Is a person's legacy governed by their final years?
 

i was driving on the way to work listening to morning breakfast radio, when a James Brown song came on.

the only thoughts that came in my head of this music legend was his final few years of his life. His arrest, his mugshot and the fued over his assets.

so it got me thinking, is someones legacy really governed by their final few years or the way you go out?

Sometimes it seems like it. Look at poor David Carradine, and how he will now be remembered for how he died. It seems it works better if you die young and at the top of your game. Then you gain a legendary status and will always be remembered how you were when you died. Instead of going on to become old where real life issues take away the mystique.

i don't think necesarrily so. when i hear james brown, i think of him singing and dancing, his music, and eddie murphy skits. his arrests and other stuff do not even come to mind. i think someone's legecacy is what they contributed most, how they acted the majority of the time. i also think most people like to remember the good stuff people did. then again, if someone was reletively horrible, and did one or two good things at the end of thier life, i would think most people would remember the bad stuff first. everyone loves the autobahn, but no one want to thank hitler for it.

---------- Post added at 01:05 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:04 PM ----------

i will still think of david carradine as an actor and the work he did, not how he died.

but he'll always be remembered as the guy that died while jacking off in the closet. kinda like michael hutchence, which is my point

I think it depends on the weight of what they did in the final years.

A good example is William Wordsworth. His legacy lies in the Lyrical Ballads, which was first published in 1798 and was a groundbreaking divergence from the poetry written in the day. He became the Poet Laureate in 1843. And by then--much to the dismay of many of his fans--he had become a bloody Tory and was even distributing pamphlets in support of them. Also by then his poetry had become dangerously close to mediocre. But such is fitting for a Poet Laureate, where all you need to do is write nationalist works singing the praises of king & country.

William Wordsworth is, essentially, the Lyrical Ballads. What happened over the next 40 years after he created it isn't his legacy.

As far as Hutchence and Carradine are concerned, we remember their ends because they're newsworthy, shocking, and fairly recent. Twenty years from now and beyond, Hutchence will be all about INXS, and Carradine will be the "Kung-Fu" guy and "Bill."

I think about now many of us are getting over the fact that Cobain blew his brains out. I now think of his music more than his end. Also consider Hendrix and Morrison. I don't think of their ends so much as their musical legacies.

I remember Elvis, Marilyn, Grace, Diana and many others for how they lived and for their contributions. Their deaths were tragic and newsworthy, but certainly not enough to overshadow their benefits, in my opinion. Everyone dies, but not everyone lives....

Yes, but most of the ones that you mentioned died young and at the top of their game. So they are remembered for what they did more than how they died.

The higher they climb, the harder they fall!!

If you're Bill Buckner, then yes. 2,715 hits and only 453 strikeouts, but he'll be forever remembered for one bobbled ball going through his legs.

Interesting question. It would appear if you are a celebrity or famous person, your most sensational acts become what you are remembered for first. Like another poster mentioned, David Carradine . . . that name won't come up in regular conversation without the way he died being thought first, but then the conversation will move on to what else that person did, I would hope.

Princess Diana will always be remembered for her good works, but you can't remember her without reflecting on the tragic way she died.

There are many famous people who did not have necessarily sensational deaths or events in their life ie: Paul Newman, Jimmy Stewart, John Wayne, etc. who's legacy is what they did without the addition of a National Enquirer type story.

I don't think sensational acts becomes their entire legacy, but it certainly becomes part of it.

I think you hit it there. Other names that could be mentioned like that:
1) Johnny Cash. Didn't have a sensational death bit had many periods of negative news events in his life but most folks just think of his music (at least the folks I know).
2) Dale Earnhardt. Very sensational death, how many people die on tv? Personally I did see that race but when I hear his name I remember him in the winners circle hugging his wife.

Theres a coupe others I could mention but I think we all have a few in mind.