Foot 6
0 General Document comments
0 Sentence and Paragraph comments
0 Image and Video comments
On this visit there was much talk of my Gellhorn biography, which had just appeared and had received excellent reviews, with a few very negative ones, including a personal attack on me by one of Gellhorn’s friends, the journalist John Pilger. Michael wanted to know why. “Well, he said I wrote a salacious book,” I told Michael. Of course, it was nothing of the kind. Michael’s response was “Dirty sod. I tell you, I’ve got very strong feelings about him. The way he’s behaved over the breakup of Yugoslavia. It’s absolutely outrageous. Pilger bilge, I call it. But we have to be careful about it because Paul is a close friend of Pilger.” I said, “Paul may not have a good opinion of me anymore if he’s been talking to Pilger.” Michael dismissed the idea.
I assume a salacious biography is something that is racy, highly scandalous, something that you would find in a tabloid. I imagine it would detail the subject’s sex life more than his merit achievements.
You make intriguing point about how a salacious biography would put more detail into a subjects sex-life rather than merit. Personally, I believe a salacious biography might dig deeper into one’s merits, but highlight the parts that are not usually discussed about. Possibly even write about the merit in a manner that causes the reader to doubt if it is a merit at all.
Something really dirty and filthy. I guess an author would write such a thing just for the purpose of getting attention from the public.
Salacious refers to something that is vulgar, dirty and sometimes unnecessarily sexual. A salacious biography is one that contains indecent information, perhaps something extremely inappropriate.
I would assume fellow journalists and many readers.
I assume a salacious biography refers to a biography that is raw in content. It is constructed with little regard to being politically correct. In addition, the objective of this type of biography, based on the way it is written, may be to illicit controversy and bring attention to events that would otherwise be shamed or given little attention. Furthermore, the structure of a salacious biography may be more open.
A salacious biography is one that contains dirty and suggestive information about the subject, perhaps used in an attempt to degrade them or the biography itself.
A type of biography that consists of unfiltered content, which is viewed as controversial. It will likely command plenty of interest. The raunchy stories can be found on tabloids and front page headlines. People are always eager to read raw stories without showing much compassion.
I think a salacious biography is about people’s very private story that doesn’t want to be revealed to public. Something very scandalous and the person who is featured would be ashamed of.
I often come across the term salacious, when accompanied with gossip, for example: she loves salacious gossip. Gossip dealing with sex, or guilty pleasure.
A salacious biography, attends to our guilty pleasures. Talks about the targets sex life, and deals solely with issues that grab the readers attention, not solely the truth. More than often the truth includes the targets sex life and issues that grabs the readers attention. A piece that focuses only on lewd topics is a salacious biography.
A salacious biography is one that is raunchy and filled with vulgar topics. It could be considered “clickbait” in our era.
A salacious biography would be one that focused on the crewed or vulgar.
Later that day Julie and I got into a conversation about authorised biography after I told her about Owen. “It [authorised biography] verges on autobiography,” she said. “Yes, it does,” I agreed. “You’re not going to be able to put in the shit,” she declared. But she fully understood my position. “There have been a number of cases,” I pointed out, in which biographers had signed agreements with estates stipulating they could not interfere “because the biographer is afraid that as in a romance, when the family falls out of love with you, then you’re stuck. But I just think that changes the atmosphere, to face Michael with a contract and say, ‘Sign this.’ I couldn’t do it.” Julie agreed, “I don’t think that would work with Michael. He would put his back up."
“Putting in the shit” could mean including sensitive information or little known facts that could potentially influence the reader’s perspective of the subject. It is important because it paints a more complete picture of the subject—the good and the not so good. However, authorized biographies sometimes leave it out because of the biographer’s interference as Julie implies.
usually shared but will give the true incite to that person. Authorized biographies leave them out because they are too explicit or vulgar to reveal to the masses.
The phrase refers to all the nitty gritty information, that subjects might not want the public to know. It’s necessary because biographies are about representing a person’s life honestly, and by leaving out all the mistakes they’ve made the biographer only captures half of the story. Biographies aren’t supposed to be fairy tales, because evidently life isn’t simply once upon a time…..they lived happily ever after.
