I go back and forth on his apparent age vs. his writing style.
On one hand, I too was a hyper-literate (and pretentious) teenager so I can believe he’s a teenager. On the other hand, there’s a …sophistication in the way he writes that all the ten-dollar vocabulary words in the world can’t compensate for, and with which teenagers don’t have the life experience/wisdom yet to express themselves.
So I do tend to believe he’s older than we think; still young, early twenties maybe, but definitely not 16.
I see what you're saying. Maybe I just want to believe a 16 - 17 year old could write that way. It's too narrow an age range anyway.
I also agree that the writing style usually aligns more with someone of college-age rather than high school. But I wouldn't rule out a 16-17 year-old for the following reasons:
1. Even in high school, we're all aware that there are different ways to write depending on the occasion. That is, the way I write in my journal, or to my family or friends, is not the same way I'm going to write my term paper for my teacher to grade.
BCJD certainly knew he was writing his final note, and some of it was addressed directly to formal authority figures. I think this occasion would influence his diction, elevating it beyond his normal patterns of everyday speech and writing.
2. BCJD clearly states in his letter that he felt melancholy, empty and detached from people, especially in the last year. What do people do when they feel so profoundly alone? They might seek refuge in books, literature, and study. And the more you do that, the more you might adopt the styles of the kind of literature you're reading—especially if you really connect with it.
I know for a fact that the “Durkheim” quote is wrong. Durkheim never said any such thing (about suicide being homicide against oneself). You know who did? Karl Menninger, in his book Man Against Himself.
I don’t recall, in the many versions of the note published online and in newspapers, seeing the Durkheim bit exactly quoted, so it’s possible that BCJD didn’t even mention Durkheim by name, but rather expressed the idea about suicide, and a reporter poorly remembered his psych 101 class and got the name wrong.
In regards to the "Durkheim" quote:
I also have never found a source where Durkheim defines suicide as "
an inner direction of homicidal feelings against someone else," as BCJD put it. I'm also not sure if BCJD actually used quotation marks around this definition, suggesting he believed these were Durkheim's actual words. And as you rightly point out, it's not even clear if BCJD even mentioned Durkheim by name in his letter.
What I have found, and shared in
an earlier post, is a quote directly translated from Durkheim who defines "anomic suicide" as that which originates from
"
a state of exasperation and irritated weariness which can, according to circumstances, turn against the subject himself or against others. In the first case, there's suicide. In the second, homicide."
BCJD's definition, I think, is a decent paraphrase of Durkheim's words so maybe that was his intent, especially if he didn't use quotation marks. Or if he did, maybe he mistakenly confused the words or footnotes of another scholar (like Menninger?) commenting on the translation of Durkheim's words?
