Foot 7
0 General Document comments
0 Sentence and Paragraph comments
0 Image and Video comments
Tom is the one I remember asking Michael directly about the extraordinary fact that Michael had included me in his household: [TH] I was asking Carl how you can put up with someone in your house. [MF] What? [TH] This chap [Tom indicated me]. [MF] Why? [TH] I just think your personal privacy and space ... [MF] What? [TH] This writer comes and invades it. [MF] Nice big house. It’s been arranged for such things. [TH] Generous spirited, I think. [MF] All designed by Jill. [TH] That’s right. It all depends on how well he behaves. It was a remarkable thing to do and Michael was right: it had been designed for others to enjoy. So many members of Michael’s family had stayed at Pilgrim’s Lane. Paul Foot wrote a book there. All of Julie’s children had lived with Michael and Jill at various points in their youth and so many others—like me—had enjoyed extended stays, basking in the Craigie/ Foot hospitality. But my residence at Pilgrim’s Lane was different, Tom understood. I was a writer and my material was Jill and Michael and I had become part of his daily routine. What Michael offered me went well beyond what Tom called “generous spirited.” Paul Foot and others argued that by accepting Michael’s hospitality, I had indebted myself to him. He had a claim on me. They, of course, were not privy to the conversations I had had with Michael about how I had to maintain my independence as a biographer. No matter how many times I had reiterated that position, no matter how many times Michael acceded to it, my place in his entourage certainly gave every appearance of dependence. I was like that biographer in Clint Eastwood’s The Unforgiven, a part of my subject’s retinue, the very definition of biographer as follower. I was not fawning. Indeed, I teased Michael a good deal and talked openly with Tom and others about my critical perceptions of Michael. I was not guarded in the least and made no pretence of sharing Michael’s views—with him or with others and yet, how could they not think of me as an acolyte? In the end, whatever I wrote, as far as they were concerned, had Michael’s imprimatur—or I wouldn’t be living at Pilgrim’s Lane. To put it another way, to truly be independent would be tantamount to betraying Michael, and that would be exactly the charge sheet that Paul Foot and others would compile against me. I would resist their interpretation, but I did not then—and do not now—feel the least bit surprised at the attack. I had been asking for it, so to speak. What did surprise me, though (and this reveals how even with all my experience as a biographer I was still naïve enough to think Michael saw it my way) was how quickly Michael would turn on me when he felt I had violated his amour-propre.
I believe Michael doesn’t see the journalist as an invader because he [Michael] considers the journalist his friend and he enjoys the company. In his own words, the house is designed to host guests so it’s not an invasion of privacy.
I agree, But also Michael was a journalist, So having a colleague close to him, would remind him of his days when he used to work for an editorial. Plus, as you say, between the author and Michael, they were lots of things to talk and shared.
Molly said it well and I couldn’t agree more. Michael doesn’t see the journalist as an invader for he has been invited into Michael’s home to be told a story about Michael himself.
Michael is used to the company and the attention. He has a very hospitable nature and sees the journalist as a guest in his house rather than a disturbance.
Michael sees the journalist as a friend, rather than simply a journalist observing his life. There is a bond between the two, especially as they are both of a literary nature. It is also Michael’s character to be welcoming, as the home was designed by Jill was made to be enjoyed be large and hospitable to guests.
he enjoyed the company of the journalist as well.
Michael doesn’t see the journalist as an invader as he said “It’s been arranged for such things.” Michael thought the Pilgrim’s Lane was designed for his guest and for people to create, although the journalist came here to write his personal life, Michael thought that sharing his life with the author had became one part of his daily actives.
Michael doesn’t see this journalist as an invader, because he embraces the company of others and the daily exchange of conversation that comes with it. He views his guests not as a burden, but as a friend who will give him attention and keep him company.
Michael views the journalist as a companion rather than someone that can cause an issue. A common bond is met, which is accommodated by Michael’s welcoming personality.
Michael doesn’t see the journalist as a invader because not only does he understand the journalists position, being a journalist himself. But also Foot has been hospitable to the journalist and views him as someone on the “in”. Or maybe he’s trying to give the perception the journalist is “in” so he writes about him positively.
