I'm both touched that you're reading back-entries, and sad that you are not writing K/S.
I understand what you mean, though. I think part of it is that I happen to be attracted to people who surprise me, and it's easy to be surprising when you have a mystique, isn't it? I mean, doesn't Lawrence fit into that category, too? You've got someone who is seen one (or two) ways, and you get a little interested, and find out no, they're a WHOLE BUNCH of things that are amazing and strange and whatever else. So I'm interested in what people think because the people I often gush about are people who are very fixed in the public memory. Or were, or in some circles of public memory, or something. And both Welles and Lawrence have been bandied about by the media, both for good and ill, until you can't talk about them without talking about that. I don't think I'm interested in what people think of, say, Wilde, even though I am interested in his life/work, except for where public opinion shaped that. Which, of course, it materially did at some point. The other consideration is that with Welles and Lawrence the bios themselves are ALL tainted by this fact. So you just can't learn anything about them without asking yourself where this writer falls.
The thing about biography is I don't think I've ever read one "to read a biography." I read them when I am so interested in someone I can't help it. The same reason I'd read fic or write it if they were not real people. So I can't even tell you what I think are good biographies, because I don't expect them to be "good reads." Which isn't to say I don't think they can be, or that they aren't. Just that I'm reading it for a purpose, and the personality involved is what keeps me going. Not the book itself. Of course there are those I've not read or abandoned because I did not think they were treating their subject fairly--one way or the other.
I did read a bio of Lawrence that was by a psychologist. Which was interesting, even when I was suspicious of his conclusions, because I could see where he'd got them.
I understand what you mean, though. I think part of it is that I happen to be attracted to people who surprise me, and it's easy to be surprising when you have a mystique, isn't it? I mean, doesn't Lawrence fit into that category, too? You've got someone who is seen one (or two) ways, and you get a little interested, and find out no, they're a WHOLE BUNCH of things that are amazing and strange and whatever else. So I'm interested in what people think because the people I often gush about are people who are very fixed in the public memory. Or were, or in some circles of public memory, or something. And both Welles and Lawrence have been bandied about by the media, both for good and ill, until you can't talk about them without talking about that. I don't think I'm interested in what people think of, say, Wilde, even though I am interested in his life/work, except for where public opinion shaped that. Which, of course, it materially did at some point. The other consideration is that with Welles and Lawrence the bios themselves are ALL tainted by this fact. So you just can't learn anything about them without asking yourself where this writer falls.
The thing about biography is I don't think I've ever read one "to read a biography." I read them when I am so interested in someone I can't help it. The same reason I'd read fic or write it if they were not real people. So I can't even tell you what I think are good biographies, because I don't expect them to be "good reads." Which isn't to say I don't think they can be, or that they aren't. Just that I'm reading it for a purpose, and the personality involved is what keeps me going. Not the book itself. Of course there are those I've not read or abandoned because I did not think they were treating their subject fairly--one way or the other.
I did read a bio of Lawrence that was by a psychologist. Which was interesting, even when I was suspicious of his conclusions, because I could see where he'd got them.
Reply
Leave a comment