Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.

Underground > Books, Criticism & Writing >

Biography

11:55 / 06.02.02

The Haus on Hicks' biography:

Or, to put it another way, this is my problem with modern biography in a nutshell.

It fosters a sense of community without really contributing much.

Why is it "good to have all these facts in one place"?

What possible interest could be found in the biographical details of a man who made his fame by being rude and funny on TV?

What do you think the purpose of biography should be?

Is it fulfilled in modern biography?

If not, what happened?

12:00 / 06.02.02

They're good reference books for journalists.

12:04 / 06.02.02

(There's an old (and interesting) thread on biography here, WRT Sylvia Plath among others...)

12:04 / 06.02.02

Unfortunately, it seems to me that the unly uses for modern biography appear to be

1. an interesting memoir of a famous or otherwise 'noteworthy' person for the edification of the middle-aged.

2. A way of launching a literary career if on is an unpublished author (the idea being that its easier to sell a biography to a publisher - selling as it does on the name of the subject rather than its author. )

3. As a compendium of 'key dates' and biographical detail for journalists and other writers who have neither the time nor the inclination to research biographies themselves.

12:04 / 06.02.02

I love things biographical, but not biography, and I just figured out why... it's *exactly* the idea of "all the facts in one place."

That's as far as I've gotten myself with that thought... does anyone else know what I mean?

The Return Of Rothkoid

12:18 / 06.02.02

P: Is it the idea that discovery about the life of a person who would be the target of a biography is best carried out by gathering snippets on your own, or the idea that biographies are usually written for authorial gain/points-scoring/nefarious fatbeard purposes that informs your sentiment? I mean, I know what you mean about preferring the idea of biographical information to the actual biography. The fact that someone thinks they can categorically nail someone's life in one book is a bit misguided, mostly - as there's also other views to be taken

It's a bit of a damning profession, I guess. Autobiography usually makes me think "wanker!", while biography makes me think "fanboy!" about the author - not sure if it's anything other than a gut reaction, though.

I think a lot are written with a view to the criticism/shitstorm they'll cause on release: see the Plath thread KCC mentioned for examples. I remember there being a lot of shit going down when Goldman's bio of John Lennon came out: weren't Beatles fans up in arms about it? Sure think it helped move more copies than a worshipful treatment...

16:09 / 06.02.02

quote:Originally posted by The Return Of Rothkoid:
that someone thinks they can categorically nail someone's life in one book is a bit misguided, mostly - as there's also other views to be taken

[Ilsa Lund]Rothkoid, you will haf to do the thee-eenking for both of us...[/Ilsa Lund]

I mean, yes. Also that oftentimes only bits of a person's life are interesting, but biography compels you to look at the whole thing.