As a general rule, I think that biographers should not strongly dislike their subjects (barring subjects like psychopaths and mass murderers). Of course, you can and should denounce some of their actions or views, if warranted, but it seems to me that a completely non-sympathetic biography is either a) ghastly to read, b) superficial, or c) simply an exercise in being wittily nasty.
Such a Strange Lady by Janet Hitchman was for quite a long time the only available bio of Dorothy L. Sayers, and it was just dreadful for a whole bunch of reasons, but, in particular, because Hitchman used the book as an opportunity to disparage Sayers.
I don't like hagiographies either, particularly of people who weren't saints in any sense of the word. Harold Acton's book on Nancy Mitford was just painful to read.
(I have no opinions on Shelley -- I haven't read enough on him recently enough to say exactly what type of man he was. Love some of his poetry, though.)
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2007-08-04 08:24 pm (UTC)Such a Strange Lady by Janet Hitchman was for quite a long time the only available bio of Dorothy L. Sayers, and it was just dreadful for a whole bunch of reasons, but, in particular, because Hitchman used the book as an opportunity to disparage Sayers.
I don't like hagiographies either, particularly of people who weren't saints in any sense of the word. Harold Acton's book on Nancy Mitford was just painful to read.
(I have no opinions on Shelley -- I haven't read enough on him recently enough to say exactly what type of man he was. Love some of his poetry, though.)