Printable View
It seems as if good biographies are usually written posthumously.
By good, I mean honest and comprehensive--no whitewashing.
Steve Jobs' biography is one of the few recent exceptions.
I wonder if biographers are too fearful of litigation to write tell-all books while the subjects are still alive.
That could be it. It could also have to do with waiting until their legacy has been completed.
Especially when faced with the present trend of releasing a biography at age about 27.
Or younger. Private Eye recently carried an entirely scathing review of not one but a series of recently released biographies dealing with some pretty-boy pop icon who looked about 12. I'm amazed that rubbish like that even has a market.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
I think Jobs could not write his biography because it was obvious the victor was Gates.
Are you really that amazed? :PQuote:
Originally Posted by Lokasenna
You make an interesting point.Quote:
Originally Posted by hypatia_
Perhaps the biographer wants the subject to live out his life--so that she can have more material to work with and more to write about.
that, and is it rude to publish a biography about someone who is still alive? isn't that a "you're pretty much done, so it's about time i wrote a book about you," stab in the face?
That's almost right, shown by the barely-past-children whose biographies are published because they will be complete unknowns in 20,30 and 40 years' time.
might as well, in that case.