Michael wouldn’t dare speak ill of the journalist who is writing his biography so as to keep his image clean. That, and he genuinely enjoys the company of a former colleague
In treating people as material, it creates a sort of buffer and detachment for the journalist to be able to report objectively on his subject. It also creates a dilemma because you’re dealing with people, with emotions and opinions. In this case, the dilemma is the perceived indebtedness by accepting Michael’s hospitality, balanced with the need to maintain a sense of independence as the biographer.
In my opinion, I see it the other way, If you treat people as your “material”, you would be able to leave aside any kind of opinion and personal connection and concentrate on your duty as a journalist and biographer.
I agree more with Elvis on this one. The implications of treating people as “material” is to treat them with unbiases and take them for what they truly are rather than what they simply appear to be. Although sometimes it can be difficult to separate the two, in order to write a truthful story, the writer must see them as merely characters in a story, rather than friends.
I think friendships have a better chance of communicating and/or retrieving more information than people regarded as “material.”
It defines the difference between friendship and business. Jill and Michael are not necessarily the journalist’s friends, but his subjects. His stay at the house is not for leisure purposes, but merely for work.
Opposite to treating people as a human being, treating people as “material” indicates that the journalist doesn’t come here to exchange their opinion of certain event or to argue who is right or wrong on something. The journalist is merely recording and describing Michael and Jill.
When you treat someone as “material” you approach things in a strictly professional way leaving all emotional ties or personal feelings about the individual aside.
Treating people as material allows you to be unbiased and removes any emotional or biased ties towards composing a story. This is a difficult transition for many journalists, who can get attached to a particular story or moment.
The implications of treating people as “material” are that you lose your bonds, find yourself detached, and lose the trust of others.
However, if you are able to to do exactly that treat people as “material” you are to become a first-rate journalist. It is a strength to remain objective in this field, unbiased, accurate.
It would take either a very un-compassionate or dedicated to the nth degree journalist to treat people as material ALWAYS therefore theres no such thing as unbiased journalism.
Calling them material voids any future interactions of emotion, allowing you to extract what information you need. But I would be careful not to become so detached that it feels like an interrogation.
This essentially means you had it coming, that it was to be expected. In choosing to accept Michael’s hospitality but still staying true to maintaining that sense of independence as a biographer and journalist to report the truth, you are to be criticized, ready for the backlash from Michael’s close friends when something unfavorable or embarrassing gets published.
It was just an expected reaction
By taking a risk in being so open about Michael’s life, the journalist was expecting to grab people’s attention and knew there would be mixed reviews and opinions.
The journalist knew that by staying true to the portrayal of Michael Foot there would be some sort of backlash against him. He understood this but did not let it get in the way of his work. He stuck true to what he set out to do. And with that nobility, comes consequences. However crude, he stuck by his work.
The journalist recognized that through his accurate representation of Michael he was going to touch certain readers the wrong way and receive adverse reaction from it.
It was a calculated risk that the journalist was confident that some readers would understand his viewpoint. He knew it was going to create conflict, but the story had to be written.
Because you agreed to be so involved in Michael’s life, his inner circle assumed you worshiped the ground he walked on, no matter how candid you were with Tom.
You knew it was eventually going to happen and that it was inevitable
Amour-propre is French, meaning self-love. It means a sense of one’s own worth or self-respect. Journalists are prone to violating their subject’s amour-propre because their job is to dig up dirt on their subject.
turn on you.
With amour-propre meaning self love, journalist are prone to violate that because self love often holds ourselves in the most positive way, and journalist don’t care about how you see yourself. All that matters is the truth(well all that should matter).
Surprising that Foot turned on you as a journalist he should understand the position.
It means how you see yourself, how you interpret your own worth. journalist are prone to go against this because confronting and analyzing the subject is a journalists’ duty.
It means one’s own views on themselves, and letting others define their self esteem. Journalists write about their subject’s from their points of views and not their subject’s, which often means not tip toeing around words in order to protect feelings
Amour Propre means self-image, how one sees themselves versus how the rest of the world may see them and has to do with building one’s self-confidence. Journalists are prone to violating this because their job is to expose the truth and if their subject is hiding behind a made up image (like most of us are) and the writer exposes that, it could make said person feel insecure and question their motives.
