Tintin Forums

Moderator Note: Thread renamed from "Remi's final secrets?" to address the matter of taste and respect discussed in the following discussion.

Hi all,
take a look:
[Broken link removed]
[Broken link removed]

What the author Philippe Goddin says about the blood transfusions makes sense.
But Hergé's wife has not been affected...

Well, let's wait Philippe Goddin's biography...

The two articles are rather over-the-top and lacking in sensitivity, don't you think?
It certainly is terribly sensationalist to lable the matter a secret, when the poor man apparently didn't know.
It wasn't that something was being kept secret, or hidden, just a lack of information at the time of the diagnosis.
Anyway, even if Hergé had contracted HIV, and it had developed into AIDS, it still could have been leukemia which killed him.

As for your speculation about the health or otherwise of Hergé's wife, let us hope that that is the case.
As we have no information on that matter it is best to leave that sort of debate to elsewhere, thank you.

I hope so. Don't talk about people's deaths even when they are dead for over hundreds of months or years. We, as Tintinologists should respect him, not taunt him of developing HIV and this could demoralised Tintin's image to the public as a 'unhealthy' work of art and I hate that being floated around.

tintinspartan
We, as Tintinologists should respect him, not taunt him of developing HIV and this could demoralised Tintin's image to the public as a 'unhealthy' work of art
I'm not sure that that is a good attitude to take, either; there is nothing shameful in whether or not Hergé (or anyone, come to that) developed AIDS, and it isn't a question of taunting anyone.
But the use of disease - any disease - as a speculative hook for a newspaper article is rather tawdry, in my opinion.

jock123
But the use of disease - any disease - as a speculative hook for a newspaper article is rather tawdry, in my opinion.

I think that is most people's opinion, jock. I have a slightly similar story.
Many years ago I worked in the film industry, and a very good actor and director I worked with was homosexual.
Myself, the rest of the crew and actors did not care one bit if he was gay or straight.
The only ones who made an issue out of it were the newspapers who referred to this chap in print as "Mr. X, the gay actor, gave a very good performance"; "Mr. X make his directorial debut. We ask him what it's like to be a gay director", and other such reporting.
My point is - and I think this is what we are all trying to say - so what? I mean, was it that much of an issue they had to tell people?
Sexual orientation has nothing to do with creative output. Disease should not rate a mention either.

I don't care if Hergé had HIV, AIDS, one leg or a glass eye. The point is, it doesn't matter.

I agree with Jock and Ranko.
To be fair to the author of that second article that Alvarolino links to, Paul Morris doesn't actually headline or hook his article on the AIDS theory the way that the first article does.
He's writing a potted summary of Phillipe Goddin's biography, and mentions, quite late on in the piece, that Goddin has put the theory forward.
He clearly disapproves of some booksellers' sensationalist use of this matter as much as we do.

As Ranko says, Hergé's precise cause of death doesn't matter that much at this distance, but I can see that a newly suggested cause of death is a reasonable thing for a biographer to cover.

As jock says, the problem is the way such things are described as "final secrets" (words attributed to Goddin, I see, which Alvarolino was merely quoting).
There are people who stand to profit by perpetuating the idea that AIDS is still a taboo subject so that any mention of a famous person having AIDS creates a frisson of media interest and publicity.
Obviously, AIDS shouldn't be sensational or secret, regardless of whether it's been contracted through a blood transfusion or through gay or straight sex. It only becomes so if we treat it that way.

I see that Goddin's book is fully authorized by Hergé's estate, so it doesn't look as if this new medical information is something the estate thinks needs to be kept secret, which seems sensible.
Maybe Goddin's book will be less sensationalist than some of its pre-publicity.

Balthazar
Hergé's precise cause of death doesn't matter that much at this distance, but I can see that a newly suggested cause of death is a reasonable thing for a biographer to cover.
A sensible point of view, Balthazar... I agree entirely with you.

It's funny there is always this homosexual tone people try to associate with Hergé and Tintin.

BlackIsland
It's funny there is always this homosexual tone people try to associate with Hergé and Tintin.
There isn't a homosexual tone in any of the above - you may be reading that into a diagnosis of AIDS, but it isn't in anything anyone has said.
AIDS affects people of all ages, walks of life, ethnicity and sexual orientation.
Sadly Hergé would be only one of many people who contracted the condition through contaminated transfusion - Arthur Ashe, the tennis player, and author Isaac Asimov being two who were famous enough for it to be since noted, but there are certainly many more, and we should be sympathetic to them all.