Foot 8
0 General Document comments
0 Sentence and Paragraph comments
0 Image and Video comments
"What bed is he in?” Michael asked pointing at me. “Not the same as mine?” “That’s what happens when you have a biographer,” I told Michael. “Same bed.” With our sleeping arrangements, sorted out Michael and I went off to our respective rooms."
Sharing the same bed implies that they are friends and there are no professional boundaries between them. The subject’s and biographer’s relationship is not one that can be affected by feelings or guilt because the biographer’s main job is to tell a truthful story. Guilt and feeling that the biographer owes something to their subject, if they were to become friends would only interfere with that objective.
has been in his bed the entire time.
I agree with your comment, after finding out so much personal information, the journalist and the subject develop a unique relationship. People wouldn’t let just anybody sleep in their bed, but ironically the journalist and reporter are not friends first, but yet there is still an aspect of comfort and trust.
I feel that Foot’s joke reveals that he doesn’t feel comfortable with the biographer getting any closer than he already has. Its one thing to talk to a person, its another to go to bed with them. He may be fearful of perhaps revealing much more than he already planned on.
I agree, but I also feel that at some point in their relashionship, friendship and professionalism can coexist, it’s just a matter of knowing when to draw the line and respect each other.
Right, relationship plays a very important role between the writer and the subject. And once they established a good relationship, the subject will be more relaxed while talk to the writer, which may also have an impact on the authenticity of information
I agree with your point. As the job characteristic of a biographer, he should stay in the third person perspective to write about the subject. Sharing a bed may affect the writer on how the story would go or the truthfulness of the story.
Biographers and subjects cannot share the same bed because the bed is considered an intimate place where secrets and thoughts are shared, especially during the late night hours. If they were to share a bed, the biographer would be crossing a major professional boundary line and may even feel compelled to compose a biased or a more favorable opinion of his subject should his subject unintentionally reveal something too personal and as a follow-up asks to keep it a secret.
To get a more intimate understanding of their subject. Sort of like an “under the cover” view of who that person is. In this way, the biographer can see the naked parts of their subjects and can paint two very different sides.
Sharing a bed has an implication of an very personal and intimate connection, one that crosses the boundaries that should be held between biographers and subjects. Although the biographer’s relationship to the subject comes into play when writing, there is a line to be upheld to keep professionalism. Sharing a bed could implicate a personal connection that might interfere with the honesty of the story.
keep away from the biographer is his sleeping quarters, probably his only private time. the biographer jokes saying that thats what happens when you have a biographer same bed, almost expressing the profoundness of a biographer, i feel that he almost scared Michael, slyly hinting that this biography will get deep.
Because of the different role of each character, biographer and subject cannot share the same bed no matter how close they are in the reality. As the role of a biographer, he should stay in the third person persecution to write the subject; just like the hunter and the deer. Sharing a bed creates a very personal and intimate connection between the two. They can share each’s opinion and might affect other’s thoughts. As a result, it might impact how the story would go or the truthfulness of the story.
I just realized that I used the wrong word. what I meant was the third person perspective.
Sharing a bed can symbolize a personal action, where two people are close to each other and possibly ruin candid information. They made the right decision to avoid making any potential mistake through an intimate setting, despite Michael joking about the situation.
Being in bed together is a reference to the idea of being to intimate. Who shares a bed? Lovers. A kinship to detached, and contradictory to the relationship between biographers and their subjects. They cannot share a bed because there are no boundaries, and would lead to a biography that is as bias as possible.
The biographer and subject cannot share the same bed because it interferes and hinders with a level of professionalism that has been established between the two. Despite their strong relationship, a shared bed is reserved for intimacy which goes beyond the boundary of a close friendship. After-hour conversations, where secrets and true feelings are exchanged in that setting between lovers could alter and jeopardize the accurate portrayal of the subject within the story.
There has to been some professionalism maintained between the biographer and the subject. Without boundaries, neither of them would know where companionship ends and business matters begin.
I said to Michael: "You know the last time I was here I spoke with Tony Benn. I told him I was dealing with all aspects of Jill’s life and I was describing to him the kind of biography I was writing. He said he really wasn’t in favour of saying that much about the private lives of public figures, that he didn’t like gossip in biography. I told him I thought it all had its place—the whole story. People really wanted to know what that person was like and Jill in her own book had said she wished she knew more about the personalities of some of the women she was writing about. He said, “No, I don’t believe you need to know all that much” and he was quite adamant. So then I was reading these obituaries of Barbara Castle and he wrote one ... He mentions you and at the end of the obituary he just throws in a sentence about how you and Barbara were lovers. I was stunned. I was astonished because it seemed gratuitous. I couldn’t see why he had put that in after he had given me this lecture. How can you just throw it into an obituary? “First time I’ve heard of it, actually,” Michael said. “I’ll send you a copy,” I said. Benn had coupled a comment about how Michael had not supported Barbara on a particular issue with the fact that they had been lovers. Michael simply would not engage in a discussion of Benn on this point.
