Foot 3
0 General Document comments
0 Sentence and Paragraph comments
0 Image and Video comments
I was just beginning to grasp that Michael’s first loyalty was not to biography, but to friends and to anyone else whom a given biography might hurt.
it would suffer because Mr. Foot priority would be of keeping his friends in a good spot. I’m assuming that he would rather keep some particular stuff to him before going on and making any harm to the people close to him.
A biography would suffer if the first loyalty is to friends because the truth cannot be told at the cost of upsetting that friendship. It would make for a very boring biography if the story only highlighted the positive aspects of its subjects because of the biography’s loyalty to friends, no one would want to read it.
Some biographers hide the truth because they become too friendly with their subjects and end up feeling guilty at the thought of revealing the unspoken truths of this person.
They might also think that the truth can cause damage to the subject and his/her relationship with “friends and [with] anyone else whom a given biography might hurt.”
You make an excellent point. Certain truths could offset an established friendship. Also, I believe that maintaining loyalty to a friend is more about keeping a reputation, or a self-image a friend has of an individual, because we care about how others perceive ourselves.
A biography would suffer if the loyalty is to friends because not everything might stated as the way it is meant to be. Perhaps,to maintain an image friends have, the individual who the biography is about might fabricate events that happened. Fabricated events completely makes the biography useless, because it has no value. Also, if a loyalty is to a friend, the individual might keep certain events that are crucial to the biography. Ultimately, the biography is compromised of the sanctity that makes it a biography, when the loyalty is not to the truth.
Biography will suffer if the first loyalty it to friends because one might try to hide something that is related to his or her friends and that event may have negative effects on the friends’ reputations or statues in the society. And if the subject is not willing to tell the truth or refuse to tell the story, then it may hurt the creditability and authenticity of the biography.
Biography suffers when the priority isn’t to the biography itself, or in other words, to the facts of what happened. If the loyalty is to friends, or to anything else, the biography can become skewed, as information may be hidden or told in a biased way in order to appease the favour of the subject or their friends.
It’s an issue because the point of a biography should be unbiased. Biographers might keep secrets when they feel that the information is not worth revealing and risking the friendship/relationship with the subject.
A biography is meant to center around the life of one specific individual. That individual has to be portrayed truthfully, whether they will come across as being good or bad. But the truth can be jeopardized if other people, Foot’s friends in this situation, do not want certain aspects of his life which also involve them, to fall into the hands of the public.
They fear what Foot probably fears as well: humility, shame, people disliking him because of the negative aspects that are revealed about him, etc. They might also simply fear publicity.
A biography suffers if the first loyalty is to friends because certain sincerities about the subject would be hidden — mostly in order to preserve the friendship but also the character of the individual. The biography would become distorted by concealing negative aspects, creating this perfect persona of the subject.
What should be kept to a minimum is the business of others. This biography is set around one person, therefore other people’s stories should not be included. However, there’s a double side to this, for if the biographer’s subject is in fact a significant part of someone else’s story then it becomes just as much their story as the other person. The biographer then has the right to publish it as part of the story’s truth.
It doesn’t have to be included, but if it is, then the biography would be more authentic and have more meaning.
Mr.Foot’s refusal to reveal information about his friends will be detrimental. The truth will be hidden, while he will likely find himself limited in terms of content. Repetitiveness could become a major issue that will leave readers annoyed.
A biography would suffer if its first loyalty to friends because the end product would be sugar coated, unrealistic and more like a compliment to the subject than a story.
Without friends, the biographer has no story.
I think there will still be a story for the biographer. The angle of the biography will surely change. For example, the biographer can take a view the subject has and integrate it into the shaping of the subject’s life.
What’s left for the biographer is to look for other significant attributes about the subject and write about it.
A biography suffers when the first loyalty is to friends. Because if you’re writing about someone who’s alive, you have to get to know them. You must interview them, actually get an understanding of them. Which turns your target into a friend. The biography starts to suffer, when your loyalty shifts from the story, to keeping the target happy. Making sure only what they want out in the world is written.
It suffers because Foot would instinctively want to protect those close to him. This would likely make him censor parts of his own life in an attempt to not show those he cares about in a negative light.
Friends can ask you to hide their side of the narrative or vice versa.
The next day, Michael introduced a new subject: “One of the reasons I’ve never been in favour of writing autobiography is because you can’t tell the truth.” I agreed. “All the great autobiographers have been charlatans,” Michael said, warming to his topic."
General Document Comments 0
I think that autobiographers can’t tell the truth because one, they are subjective and two, their memory may not be the best source. Because our memories of things and events change, there would be no way to know if what is written is real or made up, unlike a biographer who can conduct interviews and cross-check facts.
I totally agree with this, but I also believe that if someone its writing their own story they might want to highlight or prioritize their best moments of their life, and maybe, leaving behind some information that could be important for someone else
I think there are three reasons that causing autobiographers can’t tell the truth. One is that one might unable to be honest to himself if the event he wrote is negative to his statue on the society. Second reason will the event is not only related to himself or herself but also others who don’t want to disclose themselves, such as the first question pointed out. The third reason is even the writer is telling the truth but the reader may doubt about the authenticity of the story and may think the writer is lying.
I think the reader would distrust the autobiographer based on that person’s outside reputation. So, if the autobiographer were the current Pope, most people believe he is a good man therefore if he were to write good things about himself, then the reader would probably not question it. However, if the person was Jordan Belfort for example, well then, that one would be a hard sell if he were to write good things about himself. Its all based on the reputation and perspective the outside world has on that specific person.