Yes, they have a right to protect their reputation and good name.
“Putting in the shit” refers to including something very personal or sensitive. This is important because it will give the readers the entire story as opposed to just parts that the biographer chose to include. Authorized biographies can sometimes leave it out because the biographer might have formed a relationship with the subject and felt that disclosing certain information would affect the subject’s life.
“Putting in the shit” means to include all information, even those which may raise eyebrows on the readers. It is important to do so because it reveals hidden aspects of the subjects life in its totality. Authorized biographies tend to withdraw this information because it may ruin the spotless reputation of the subject, which readers might disapprove of.
The meaning pertains to uncensored content. It ranges from revealing dirty truths to possibly offending readers. This is essential for a biography to be even more appealing. While you want to preserve some information, that shouldn’t remove yourself from being honest. Putting in the shit is a difficult situation, where you can’t please everyone. It’s still an important element that can’t be ignored about someone’s life.
Maybe because people don’t understand the importance of the “shit”
“Put in the shit” means putting all details in, giving the full story. Including the things that the target doesn’t want to be shared. Authorized biographies would go down the path of leaving the “shit” out because the target approves the piece and therefore doesn’t want their “shit” aired out. The negatives of their life, the struggles the details.
Appearance is a very important thing to everyone, and when your “shit” is available to everyone to consume theres a vulnerability we don’t want to deal with.
“Putting in the shit” means the biographer won’t be able to discuss the bad sides of the subject. Its important for two reasons: 1) it makes the person look more human than hero and 2) it stays truthful. Authorized biographies sometimes leave the “shit” out because no one wants to be remembered for their bad shit. They want to be remembered for their good or what appears good.
refers to the uncut, unedited version of your subject’s thoughts on any topic you discuss. It’s the authentic conversation that authorized biographies can leave out if it doesn’t pertain specifically to the book.
It means putting in the bad parts of a person or their life as well as the good. It is important because it creates a more objective viewpoint of the subject. Authorized sometimes leave these parts out because they may paint the subject in a light they don’t want to be seen in.
A biography is a romance in the sense that the biographer is telling the story of the subject whom he got to know intimately. It could also mean that a biography is as fragile as a romance in the sense that if the subject no longer wishes to share information with you, the relationship, and your biography, is over. The idea of biography relates to the literary imagination because as the biographer, you have to tell a coherent and compelling story that people want to read through the use of rhetoric, style, tone, diction, etc.
In some sense, documenting the life and work of someone else makes you get very emotionally close with the subject, if you are really interested in the journey and the stories of that person. This idea relates to the commitment of a journalist to do and follow their literary imagination when putting together a book like this one
A biography is a romance, in the sense that the biographer wants to get close to their subject so that they get accepted into their lives. If the subject, or like in a relationship the family, disapproves of the writer/partner then everything starts falling apart. The biographer will have to deal with their subject constantly interfering and disapproving of their work, similar to what the family might do to the lovers. The idea relates to the literary imagination because it uses the issues a couple deals with regarding families as a metaphor for the writer and subject’s relationship.
A biography is a romance in the sense that the reader develops impressions towards the subject based on events and life experiences. Every chapter or such can be viewed as date. The more one reads, the more one can relate or differ to the subject. By being educated in detailed parts of the subject’s life, one can gain an intimate connection, mentally, which causes the romance.
Biography relates to literary imagination in terms of how the biographer illustrates the subject’s life. I believe its the job of the biographer to capture the literary imagination. This can be done by making connections of the subject’s past to other events in history.
A biography can be a romance depending on the events that took place in the subject’s life. Also, if the biographer and subject were to form a fond of a sort, the biography could read as a romance. This idea would relate to the literary imagination depending on how the biographer chooses to write about the subject’s life.
Biography becomes a romance because of the close proximity the writer engages with the subject in — discovering things that might remain private otherwise. It shows that the biography is dependent on good communication between the writer and the subject. The idea of the biography relates to the literary imagination because it uses the metaphor of a “couple” to relate the relationship of writer and subject.
Any biography express some time of emotion or affection. It can relate to a wonderful positive story or dark gloomy ending that is used within the literary imagination context. With this biography, the couple continuously deals with family conflict and past events as analogies. The obscene truth plays a major role in determining the romance, where all emotions are divulged.
