Quote:
Originally Posted by mrbaseball
I read a lot of biographies. I find them facinating and like to learn about the people. My only problem with them is possible bias by the authors. I am assuming that when someone decides to undertake a biography it is because they are probably not only intrigued by the subject but that the subject is someone they like and admire.
Due you take this into account when reading biographies? Do you try to filter out enthusiatic praise?
A recent example for me. A year or two ago I read Truman by McCullough and just recently I finished Ike by Korda. Both excellent, intriguing and captivating works in my opinion. But the Truman/Eisenhower relationship is very differently portrayed in these two books with each author making "his guy" sound like the good guy with the other sounding like the bad guy in the relationship or lack thereof.
Just wondering if or how much any of you guys may factor in author bias when reading biographies?
Bias, both pro and con, is always a fact to be considered when reading a biography. And in many instances, those biographies written while the subject still lives or shortly after their death are most prone to bias.
Time and distance often allow a broader array of facts and the author is looking at his subject through a much longer telescope. This is why many bio's written long after the subject has died can be the most authoritative. Of course, the passage of time can also tip the view of an author into a revisionist interpretation not wholly consistent with known facts.
The obvious answer to bias is to read several books on your subject and view him or her from more than one angle. Your own opinion will then be much more informed.
