How soon is too soon when it comes to criticizing a recently deceased but vastly polarizing figure? In 2007, immediately following the death of televangelist Jerry Falwell, author and journalist Christopher Hitchens famously pulled no punches when he told Anderson Cooper, "I think it's a pity there isn't a hell for him to go to." To many, Hitchens' wrath toward Falwell was completely understandable, given that the late fundamentalist had spent most of his life rallying against oppressed groups and generally giving his faith a bad name. Yet others felt that Hitchens' comments came too soon following the death, and were therefore insensitive.
Now as far as controversial public figures go, Joan Rivers was certainly no Jerry Falwell. A sharp-tongued comedian, humor was both her greatest weapon and her saving grace. She was, for better and for worse, irrepressibly herself – outspoken, often irascible, yet almost always funny. Almost. In her more than 50-year career, she was often as apt to leave people incensed as rolling with laughter. Her no-holds-barred, take-no-prisoners approach to comedy won her both admirers and detractors, and both of those groups aren't holding back in the wake of her death.
Hold the criticism, cue the applause?
As The New York Times reported, Rivers died on Thursday after a series of complications stemming from a vocal chord surgery. When the news of her death was first reported, there was an almost instantaneous outpouring of love and fond remembrances. Larry King tweeted that she was "a dear and wonderful friend." Mel Brooks reminisced that she "never played it safe" and was "Still at the top at the end." And Seth Rogen praised her for being "still as comedically relevant as anyone."
Yet it was arguably Rivers' same drive toward relevance that landed her many critics as well. Even before her death was reported and the only circulating story was that she was in critical condition, many people wasted no time in getting online and venting their frustrations about the steady waves of controversy she'd generated over the years. Soon after her death became Internet News, ScreenJunkies ran a story in which it detailed Rivers' nine most incendiary moments. Among these were the time she casually mocked the kidnapping victims of Ariel Castro as well as the ill-advised moment that she called Michelle Obama a name not appropriate to print here.
But does Rivers' penchant for crude and poorly timed judgments justify the same heedlessness from her critics? When it comes to this question, there's no clear consensus. The comment boards on articles reporting her death are rife with the kind of anonymous sparring that can only happen on the Internet. For everyone openly missing her, there's someone else practically celebrating. And for every negative comment, there's another person pointing out how rude that is. Too soon.
But is it too soon? As Christopher Hitchens pointed out with regard to Falwell, the fact of his death didn't change the pain he'd caused people in his lifetime. For Hitchens, holding Falwell to task for the live he lived wasn't just understandable, but necessary. And indeed, when Hitchens himself died in 2011, his supporters and detractors both came out strong.
However you view her, there certainly wasn't a dull moment with Rivers. One of her greatest assets was her ability to be self-deprecating, and to realize that she was just as much a comedic target as any of her chosen victims. For a woman who courted controversy as a lifelong partner, Rivers likely wouldn't mind the divided response to her death. She might even find it funny.