Autobiographers cannot tell the truth because individuals are not always true to their selves. I believe that an autobiographer might no be able to tell because that individual might not want to harm reputation or lose any credibility one may have earned. Furthermore, subconscious reasons might prevent the autobiographer from telling the whole truth. For instance, one’s mind might have blurred out traumatizing events. Lastly, an autobiographer may be writing immortalize one’s self. If this is the motive, that individual might not want to have their shortcomings etched to their image, so he/she might lie about their life.
A person can’t have an unbiased stance on their own life. They will take their own side, or the side of their friends and family, always resulting in a skewed perspective of a story rather than an objective one.
I agree with the Professor. We are each our own harshest critics. Now, some people particularly have the courage to own up to their faults and see where they led themselves wrong. However, this is a rare trait in people therefore it can be sometimes hard to believe that someone can change stances, even about themselves.
Autobiographers write about themselves, and they believe that there is too much at stake: friends, family, and a reputation. They fall victims to fear’s trap by writing only the details that make them look better to the reader. It is difficult to remain unbiased, when discussing one’s own life.
Autobiographers cannot tell the truth because sometimes self-opinions become influenced in fear of losing respect and prestige among other people. They pick and choose whatever glorifies their own image the most, even if it isn’t completely truthful.
When autobiographers write about their life, they usually feel some type of pressure to make an impression. They need something to gravitate readers involved becoming invested in their life. This can lead to stories becoming convoluted and fabricated. Controversy usually sells, which makes over dramatizing stories beneficial.
Because most of the time an autobiographer will be writing a good stuff of himself and avoid any negative thing. that is why is hard to be an autobiographer because you must be brave to accept everything the way it was considering the pros and cons of the life lived.
Autobiographers can’t tell the truth, because we always see ourselves in the best light. Remember situations with our own perspective whose memory is corrupted with “how I remember it”.
In any situation there is his story, her story and the truth. Autobiographers are frauds? I can agree with this somewhat, because in order to be writing a book about yourself, you must be held in high esteem in your field. You must have self confidence, and you must also want people to see you better than you actually are.
Autobiographers can’t tell the truth because of their own viewpoint. I think people tend to look back on mostly the positives aspects or mostly the negative aspects of their lives. As such, they lose the ability to be objective about what was going on in that time in their lives.
Autobiographers struggle to balance of pride and humility. If they skew too far to either side, the audience will begin to question their authenticity. Even if one extreme is the truth, one might tweak the story to find the right balance that is palatable.
Autobiographers can’t tell the truth because the truth may be too harsh and personal for them to reveal. They may leave out certain factors that are hurtful and embarrassing. They can leave out the truth all-together or alter it.
A journalist’s literary imagination could play around with the facts in a more objective way but also would use words and phrases that could minimize the power of an idea or matter.
I think biography and the journalist’s literary imagination can serve as an antidote to an autobiography because it remedies some of the problems with autobiographies (like an autobiographer’s inability to tell the truth). For instance, autobiographies tend to be biased or omit facts, and biographies can address that problem by presenting different sides of the story in a more objective way and fact checking the stories. A journalist’s literary imagination presents that story in an appealing way that is engaging and interesting to read.
Biography and literary imagination might serve as the antidote to autobiography in many ways.
One way that biography counteracts is by adding an unbiased facilitator that can help the individual tell the true story. The biographer can even help the subject recollect past events and illustrate in a manner that provides justice for the subject. Also, any biases an autobiography may have can be mitigated.
The journalist’s literary imagination can also counter autobiography in terms of how the journalist writes. The use of the journalist’s language will play a strong part in the antidote. in addition, literary imagination allows the reader to understand a subject in a more profound manner and leave a more thought evoking presence.
There is certainly the possibility of the biographer being biased.
However, if the biographer is doing the his/her job with the proper integrity and not influenced by personal motives, then the biographer can be unbiased.
Nonetheless, there could be indirect or unintentional influences given off by the biographer, that will make the “antidote” not as effective
Biography coupled with journalist’s literary imagination can describe a person’s life as colourfully as it was lived. No one’s life is as drab as facts in bullet point form. Biography and literary imagination solves the issue by losing the personal bias an autobiography would have, but keeping the energy and soul of an autobiography.
I think autobiographies are livelier than biographies because when its first person point of view, it feels as if the reader has physically stepped into the subject’s shoes versus a third person point of view where the reader is being told a story about someone by someone else. Also, if the autobiographer is being honest with him/herself it could make for a really interesting read.
I think an autobiography could also be an antidote. In this particular case of Michael Foot and the dilemma of revealing negative aspects of his biography, an autobiography gives the writer more power on deciding how much and which information is revealed about him/herself
A journalist’s literary imagination can serve as an antidote by a creative and legitimized combination. Biographies will present more facts that allows people to be more educated compared to an autobiography. These facts can be presented in a appealing way through quotes and statistics.
Biography can serve as an antidote to autobiography because the journalist, in theory, has a more objective viewpoint. The journalist can take multiple accounts of someone’s life and try to mesh together the “realist” version of that person and their story.
Autobiographers will always sugarcoat their life story to make them stand out as a much better and more accomplished person than they really are. Humans have the tendency to be over confident of themselves. Also, nobody willingly opens up about the realities and truths of every detail of their lives, especially if it will put them in a bad light. It’s easy for someone else to reveal those truths because it does not harm their persona, but everyone wants to display themselves in the best way possible, even in the worst situations.
icons on the left to see existing comments.
0 archived comments