Do you read biographies?

I do, and I love them for some reason. But that's only if I have a strong interest in the person.

Just wanted to ask writers if they read biographies, and if so what have been some of the best written.

Only interested in unauthorized biographies. Thanks.

Ken said:

... bios are cool. I read a number each year. No unauthorized ones though :-(

(Abe Lincoln is one I gravitate towards the most. I've read at least a dozen on him.)

Click to expand...

Ken, have you read Team of Rivals? Just picked it up, rather I hefted it up. Can you give me an idea (know it's a big question) of what approaches have worked best, iyo. I'm sure it must have to do with the character, the era in question. I don't think one would approach a bio on Lincoln in the same way as a bio on Billie Holiday- maybe it's the market that your writing for that should inform approach or style?

Ken said:

... most would scorn my reasons why.

I honestly like bios that tend to create myths out of historical figures by representing them very respectfully and possibly even exaggerating their deeds. Well, maybe not that far.

The bios I have enjoyed the most have done this. I love being awed by historical figures. Lincoln of course didn't need any artistic flourishes. Neither did Fredrick Douglass or Harriet Tubman. All that was needed was honest representation and respect for their greatness and contribution to the betterment of humanity by the writer.

Oddly, that isn't always a given and some writers seem to go out of their way to find fault with their subjects by digging up all the dirt they can. Big turn off for me. Too much of that and I fling the book away quickly.

I read one on Billy, btw. Pretty awesome herself!

Click to expand...

Right, sensational sells. When I think of how I'd approach a bio on Billie, I'm already in a smoky dark room. I've already got my beat poet shades on. If I was going to attempt one on a historical political figure (I'd never have the audacity) I think I'd rent a cabin in the woods and write by candlelight.

Very interested in the creative approach to bios, writing in the proper language for the setting, etc, the way we do in fiction writing.

I survived said:

I don't like bio's filled with dirt but I don't like bio's that make the subject a Godhead either. I want to see him as a real live figure. To understand how hard the war was on Lincoln you need to understand what was going on in his life and the deep depression he suffered. It doesn't make him less of a man, it makes him more of a man because he worked through it. Kennedy was wonderful for civil rights and young people, but he was also a womanizer and started ourr involvement in the Viat Nam War tell it like it is. Tell the truth not rumors and not white wash. Make the person a human being with all his strengths and weaknesses

Click to expand...

Very helpful. Thank you.

I can see the virtue of both authorized and unauthorized biographies. I guess I've always likened authorized bios to autobios, in the sense that though you would have access to more information, it would also seem that information is filtered to a greater extent. I'm not interested in reading gossip either, but as Isurvived said, I don't want to read anything where the subject is made out to be a godshead. Something as close to the truth as possible, regardless of whether the author had the cooperation of the subject or not is what I think best.

What I'm mostly interested in is approach. For example, I've just written a fictionalized account of a boxer's young life in the 1940's. I wanted to write in a language true to that time and place, not just in dialogue which would be a given, but also in the 3rd person prose and in the 1st person inserts I used in the ring and in other introspective parts of the story. To write it in a language that was more formal would have seemed condescending. The other truth is, to write in an overly simplistic language I think would have turned out to be patronizing. So I tried to walk the line between the two.

I'm interested if writers here have read bios, authorized or not, that also took into consideration the subject's time and place, character, lifestyle, etc, in the style used, the way that fiction does. Usually when I've read a biography, I can hear the author's voice foremost in the language. It is his/her take, and that is clear. What I'm interested in is a cross between biographies and fiction in approach and style. There would still be a distance, a discernible difference between subject and storyteller, in perspective, but not coming from such a foreign place.

I need another cup of coffee before I'm sure if that makes any sense or not...

shakeysix said:

I have loved reading them since I was a kid. I still remember the first one, in third grade--it had an orange cover and it was about Sacajawea. Over the years I read many more about historical figures--dozens about Louis and Clark not only because Sacajawea was mentioned but because by fifth grade I had developed a craving for explorers and explorations.

As I grew up I started reading the adult versions of the same people I had read about as a kid. Big differences but always entertaining. And I don't stop with one biography. If I like the subject I will read several. I don't read much but non-fiction any more. Accounts of explorations, the Civil War and biographies are my main choice. I just finished a good one about Captain William Bligh. This winter I read about Margaret Mitchell, Harper Lee, James Cooke, Henrik Hudson, James Thurber and my personal hero--Civil War general George Henry Thomas. --s6

Click to expand...

I've always gravitated towards them, too. The first book I ever read was The Frank Gifford Story- mainly because it was the first one to jump out at me from the meager stacks of my grade school library. It's funny how I can still see scenes in that book in my mind's eye.

More interesting to me than story lines have always been people, but as many here have mentioned, I have to have a real interest in the person before I pick up the book. Maybe a shame, because I've also found that once I've gotten the details on a person, I've become interested. Truth is, I think that everyone's story is interesting if you know it.

shakeysix said:

I had read the Nordhoff and Hall book about Pitcairn Island. It was written --more or less- from the mutineer's point of view. Because of that I had no desire to read about Captain Bligh. A couple of months ago I had a dental appt and needed something to read. I grabbed the Bligh book from the school library because there just wasn't anything else. It turned out to be one of the best books I've ever read. Of course it was Nordhoff and Hall's version of Bligh. Now I am looking forward to a Captain Bligh summer reading two or three about him. Fascinating character--and way past story book hero or villain. Just a very complex man mired in his own time. So on the rare occasion that I do read about someone I dislike, it sometimes turns out well.--s6

Click to expand...

Thank you, yes. Heroes have their blemishes and villains, if we look closely enough have their reasons, whether they're conscious of them or not. I see it, as I think most writers would, in gradations of accepted attributes and faults. No one, imo, sets out to be wrong. This is what fiction does so well, it lives in the gray area, and what I think a good bio should do. What's the expression? There are three sides to every story- yours, mine, and the truth. Watched "Absence of Malice" last night- better each time I've seen it. Deals with this issue. In one scene the Paul Newman character tells the Sally Field character, a Miami newspaper reporter whose lose reporting has gotten him into a world of trouble and brought about the suicide of his best friend, more or less- "You don't write about truth. You write what people say. You eavesdrop. You don't come across truth so easy."

I think we can learn a lot about life by reading true stories. This can help us understand life from different perspectives, it can teach us empathy, the stuff that good fiction is made of.