Benn’s actions are hypocritical, and a bit egotistical in the sense that he feels he’s allowed to expose public figures in his writings but biographers are not allowed to represent the truth. It’s also disrespectful to start gossip and talk ill about the recently deceased. Michael does not want his words to incriminate him.
Perhaps Michael was simply not phased by Benn’s comments. Barbara Castle’s obituary may have been hypocritical, but there is little for Michael to benefit from elaborating on Benn’s writing.
I agree with your comment, Michael is not going to dwell on what people who do not know him very well, say about him. If public figures would read and pay attention to every little negative thing the media and society said about them, they probably wouldn’t want to leave the house.
I agree with Lynette that Benn’s actions are hypocritical. If anything, I believe a biographer should have the right to expose someone’s secrets given that he has been given the authority to by the subject himself. I suppose Michael Foot does not deal with it because whether or not it is true, it is not worth dealing with at this point given the woman is deceased for, should he fight against it, spectation will arise and what good does that bring him?
i feel that michael might have known more about the subject, but decided to refrain
Ben is acting very deceiving in the sense that he is opposed to gossip within a biography, yet feels the need the gossip about the recently deceased. Michael I believe is taking the high road by not commenting on Benn’s actions, but it seems like he wants to defend her (since she obviously cant defend herself) regardless of the validity or falsity of Benn’s statements about her.
I’m not sure if Michael is defending Barbara. He might just not feel the need to carry on the conversation since he has no recourse against Tony. Sue him for libel, maybe, but I doubt he wants to bring attention to this slanderous material
At breakfast, Michael told me about “a rather anguished letter,” he had recently received. He had written an obituary of Barbara Castle in which he referred to an affair she had with William Mellor, Tribune’s first editor. “My first job was also with him and so that’s when we’d known each other.” Michael described the Castle/ Mellor liaison as lasting a decade, until he died in 1943. One of Mellor’s sons had written to Michael to say, “We’re rather surprised because we thought the affair was less lengthy.” Apparently the son saw Michael’s view of it as an insult to his mother. To me, Michael’s comment only illustrated how impossible it is to write any sort of honest biography without offending someone. Michael’s response was merely to reply to the chap that they must meet sometime and talk about it.
Someone is bound to take offense when the truth is involved; secrets might be revealed and a lot of names might get brought up. It’s difficult to please everyone when there are multiple participants in the biographer’s scope.
It is simply impossible to reveal truth without offending people. There are many perspectives to please and when one’s intent to be honest, there are sure to be people who might disagree or be unaware. A biographer’s job is to bring forward aspects of a subject’s life that may not be commonly seen and these details are often hidden for a reason.
I completely agree with Ayannah on her statement that if the biographer hasn’t stepped on a few toes, he is clearly not doing a good job. In a way, I feel that if the biographer has contributed to such an action, that means he has done his audience a favor for we all sometimes need to be reminded that golden figures are people too; they think, act and feel like we normal people do. Although we hope for the best, we are met with the worst but the worst is what can bring out our best.
You bring up an interesting point, often journalism requires risk taking, and dealing with the consequences later on. If a journalist is afraid of taking that leap then they will not uncover anything, only reiterate what the public already knows about that individual.
I agree with you that sometime people are unwilling to hear the truth. Especially when the biographer brought out something that the subject isn’t really want people to know about. Because of the special job characteristic of a biographer, he can’t really ask whether the subject will be okay with what he’s going to write about. Therefore, it is unlikely for the biographer to avoid offending someone when he or she wants to tell the truth.
As a biographer, one has taken the responsibility upon herself/himself to tell a truthful and honest story. As much as we’d all like to believe every person, specifically public figures, have good intentions, have never done wrong by anyone, have a heart of gold, etc. most of the time, there are deeper, darker feelings hidden within, exposing the sinner part of a person. People want to believe in good but are consistently met with bad therefore, when a biographer writes a story about the “other side”, people don’t want to believe it, therefore criticize it.
the biographer is simply trying to get the true story and it is not all about the glory moments
I think it is because there might be a chance that the biographer misunderstood the truth or exposure something which the subject kept as secret.
The truth can be a dirty discovery that will haunt someone forever. It also could change someone’s career from wanting to be allies with everyone to criticizing the wrong person and damaging your career. From reading the paragraph, the biographer is carefully making decisions on what to write.
