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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.