CCBC-Net Archives
[CCBC-Net] Biography
- Contemporary messages sorted: [ by date ] [ by subject ] [ by author ]
From: Thomson, Sarah <Sarah.Thomson>
Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2000 13:35:45 -0500
I found Maia's points interesting because in general I admit that I do prefer autobiography over biography. I often feel unsatisfied by biography because I feel it doesn't let me get to know the subject as well as I would like. The author can't really be in the subject's head, so biography can't be as intimate as autobiography (or, in another sense, as fiction; a novelist knows his/her characters far more intimately than a biographer ever will.)
It sounds as if I'm saying biography is second best here, something we must put up with when autobiography or other primary source material isn't available. Actually that wasn't the case I wanted to make. Although I do acknowledge that biography often feels a little withdrawn from the subject's life, by the same measure it can be more objective, more rounded. Surely an autobiography is as prone as biography to exageration, misinterpretation, lack of objectivity, or desire to make the subject into a symbol. Surely a third-person account can let us see a subject in new, different, and equally valid ways. Would we really want Mein Kampf to be our only study of Hitler?
The flaws of misinterpretation which Maia points to in biography are really the result of bad writing, or an intention on the part of the biographer to do something other than present an honest and thorough exploration of the subject's life.
Which leads me to the point I was actually heading towards--that the key is not whether the piece of writing is autobiography or biography, it's whether the writing is good enough. And I find that writing good nonfiction is even harder than writing good fiction. Writing nonfiction seems to me to be a remarkable feat, because the writer almost chooses to disappear. The author isn't (or shouldn't be) calling attention to him/herself with stylistic flourishes or sensationalistic treatment of a topic, but instead focuses the reader's attention firmly on the subject. When I've finished a great piece of nonfiction (like a Russell Friedman biography or Jennifer Armstrong's SHIPWRECK AT THE BOTTOM OF THE WORLD) I find myself thinking "How amazing that anyone did that/accomplished that/survived that." And only on second thought do I realize that the writing was so smooth, so logical, so superbly paced, and so beautifully clear that I remember every detail, that I was never confused or unable to follow the sequence of events, that I was never bored or restless.
So maybe what we need is not more autobiography but more really, really good biographers.
Sarah Thomson Editor HarperCollins Children's Books
At 10:58 PM 11/2/00 00, you wrote:
To remove your address from the mailing list, send a message with the header...
To: listserv at ccbc.education.wisc.edu
Subject: signoff ccbc-net
Received on Fri 03 Nov 2000 12:35:45 PM CST
Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2000 13:35:45 -0500
I found Maia's points interesting because in general I admit that I do prefer autobiography over biography. I often feel unsatisfied by biography because I feel it doesn't let me get to know the subject as well as I would like. The author can't really be in the subject's head, so biography can't be as intimate as autobiography (or, in another sense, as fiction; a novelist knows his/her characters far more intimately than a biographer ever will.)
It sounds as if I'm saying biography is second best here, something we must put up with when autobiography or other primary source material isn't available. Actually that wasn't the case I wanted to make. Although I do acknowledge that biography often feels a little withdrawn from the subject's life, by the same measure it can be more objective, more rounded. Surely an autobiography is as prone as biography to exageration, misinterpretation, lack of objectivity, or desire to make the subject into a symbol. Surely a third-person account can let us see a subject in new, different, and equally valid ways. Would we really want Mein Kampf to be our only study of Hitler?
The flaws of misinterpretation which Maia points to in biography are really the result of bad writing, or an intention on the part of the biographer to do something other than present an honest and thorough exploration of the subject's life.
Which leads me to the point I was actually heading towards--that the key is not whether the piece of writing is autobiography or biography, it's whether the writing is good enough. And I find that writing good nonfiction is even harder than writing good fiction. Writing nonfiction seems to me to be a remarkable feat, because the writer almost chooses to disappear. The author isn't (or shouldn't be) calling attention to him/herself with stylistic flourishes or sensationalistic treatment of a topic, but instead focuses the reader's attention firmly on the subject. When I've finished a great piece of nonfiction (like a Russell Friedman biography or Jennifer Armstrong's SHIPWRECK AT THE BOTTOM OF THE WORLD) I find myself thinking "How amazing that anyone did that/accomplished that/survived that." And only on second thought do I realize that the writing was so smooth, so logical, so superbly paced, and so beautifully clear that I remember every detail, that I was never confused or unable to follow the sequence of events, that I was never bored or restless.
So maybe what we need is not more autobiography but more really, really good biographers.
Sarah Thomson Editor HarperCollins Children's Books
At 10:58 PM 11/2/00 00, you wrote:
To remove your address from the mailing list, send a message with the header...
To: listserv at ccbc.education.wisc.edu
Subject: signoff ccbc-net
Received on Fri 03 Nov 2000 12:35:45 PM CST