Amour-propre is defined as self-love, the way we view ourselves opposed to how everyone around us views us. Journalists tend to violate this because they aren’t afraid to confront the subject in order to seek the truth even if this makes the subject feel awkward and uncomfortable.
The term relates to self worth. How you envision yourself as a person compared to everyone’s else opinion. Journalists don’t consider that in their pieces, as facts and quality information are the most important components to their work.
It’s a French term that translates to “self-love.” Specifically, a sense of self-esteem that’s derived from the opinion of others. Journalists have to uncover the truth with little regard for feelings. Otherwise, their results may be tainted.
After Tom left, Michael said: “I think we did talk possibly about you writing a book about me afterwards.” [CR] Oh yes. [MF] But Francis Wheen is asking whether he can do that. And so … It’s not absolutely definite. But if he’s willing to, I’d be very pleased that he should do that. [CR] He’s a good writer. [MF] Yes, and he’s a very good friend of Jill’s too. He did two books—one on Tom Driberg, a very amusing book and one on Karl Marx. Anyhow, it’s not absolutely sure. But if he does, I’d like to say yes. He’s not covering ... [CR] I’ll tell you how I feel about it. I feel the more books about Michael Foot the better. [MF] Okay. [Michael laughed] [CR] So I think that’s terrific. I think that anyone you think could do a good job should do it. [MF] Well, that’s very good of you. In any case, that’s a nice response. [CR] Let me tell you something, Michael. It never occurred to me—not because it isn’t a good idea—to write a book about you. The idea was always to write a book about Jill. [MF] Right. [CR] And Julie was very keen to nail this down. [MF] Yes. [CR] I think that she’s gotten some enjoyment and benefit out of my doing this book on her mother. [MF] Of course she has. [CR] And I think she wants to keep up the relationship. [MF] That’s right. [CR] And she was saying, “Well, what about Michael?” I said, “Michael Foot is a terrific subject. I certainly would be interested in doing it.” Then she sort of jumped the gun. I know she talked to you about it. My feeling was, I wasn’t going to say anything to you. I was going to do Jill’s book and perhaps do a book about you. But I’m not in any big rush. [MF] Yes. [CR] If Francis Wheen wants to do a book, I think that’s wonderful. [MF] I think so too. I’m very gratified that you should think of it that way. I think your book—as I‘ve said to you, I’m very pleased that you’re doing it and couldn’t be more pleased and I think that Jill would take the same approach I have. But she would also be pleased about Francis Wheen. [CR] Well, he’s here and he knows you. [MF] Of all the letters I got about Jill, Francis Wheen’s was really ... [CR] One of the things I dislike is biographers who try to tie up people’s lives. And I would never do that. [MF] Well, there we are."
I believe your view of a biography is more open, in the sense that the more information there is out there on the subject, the better. It seems that Michael’s view is more exclusive, limited to a few people he approves that are capable and know him enough to write the story.
I agree, the author’s seems to understand the bigger picture. The more people discussing the subject, the more readers engaging and understanding the story behind the man(MF).
I agree, Michael is cautious about who he lets into his life and even more careful with the people he allows to get close
It appears that you reveal more content for readers to understand and digest compared to Michael’s view. Most people would obviously prefer reading a more open-minded approach rather than being attentive. Michael’s perspective is secluded, as only some can resonate with him.
Your view of biography is that more than one person can a write a biography on a target. And having more than one biography doesn’t diminish one or another.
However, Foot’s view is that when he favors someone to write his biography, since he had been encouraging you, thats the only person who should be writing a biography. I think Michael wanted you to fight to be the only one writing about him, therefore “indebting” yourself further to him, if he granted that.
He is very cautious about his legacy and wants his hands steering the ship for his biography. The first thing he says about Francis Wheen after your comment is “Yes, and he’s a very good friend of Jill’s too,” laying his intentions bare for us to see. You wanted the biography to tell the whole story about the man, warts and all.
