From: Arthur Slade <art>
Date: Fri, 03 Nov 2000 09:54:53 -0600

I've just finished writing a biography for young adults about Canada's 13th prime minister, John Diefenbaker. I found the points brought up in this letter quite interesting.

many authors >overlay their own personal agendas upon the reality of their subjects' lives, even using the >subject(ed) person strictly to communicate a moral.

  Part of my research was reading the eight or so other biographies about
"Dief." If they were written by a friend, it was a glowing account; quite the opposite if the author was not a conservative. The best bio's were the one's that sought to understand "Dief's" actions and why he performed them. Their only "agenda" was to give us the facts and re-create as best they could, what was happening in his lifetime. Those are the best bio's in my view. It's impossible to know exactly what motivates any one person, but if you research enough you can find patterns in their lives that indicate their thoughts.

essays, and >letter collections. In these, the author is the subject, and it is clear that the >narrative voice is the subject's voice... the dangerously projected omniscience is lost.

Actually, the autobiography form can be equally untrustworthy. There is an even stronger feeling of "agenda" at times because the writer has a specific picture of him or herself to paint. In my experience you really have to
"check the facts" when you're reading an "auto-bio".
-Arthur G. Slade author of "The Loki Wolf" http://www.arthurslade.com
Received on Fri 03 Nov 2000 09:54:53 AM CST