Not really Gore Vidal
So, was it Gore Vidal who coined the bon mot: “It is not enough to succeed. Others must fail”? Yesterday there was a discussion of that burning question on this thread, and I became curious.
It just didn’t quite sound like Vidal, although it sort of did. He was known for aphorisms (and a great deal more, much of it attention-getting and offensive)—but that one? Perhaps, but I wondered.
One of the great things about the internet is that you can find just about anything there. One of the lousy things about the internet is that a lot of that information is wrong, and you can spin around in circles trying to sort the wheat from the chaff. But I think I struck paydirt with this article, and the answer to the question is (drum roll, please) “no, probably not.”
It turns out there are many different variations on the theme, sometimes credited to La Rochefoucauld, Somerset Maugham, Genghis Khan—and yes, Gore Vidal. The correct answer is that the 17th wit La Rochefoucauld came up with something in the ballpark but not really quite the same, and Maugham is most likely the originator of the actual phrase. As for Vidal, here’s how that rumor started:
In 1973 the novelist and essayist Wilfrid Sheed used the saying in the New York Times while speaking about Gore Vidal, but he did not attribute the quote to Vidal; instead, he assigned it to La Rochefoucauld:
Envy? Oh yes. Wanton. “Every time a friend succeeds I die a little.” Only a writer could have said that. In fact, I thought I’d said it myself, only to learn that Gore Vidal had beaten me to it by years-the upstart. And in a sense La Rochefoucauld beat us both, when he said “it is not enough to succeed; a friend must also fail.”
As for La Rochefoucauld, here are the translations of his original aphorisms, which I think surpass their descendents in both wit and style:
In the misfortune of our best friends, we always ï¬nd something which is not displeasing to us.
We are all strong enough to bear the misfortunes of others.
More subtle and more elegant.
Actually, neo, I have noticed that the only thing better here than when you are right is when you are wrong.
Although why you had to look Vidal up is puzzling. Anyone with the sense God gave a box of rocks would know that the quote is obviously French.
I too did some research before attributing that phrase to Vidal and its true that others before him expressed similar sentiments. It seems likely that Vidal was familiar with them before he uttered that phrase.
It was the Reverend Gerard Irvine quoting Vidal, who he claimed had used the phrase at the London memorial service for Tom Driberg (a popular and influential figure in British left-wing politics for many years) in December 1976 that led to my attribution.
The earliest known instance of the exact phrase, “it is not enough to succeed; others must fail” appears to be when the British-Irish author Iris Murdoch used it in her 1973 novel “The Black Prince”. And she attributed it to another: “Some clever writer (probably a Frenchman) has said: it is not enough to succeed; others must fail”.
It seems likely that Vidal read the book and then used the phrase at Driden’s memorial service… naturally without attribution. It’s also likely that the rumor started in the 1973 NYT article contributed to Vidal using it. I can easily see him adopting it, while knowing that he had never previously used it.
For those interested, here’s an excellent summary:
It Is Not Enough to Succeed; One’s Best Friend Must Fail
Gore Vidal? La Rochefoucauld? Somerset Maugham? Wilfrid Sheed? Iris Murdoch? David Merrick? Genghis Khan? Larry Ellison? Anonymous?
Geoffrey Britain:
Apparently you did not follow the link I offered in this post, where I got the information for it. It is to the very same article that you link in your comment above.
So that’s what I was basing this post on. The article indicates Maugham came before Murdoch (although Maugham’s language was a bit different, it was pretty close).
Neo,
Yes, in composing my comment I forgot to click on your link. In any case, Maugham’s language was a bit different, as were the prior expressions of that sentiment. The writer Murdoch did have a rather vague remembrance of having read that exact phrase somewhere, so we can’t attribute it to her.
Assuming that Rev. Irvine’s reportage is accurate, what evidence we have indicates that Vidal was the first to speak that exact phrase in public. IMHO that arguably gives him a valid claim upon that exact phrasing.
Then there was Mark Twain’s comment:
“By trying we can easily learn to endure adversity — another man’s, I mean.”
That’s pretty close to the second part of La Rochefoucauld’s quotation.
Envy is often a stronger motive than is greed. In a number of psychological experiments and real-life situations, given the choice between gaining less than another or losing less than the other, persons will often choose to lose less than gain less.
It seems to me that envy is gaining in relative strength in our society. Once great wealth in another seemed to be a stimulus to achieve it for oneself also(call it greed). Now it seems more to create a wish that the wealthy have less (envy).
Well, whoever said it, my comment from the earlier thread stands:
It would make a great epitaph for socialism. Or slogan.
Life is not a zero sum game. Whatever wealth an individual honestly produces does not detract from the well being of anyone else; in fact it contributes to the well being of others. The key word is honestly. The 99% crowd and all other commie-fascist rats are motivated by envy and a lust for power over others. Thou shall not covent is the greatest sin.
The Left when given a choice of getting six and letting you get six, will choose the better option of them getting 4 and you getting Zero.
For when you had six and they had six, they were not superior to you, thus they were as poor as you. However, once they reduced you to zero, they had 4 up on you, and is far superior. The fact that they would have gained 2 more if they had let you have six more, was meaningless to the Evil.
To put it into the Leftist code and cultural speak, from the mouth of Zero, it is not enough to live, one must kill the unborn, pre born, post born, and middle born to be able to truly live the essence of life, as befits the Ruling Class.
When Margaret Thatcher passed recently there was a great clip of her arguing in parliament essentially against this very point, i. e. “others must fail”. It is indeed the essence of the Left.
Actually, neo, as you say, the original quotes from La Rochefoucauld are indeed more subtle. They’re more of a commentary on human nature.
well, this might irritate some poeple, but I have to play devil’s advocate here.
There is how much money you have and what you do with it. How much you have defines your budget constraint. What you can use it on depends on the level of consumer competition for it in the marketplace, aka supply and demand. If everyone had the same amount of money, and everyone wanted similar things – which they usually do, the most necessary or popular goods – then there would be quite a strong level of demand for those goods, raising the price. Increasing supply would depend on the motivation to produce, which is dependent on making enough off of your labor to have more purchasing power than before, hence productivity IS dependent on unequal returns to labor. Were everyone to produce equally, to include equal value, it would be pointless, because the yield from your labor would be devalued by excess production from others, reducing demand for your goods and your purchasing power.
So it is quite possible that, as a matter of economic motivation, it really isn’t enough for you to succeed. Others must fail. Success is a relative term, and markets are hierarchical systems.
http://praxamericana.blogspot.com/2013/05/hierarchy-and-inflation.html
Or like crabs in a bucket, they pull anyone back in that tries to get out.
Humans don’t need “fancy” justifications for behavior.