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 is shite?

The Return Of Rothkoid

16:19 / 20.10.01

So infers Janet Malcom, biographer. Well, sorta: this comes from her book The Silent Woman: Ted Hughes and Sylvia Plath that I'm reading. It struck me as an interesting tone for a biographer to take, but I think there's something in it: quote:Biography is the medium through which the secrets of the famous dead are aken from them and dumped out in full view of the world. The biographer at work, indeed, is like the progessional burglar, breaking into a house, rifling through certain drawers that he has good reason to think contain the jewelry and money, and triumphantly bearing his loot away. The voyeurism and busybodyism that impel writers and readers of biography alike are obscured by an apparatus of scholarship designed to give the enterprise and appearance of banklike blandness and solidity. The biographer is portrayed almost as a kind of benefactor. He is seen as sacrificing years of his life to his task, tirelessly sitting in archives and libraries and patiently conducting interviews with witnesses. There is no length he will not go to, and the more the book reflects his industry the more the reader believes that he is having an elevating literary experience, rather than simply listening to backstairs gossip and reading other people's mail. The trangressive nature of biography is rarely acknowledged, but it is the only explanation for biography's status as a popular genre. The reader's amazing tolerance (which he would extend to no novel written half as badly as most biographies) makes sense only when seen as a kind of collusion between him and the biographer in an excitingly forbidden undertaking; tiptoeing down the corridor together, to stand in front of the bedroom door and try to peep through the keyhole.Thoughts? I'm a relatively new convert to biographical reading. Is there ever anything more in it than the quest of dirty laundry?

19:24 / 20.10.01

I suppose biographical writing is just the same as historical writing. It tells you more about the writer and the era it is written in than the subject.
George Orwell made it clear during his life and in his will that he didn't want a biography written and that no potential biographer should have access to his papers. Go to your local bookshop and see how many Orwell biographies there are. This must be the ultimate intrusion. But is the world a better place for having a well written history of one of the greatest writers of the last century? Yes.

The Return Of Rothkoid

20:55 / 20.10.01

quote:Originally posted by Buk:
But is the world a better place for having a well written history of one of the greatest writers of the last century? Yes.Why "yes" automatically? You've claimed that biographies say more about the time of their generation than about the time of their subjects; surely any Orwell biography is therefore of more interest if studying the biographer, rather than the subject. I don't see the value of it as you present it.

In another question, though; is an understanding of the life of an author necessarily going to furnish you with a better handle on the work? Is it necessary? Doesn't Salinger claim that the author should be invisible, that their life is nothing compared to the text's?

23:12 / 20.10.01

Roth, I think that a good biography can give us a better handle on the work. But this depends on the approach of the biographer. Modern biographers routinely set out to construct an evolving 'unique' and 'real' identity by incorporating all sorts of intimate detail which is, as you rightly point out, invasive of privacy, and is ultimately voyeuristic. Such biographers often foreground 'a life' by casting into the shade the dense social and cultural network in which that life has taken shape. It is possible, however, to approach biography by working in reverse, offering a cultural history of the author/subject. And such a history *can* illuminate a text by that author considerably. Readers can consider how the text (say, a novel by Orwell) was positioning itself in relation to the discourses, ideas, ideologies, in circulation at the time in which the author - Orwell - wrote it.

Another problematic aspect of biography as an account of someone's life is that inevitably it is also selective. Narratives, by their very nature, must leave things out.

06:33 / 21.10.01

I think any detailed, well researched discussion of a great talent, period or person is a positive thing. The past, and our interpretations of the past, often provide a new perspective on the present. I can't see this being anything but positive.

quote: is an understanding of the life of an author necessarily going to furnish you with a better handle on the work?

It depends. A work of satire would be better appreciated with a full understanding of the circumstances it was written under. I wonder if, for instance, 'Animal Farm' would work as a stand alone text. Would the universally understood depiction of human failings be diluted by a complete ignorance of the political situation?
Works that are based on timeless, universal themes or values, for instance Robinson Crusoe, work better outwith their context than works more rooted in the time, say Moll Flanders. Does that make one better than the other?
What about non-literary biography? Couldn't a biography of a great inventor or politician give us valuable, useful insight into the practical realities of their lives. It is a cliche that genius is 90% perspiration and 10% inspiration. Doesn't a biography give us a glance of the hidden 90%?

[ 21-10-2001: Message edited by: Buk ]

Our Lady of The Two Towers

14:09 / 21.10.01

The biography of Dennis Potter, though interesting was rather pointless as he had presented so much of his life in his plays as fiction anyway ('The Singing Detective', 'Kareoke' etc).

The Kenneth Williams autobiography is pretty crap except to compare with his diaries to see what he really thought about some of the things he wrote about.

"No... biography!"

16:25 / 21.10.01

quote:The biography of Dennis Potter, though interesting was rather pointless as he had presented so much of his life in his plays as fiction anyway ('The Singing Detective', 'Kareoke' etc).

I think the interest comes from comparing the fact and the fiction. How much is fact, how much is fiction? Was it really like that or is that just the way he wanted it to be?Did he use artistic license to build real experience into something else? As you rightly say it is interesting, and surely that by itself gives it a point.

06:55 / 23.10.01

Well aside from all the stuff you could say about biography in general (and its use by new/young authours from which toi launch a literary career-- Gaiman for example did this with his biog of Douglas Adams) Silvia Plath is a special case.

The estate of Sylvia Plath reverted to her husband, Ted Hughes upon her death- he in turn placed his sister Olwyn in charge of the rights to her work.

While many writers come seeking to write biogs of Slvia Plath (most it must be said, with some kind of angle on the relationship between Hughees and Plath and how Hughes was a bit of a shit to her) Olwyn refuses to cooperate (that is allow Plath's work to be used in any significant way to illustrate any point) with anyone that might say something bad about her brother.

Thus you have a bizarre situation where the Hughes' can effectively veto any unfavourable biography.

This is epecially true of Anne Stevenson's Biog of Plath bitter fame . Olwyn orginally agreed to cooperate with this book after seeing a piece by Stevenson that was quite complimentary to Hughes. Unfortunately disagreements over what should actually go into the book developed during its creation and Stevenson found herself backed into a financial corner where she couldn't afford not to work on the book anymore and was thus obliged to provide a book Olwyn approved of.

The forword by Stevenson, dripping with understated venom where she 'thanks' Olwyn for a degree of thep that 'almost renders this book one of co-aurthorship' says it all

13:45 / 24.10.01

Read Out of Sheer Rage by Geoff Dyer.

It's a book about his semi-successful attempt to write a biography of DH Lawrence. The book is the biography; it tells the story of its own writing.
A quite funny, a-bit-smart diary of a biographer. The whole thing is filled with the futility of recapturing the past, and the obsessional drive to try to do so.
It's got sex and Greek car accidents as well.