From: Arlene Miera <miera>
Date: Fri, 03 Nov 2000 12:48:57 -0800

Amy (below) has made very good points, I think. There is no such thing as a complete history. It's selective by nature, impossible to corral everything into one book on one subject, one event. Whatever a biographer chooses to say and the slant he says it in says as much about him and his priorities and the audience he is trying to appeal to as it does about the subject, I believe.

Saying that, many current children's biographers are doing beautiful jobs in appealing to me. My husband and I have greatly enjoyed The Real Johnny Appleseed by Laurie Lawlor, Rosa Park's story told with Jim Haskins, biographies of Emily Dickinson by Bonita Thayer, Clara Schumann
(Her Piano Sang) by Barbara Allman.

I agree, children need to be told the truth. I believe the best to be written is and should be written for children. They are our hope, our future. When somebody foists an untruth as truth on a child, it disturbs me. I am not saying, however, that every, ugly or otherwise, detail needs to be given. If there are questions, I agree, they can, but not necessarily should, be addressed. I like it when Thayer addresses the supposed romances of Emily with questions she found in her research but didn't find the answers to.

One recently published picture book biography mentioned the hero's wife by name (when there were at least 2 wives; he was widowed according to other books) and 20 children. (Shouldn't the fact that there were 20 children have tipped off someone that probably there was more than one spouse? Or did the author and publisher decide the full truth was information overload for the very young?)

As for unknowns, I picked up the book on Clara Schumann because of an incidental reference to her as the wife of Robert. (I'm sure music lovers will be appalled at my ignorance.) Then the cover art entranced me.

Biographies at their best are histories in the most immediate sense. Arlene

 First -- It's often true that history, nonfiction (as opposed to
"creative
 if we are > unable to interpret our own journal entries, how could a biographer > understand what we were thinking when we wrote the entry? The > past is pretty slippery.) cket design (intriguing photo, great art) and the title are extremely > important. I think the title should communicate the crux of the story if > possible. most anything. For > me, it's all about story.
Received on Fri 03 Nov 2000 02:48:57 PM CST