clemm, under the pretense of raising money for her. Instead, Griswold published a three-volume edition of Poe's works, reserving the most vicious blow for the final pages. In his Memoir of the Author, appended to Volume III, Griswold created the ultimate hatchet job. He depicted Poe as a depraved drunkard, expelled from university, dishonorably discharged from the military, and given to wild rages and blackmail. He even forged letters to support his claims. It was extremely damaging. Griswold's portrait was seen as the gospel truth. For decades, Griswold's version of Poe, which painted him as a mad genius, melancholic drunk, and literary pariah, was uncritically accepted. Poe's friends tried to fight back. Sarah Helen Whitman, Poe's former fiancée, publicly accused Griswold of falsehoods. The myth stuck. By the time John Henry Ingram published his rebuttal biography in 1875, Poe had been dead for 26 years. Griswold, too, was gone. He died in 1857 of tuberculosis, perhaps never fully aware of how his scheme would backfire. Ingram, with help from Whitman and others, painstakingly dismantled the Griswold narrative, revealing the forgeries, restoring context, and re-centering Poe as a misunderstood but deeply gifted artist. The war over Poe's image continued and still does. Why did Griswold go so far? Some point to jealousy. Others suggest a shared affection for the poet Frances Sargent Osgood, whose flirtation with Poe scandalised literary circles. Some scholars speculate Griswold suffered from undiagnosed mental illness. Whatever the cause, Griswold's actions remain among the most infamous acts of posthumous literary sabotage in history. However, ironically, it was Griswold's slander that helped immortalise Poe. Without The Memoir, Poe might have remained a literary footnote: a minor critic and a strange poet. Instead, he became myth, remembered as the tormented genius, the madman of melancholy, the raven-haunted soul. Griswold intended to bury Poe but in doing so he made him eternal. While Griswold may have triumphed briefly, Poe got the last word.
Politico
15-07-2025
- Politics
- Politico
A 25-Year-Old Political Influencer Has a Real Shot at Congress. She Won't Be the Last.
In 2015, there were snickers when Barack Obama deigned to sit for an interview with an online content creator. Ten years later, influencers aren't just a key part of the media landscape — they may be about to become elected officials themselves. The real political viability of content creators gets an important early test Tuesday as Deja Foxx, a 25-year-old social media influencer, tries to score a primary victory that would all but assure her a seat in Congress. Foxx has a legitimate shot to win. In her race to replace the late Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-Ariz.), Foxx is taking on Grijalva's daughter, former county elected official Adelita Grijalva. The Gen Z Democratic hopeful was behind by just single digits in a recent Foxx campaigninternal poll, and Grijalva allies pumped in late money in a sign of potential concern. Foxx is one of the first professional internet content creators to run for Congress, but she certainly won't be the last. Regardless of whether she can pull out a victory against a political scion, the race signals new media is not only becoming a venue where candidates woo voters but a training ground for future politicos. Such a shift shouldn't be a total surprise. The pipeline from media to elected office is as old as the Republic — long before Benjamin Franklin was a Founding Father, he was the publisher of The Pennsylvania Gazette. Horace Greeley of The New York Tribune was the Democratic presidential nominee in 1872, and before he got his start in politics, future President Warren G. Harding was the publisher of The Marion Star. In modern times, countless figures have gone from radio to television to elected office. Jesse Helms built his political reputation in televised commentaries on local news before serving 30 years in the U.S. Senate, and local television news anchors have long been considered prime recruits for congressional races. As veteran Democratic consultant Lis Smith noted, there was the conventional belief that 'news anchors make for good candidates because they are in voters' homes and trustworthy authorities whom voters watch with their families.' In the digital age, when local television news is almost as antiquated as the New York Tribune, it may now be time for the online content creator. Foxx first won attention for confronting then-Sen. Jeff Flake over abortion rights at a 2017 town hall. It sparked a career as an influencer that has gained her nearly 400,000 followers on TikTok and over 245,000 followers on Instagram. She's become a real figure in the Democratic Party's online firmament, doing social media for Kamala Harris' failed 2020 presidential campaign, appearing at the 2024 Democratic National Convention and helping hostthe Hotties for Harris party at the convention. The Arizona Democrat isn't the first to pivot from being an online personality to political hopeful. In 2022, Brandon Herrera, a 28-year-old pro-gun YouTuber