This is just a question that’s been on my mind for a while. I know the obvious answer might be ‘no’ but it’s just that a lot of books and novels and stuff are works of fiction or contain some kind of dramatic undertone or theatrical element to create some sensationalism, almost in the same way a lot of books and TV programs have a lot – even exaggerated amounts – of representation (race, sex, gender, origin, ect)
BUT
BUT
BUT biographies don’t do that, they don’t need to, these are real accounts of real people’s lives. They thrive on authenticity and the thing about authenticity is it can be as racist, sexist, and just as downright awful as it wants because, while it’s not pretty, it’s honest.
Which begs the question, are biographies allowed to represent bigotry in the name of authenticity and integrity? Because if no, then are you saying biographies should subjected to limitations and if yes, doesn’t that defeat the purpose of a biography? Because they thrive on the ‘good and bad and ugly’ thing but if ‘yes’ then can’t they be used as an excuse for high figures to promote bigotry or for people to be influenced by it more only because it’s a biography and holds a lot of truth and as such is not only justifiable but valid?
by Eizynn
29 Comments
A book is allowed to be written however the author writes it.
If you write a biography of a bigot and omit the bigotry, you did not write a biography. You wrote a fictional novel.
No reasonable person would claim that a biographer shouldn’t be allowed to depict the flaws of their subject. I’ve never heard anyone suggest anything to the contrary.
No, the Book Police will come arrest you if you break the Book Rules.
“Allowed,” sure. Anyone can write about anything. But I think the context would be hugely important here in how people react to it. Are they writing this to give an accurate representation of the world a figure lived in and the challenges they faced? To put the figure in the context of their time? To describe a less-than-shining legacy? Or as encouragement for the worst parts of our society? Those are all different situations that should be evaluated differently.
Also, who is writing this representation, and how do they approach it? Does it feel matter of fact or voyeuristic or empathetic? Nonfiction is not made without a bias and a point of view. And that’s valuable—it takes skill to turn the facts of a life into a compelling narrative, and a book that isn’t trying to say something about its subject can feel pointless or redundant. But again you’d have to evaluate the work on its own terms.
I’m a little confused about the question.
A biography would focus on the life and actions and beliefs of the subject, it they are bigoted ideas they should be included. It’s not an endorsement, but a representation of the person.
If the subject of the biography was on the receiving end of bigotry or prejudice, a good biographer would contextualize the time period to depict the affect on the subject.
Well, I guess a biographer will have an easier time convincing the publisher to print slurs in the book than a fiction writer.
You are seemingly conflating depicting a subject’s bigotry in an honest but compelling way with “promoting bigotry.”
The idea I keep seeing floating around the last few years that negative behaviors or qualities should never be portrayed because that would somehow legitimize them or lead people to emulate them is the most bizarre, insane, puritanical bullshit. There are better or worse ways to frame, present, or discuss those things, sure, but the idea that you should only highlight or portray the positive is batshit. Sure, sometimes you read a biography and it turns out a historical figure, artist, musician, or performer you always liked or admired was disappointingly racist, sexist, or abusive to their kids, or exploitive of those they had power over. And that sucks. But the world is not made of “good” people and “bad” people. It’s made of people who tend to be complex and self contradictory. And reading biographies is part of how you learn to developed a more nuanced view of people, humanity in general, and yourself.
Are you reading a biography of Hitler and *not* expecting bigotry?
> I know the obvious answer might be ‘no’
I’m confused. Why would this be the obvious answer? Did someone make this specific argument?
… dude.
Every piece of media is allowed to represent absolutely everything. I don’t know why this get asked so much. Do you people don’t consume… anything?
This is my father’s biography of Roy Cohn, as bigoted and hateful a person as you will ever encounter. He is portrayed this way in the book.
https://discoverbooks.com/products/citizen-cohn-the-life-and-times-of-roy-cohn-1648210260
What the hell kind of biographies are you reading that omit a subjects ugly parts?
A biography should be ‘warts and all’. If it contains material that many people would find offensive these days then it needs to be contextualised in terms of the world as it was at the time the subject lived. That’s what a forward to the book is useful for.
On the other hand, if the subject of the biography is contemporary and their views are well out of tune with current values, it should show the world who they truly are and let readers decide on their response.
I’m getting a weird vibe that you’re MTG’s publicist.
What rules are there for what can be in a book? Right? Right republicans, right?
Have you read a decently written biography?
I find any attempt to obscure the reality of the past, even the unsavory parts, is generally doing more harm than good.
You can’t change that bad things happened by washing them from view.
I’m just confused as to why you’d think the default answer is no.
🤪🤷🏽♀️ reminds me of literature about past historical people. Some literature sounds exaggerated and unbelievable. Then there are times that it was acceptable to be something that did not age well. What ever someone writes it’s only the perspective of the writer or team doing the literature piece.
Any book is allowed to represent anything. Wether you think it’s worth reading is up to you man.
I respect that you’re coming from a good place; we can agree that bigotry in any form is, without exception, repugnant (except Chicago pizza is the GOAT and no others even come close, and I live on the West Coast).
To minimize bigotry removes nuances we should all wrestle with for heroes, and condemn in those with no redeeming values. I respect Thomas Jefferson most among our Founding Fathers, and he owned slaves. That’s literal textbook bigotry. Henry Ford pulled millions into the middle class, revolutionized mass production, and was a raging anti semite.
We don’t see people for who they are if we don’t portray them as accurately as we can.
There are many nonfiction books that aren’t biographies that display bigotry. A lot of them do it proudly.
I wonder if you’re referring to autobiographies.
A biographer can and should represent their subject as well and truthfully as they can and if their subject was a bigot, then that’s part of their story. It doesn’t follow that the biographer is “endorsing” bigotry and I think it’s bizarre to assume that it would.
Also, what is this “allowed to” bullshit? In a free society, anyone can write a book on any subject.
I don’t understand the question.
If the subject is okay with it, I do not see a reason why not include all the negative accounts of their life. Case in point: The Wolf of the Wall Street
It would be very weird to write about someone who espouses bigotry and…not include that.
I wrote a biography of someone who said some stuff I hated, that I knew would make him look worse to the audience, but he said it. He believes it. So it went in. I struggled with it momentarily, but then you have to properly represent the person to your audience.