A biography is a romance because of the relation built between the interviewer and the interviewee.they have to talk about personal information that just people that are in are relationship can tell. Also this relation can finish if the interviewer and the interviewee disagree most of the time in taking the decition of what to share and what not to share. The biography is related with the literary imagination because of the way that the writer is going to express the facts and details of the person in the biography.
Writing a biography is an intimate endeavor for all parties involved. Long conversations with storytelling and secrets being passed can produce intense emotions. Conveying those stories through imagery, allusions, metaphors, tone, etc., is how is relates to the literary imagination
I think a biography can have a sense of romance due to the closeness needed between the author and the subject. It relates to the literary imagination in that the author has to create a complete narrative out of the various aspects of the subject’s life and find unique and interesting ways to connect the subject’s life experiences.
a biography is like a romance because the biographer must get to know the subject on a personal level. The biographer has to “go on dates” and study the subject. The idea of biography as a romance is related to the literary imagination because after becoming acquainted with the subject so intimately, the literary imagination is like the expression of deep feelings jotted down in writing
We got onto the subject of Barbara Castle again. Michael was determined to stay in her good graces. Thus he had turned down the request of an unauthorised biographer for an interview about Barbara, knowing that Barbara would not like him to cooperate with anyone she had not sanctioned. I understood his loyalty to friends, but I put it to him that there was “another argument”: [MF] Yes, go on. [CR] When someone tells you “Please don’t talk to this biographer who is writing a book about me,” that person is asking you to not talk about what is a part of your experience. From a certain point of view, it is a form of censorship. [MF] Yes. You bet. Mostly my sympathies are naturally on the side of the writers. Michael thought Orwell was rather arrogant in forbidding a biography. He also thought publishers were quite nonsensical in calling Michael Shelden’s biography of Orwell authorised. Michael did not like Sheldon’s book because of its treatment of Sonia Orwell, who had been a close friend of Jill’s and Michael’s. “He had no compunction about what he said about her.” Michael added, “Wipe Shelden off the books.” Declaring war against the term authorised biography, he said, “So you’re not writing the authorised biography of Jill.” But he was on my side, he assured me. “Carl, I’m glad you’re doing it. It’s the best thing, from Jill’s point of view."
In the previous chapters, Michael condemned authorized biographies because he is a journalist first. However, here, he places his friend before his role as a journalist simply because he wanted to stay in her good graces.
I agree, but I also think Michael wouldn’t want to discuss his views with someone whom he already know there is a certain level of disagreement about particular subjects.
Earlier Michael expressed that he does not approve of authorized biographies, clearly stating “We don’t believe in authorized biographies.” But now he is committing hypocrisy by refusing to talk to an unauthorized biographer because he wants to remain on a friend’s good side. He will only sit with an authorized biographer, who will only ask questions Barbara approves of.
Previously, Michael dismissed the idea of authorized biographies. However, the mood changes when he realizes that his friendship is on the line, so he will only appeal to speaking with authorized biographers upon the request of his friend Barbara.
Michael was open about being turned off by authorized biographies. He didn’t like the structure of it. When personal matters start to emerge, Michael changes his stance to accommodate Barbara’s demands.
Michael wanted to maintain his friendship with Barbara and put that ahead of journalistic integrity.
He knew that Barbara would not cooperate with he. That is why he decided to do an unauthorised biography because he wanted to put everything about Barbara not just what she agrees with.
I wouldn’t feel very assured because he seems to be going back and forth and contradicting himself.
I agree, but I also feel that to some point Michael is being honest. As a journalist, I’d keep challenging him with questions about authorised biographies just to see his behavior on the subject.
They might become more defensive and give rehearsed answers or even cancel the biography altogether if they are deeply offended.
As a journalist I find it difficult to take Michael’s words seriously, without at least some doubt that he may change his opinion depending on the situation. It’s easier to talk about something when it relates to another individual and then completely retract everything when you are put in that same scenario. It’s difficult to believe someone whose actions do not match their words.
General Document Comments 0
icons on the left to see existing comments.
0 archived comments