narrowly lost a runoff primary to incumbent GOP Rep. Tony Gonzales in a south Texas district that the influencer had only recently moved to. That same cycle, Laura Loomer, the rabidly pro-Trump content creator almost knocked off incumbent GOP Rep. Daniel Webster in a central Florida district that she had no ties to at all. (Loomer had previously run two years before in a safe Democratic district in Palm Beach County notable simply for having Mar-a-Lago inside its boundaries). In Illinois, left-wing influencer Kat Abughazaleh is mounting a run for Congress in a state she has never voted in and a district she has never lived in, but hopes her career creating online videos criticizing conservative media will lift her above a crowded field of local elected officials. But Foxx's race represents the first test of an influencer in an open seat without the other variables that more fringe figures have presented. Former Rep. Steve Israel (D-N.Y.), who served as chair of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, told POLITICO Magazine that many of the same skills required to build a following on social media overlapped with those needed to run for office. 'It means you understand how to tap into public opinion, how to use innovative communication strategies and how to build a following,' Israel said. 'Those skills are interchangeable with an effective candidate.' However, that's not all that's necessary. He noted a candidate still needs message, mobilization and money. 'I fundamentally believe that you could be the hottest influencer in the business, but if you don't have those fundamental political skills and campaign skills, you will continue to be the hottest social media influencer in the business, but not a member of Congress,' said Israel. This isn't unique to influencers. Plenty of television anchors who have run for office have ended up losing. GOP firebrand and former TV news anchor Kari Lake was defeated in back-to-back statewide elections in Arizona. (Her consolation prize was another media job, of sorts:gutting the U.S. Agency for Global Media.) One key difference between 21st century content creators and traditional media figures is that the content creators exist entirely divorced from a local constituency. One Democratic operative, who was granted anonymity because they were not authorized by their employer to speak, was skeptical that parties should pursue online influencers as candidates. The operative noted that there are plenty of online creators as opposed to the limited number of local news broadcasters, and that voters had built up a long-term relationship over years, if not decades, with local news personalities. The operative added that the data suggests any electoral benefits were explicitly focused on the media markets where candidates had been on the local news. It's also possible that content creators may have more luck in low turnout races where the electorate is smaller and they can bring hyper-engaged voters to the polls. One Republican operative cited Herrera's near win in a Texas Republican primary runoff as an example. Still, the segment of the electorate that relies most on social media is only growing, with young people often using TikTok even as a search engine in lieu of Google. Brad Elkins, a longtime Democratic consultant who is advising Foxx's campaign, marveled that even before the campaign started advertising, the 25-year-old candidate 'couldn't go anywhere without people recognizing her.' Elkins also argued that media consumption hasn't just changed among young voters. Indeed, baby boomers and Gen Xers are increasingly consuming news through the Internet and social media as well. As Republican political consultant Jesse Hunt told me, in the 21st century, 'someone who has a national following has a sizable local following.' Already, the roles of politicians and online influencer are merging. Just look at the online audience that Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) receives for cooking videos on Instagram Live. Just as radio de-emphasized the need for politicians to give a stump speech and television made radio largely superfluous for candidates, short-form online video — the native habitat of an influencer — is becoming the next media frontier. Elkins predicted that more and more content creators will run for office in the future, if only because the profession is relatively new. That might include lifestyle content creators, and not just explicitly political creators — after all, weathermen have been just as sought after as news anchors as potential candidates. This is not to say that Congress will ever be composed of 435 YouTubers. After all, it was never composed of 435 television weathermen or 435 newspaper editors. However, just as media buyers are increasingly looking to replace television buys with digital advertising, party leaders looking to recruit candidates will likely be casting around for more online influencers rather than just traditional public figures. After all, if voters can elect a reality television star to the White House, what's stopping them from putting a TikToker on Capitol Hill?