Benn expressed surprise when I mentioned Jill’s flirtatiousness and the many men who made passes at her while she was married to Michael. Then he said, “Biographies that expose sexual activities are a bit boring. I’m not very much in favour of destroying people retrospectively because of their sexual exploits. For all I know Michael may have had other dalliances, though I never thought so.” I said there had been some. I saw no point in not saying so, since my biography would deal with them. “It’s the story of a wonderful marriage. It had its ups and down.” Boring? Surely Benn meant dealing with the sexual life of politicians was distasteful to him. I decided to describe that long passage in Jill’s book about Elizabeth Garrett’s authorised biographer, who had been enjoined not to write about Garrett’s private life: [CR] And Jill does not agree. We want to know what these people were really like. These were flesh and blood people, not political engines and I want to know what Elizabeth Garrett’s marriage was like, the full flavour of how she came to her ideas. Michael knows my books ... and I told him “You have to be comfortable with this. I probably am going to learn things that disturb you or even embarrass you.” [TB] Well, Michael was so fond of her [Jill] that nothing you wrote would disturb him so long as it was true. [CR] I think that’s right. He said, “It’s your book.” [TB] It’s like a painting. It belongs to the artist, not the subject.
A biography is like a painting in the sense that the painter or biographer portrays the subject the way he sees his subject, through his own interactions and research. The biography belongs to the biographer in the way that a painting belongs to a painter because while the subject is the star of the piece, the subject is not in control. How the painter chooses to paint his subject is at the creative liberty of the artist as he is the creator.
Agree! Also, painting to a painter is rediscovering. Meaning seeing things that you have never seen before. People know about Michael Foot, but when the author created his biography, He rediscover some new pieces of the story already told, while injecting his own sense of interpretation on the work, just like a painter would.
A biography is a written form of art, just like a painting is art. It needs to be thought out and all the colors, or in this case chapters need to blend together to create a cohesive piece which tells a story. A biography is the biographer’s painting, just like his/her pen is the brush.
A biography is like a painting for it is an interpretation of its subject. A biography belongs to a biographer the way a painting belongs to a painter for it is really the biographer’s perception that creates his/her subject’s reality. What the biographer may think is real may not really be the truth for we all create our own understandings of life, how other people are etc. therefore a biography is really just that writer’s point of view and should be read and understood with skeptism at some points or with “a grain of salt” at times.
I think this is a great analogy explaining how a biography is not a work of the subject but a product of the biographer. A painting is an artist’s illustration of his vision, and a biography is just the same. It comes from the perspective of the writer and demonstrates his vision. Surely, every view is subject to criticism, but it also speaks to the things that the writer sees and believes necessary to deliver to his audience.
A biography is just like a painting because a biography seeks to unlock meanings behind the artwork, that may otherwise be shielded from the public spectrum. A biography belongs to a biographer the same way a painting belongs to a painter, in the sense that it takes a lot of blood, sweat, tears and patience to mesh together all the various hues in order to create a masterpiece — similar how a biographer links together all the excerpts, interviews, material he has gathered
When creating a biography, you are telling a realistic story that some could possibly resonate with, depending on the demographic. A biographer is like a painter by being in sole possession of their work. You are in control rather than being constrained by certain boundaries.
Biography is like a non-abstract painting, or maybe even abstract. It takes some real thing, feeling, facts, and gives us a narrative about the target. It paints a picture of the targets life, personality with words.
The biography belongs to the biographer, like a painting of an apple belongs to the painter not the apple he painted. This is so because, he has transformed the object to something tangible and given it a narrative for the reader to possess.
It’s all about shining a light on a perspective others have yet to see. The biographer decides how to craft the narrative surrounding the subject and combines the facts of it with storytelling tools to engage the reader. Much like how painters decide which strokes and colors best illustrate their ideas onto a canvas, biographers must use literary devices to construct their narrative.
A biography is like a painting, because no matter how similar a painter could paint a person’s portrait, it is still that painter’s perspective and creation, not the model.
General Document Comments 0
icons on the left to see existing comments.
0 archived comments