He needed to take consideration into what readers want to read as well. It’s a tricky situation, where you need to judge what information needs to be revealed. That could possibly define Michael’s reputation.
It is so hard for the biographer to avoid offense, because no matter what there is someone who holds a stake in the subjects image. In this case, the son of a subject. When someone isn’t depicted holy as day, grander than grandiose, and better than the best then people with stakes have a problem.
It is difficult for Michael to avoid offense because of the conflicting viewpoints of the subject from all that are involved. Not everyone is going to like or approve of the truth being revealed — including negative aspects of the subjects life, but Michael wants to be as honest as possible so it presumed to come with potential backlash.
When there are two or more pieces of the story arguing over the facts of a matter, one side is bound to get burned by the truth. Biographers/Journalists must remain steadfast in the face of scrutiny so as to honor the truth
We then had one of our periodic discussions about the nature of biography. I had been reading Montaigne. I told him how struck I was by this passage: “I have a singular curiosity to pry into the souls and the natural and true opinions of the authors with whom I converse.” Montaigne, I added, would much rather learn about what Brutus said in his tent the night before a battle than about the speech the hero delivered the next day for public consumption. Montaigne enjoyed reading about the private lives, the failings, the little quirks of great men. This relish for intimacy appealed to me, I said, because “contemporary critics of biography are so often suggesting that when you write about what seem to be trivial or minor incidents there is no point to that, when in fact they often do reveal personality. Montaigne understood that much better than critics do today.” “Yes, you bet,” Michael agreed, “You’d have to knock out a lot of Montaigne if he couldn’t do that. Perfectly true, Carl. People say you mustn’t put any of this stuff [the “minute particulars” Johnson insisted on]. You must use your own judgment.”
The details are what make every story more interesting and often they highlight and/or support the truth. People are more interested in what happens behind the scenes of a public figure’s life, rather than in the spotlight. Just how a secret romance is always juicer than a known one.
The cliche “the romance is in the details” serves to highlight how the details are potentially more important than the overarching story itself. The readers are more interested in the how and the why, rather than the what. It’s the little things, the details, that no one knows, that makes the story interesting and more intimate to the reader.
The cliche emphasizes Montaigne’s favor for details, expressing that it is these details that truly make a story interesting. Especially for well-known stories, the plot is already a given, but it is the details and intricacies of the individuals behind the story that provide character. For a biographer, his job is to focus on these details. The subjects themselves are already well-known, so readers are interested in the details behind the famous figures that make them more real.
I think that the subjects that are less famous are sometimes even more incredible reads given that there may not be as much of a general accepted perception of that person. Its easy to argue with someone against a popular figure given the perception one has drawn for himself or herself based on news, articles etc.. Its another to discover someone completely new and judge them solely on what you’ve read about them in their book.
In today’s world, it feels like everything needs to be summarized or needs to “get to the point”. The focus is to highlight the big things when in fact the big things would have never become big had there not been small details in between. These small details are crucial to understanding the reasoning behind consequential life-changing events. And it just tells a better story. Some of the greatest stories are the ones with the richest detail and take pride in that detail. At one time, it was respected. Now its considered a nuisance. Had it not been for those small details, we would always be left wondering why?
I agree with your views on what society wants and doesn’t want to hear. Often the small things go unnoticed, when realistically every story is nothing without the most minor of details; take them out and all you have left is a grocery list.
The cliche is based on discovery details that hold strong merit to a story. Readers obviously want to be interested or informed by any story. Realizing substantial information of why something occurred is most important from this cliche.
What we fall in love with as readers is not the gist of the story, or the big pictures. But the tiny details that make it complete, that make it real. In the example given about Brutus, its not about what he said to the public, its about how he arrived there the night before. Its about what emotions he went through, what things he thought and said before it was cleaned up for public consumption.
The cliche “the romance is in the details”, reveals the amount of curiosity that readers have in wanting to go in-depth and behind the scenes to find the true meaning behind a subject’s decision making process to reach their current state. Details in a story are what peak the interest of readers and provide them with information to unanswered questions about the subject.
Anyone can spit out/absorb a headline in order to get the gist of the story. The meaty core, the juicy narrative, the insightful commentary, those are what intoxicates the reader. What may seem like a page-filler is what fleshes out the story.
I did not tape the last face-to-face meeting about the biography. Going in I knew how fraught it would be and somehow I thought the tape recorder would add to the tension. Instead, as soon as I arrived at Philadelphia airport, I asked my wife, Lisa Paddock, to drive home so that I could recount into my tape recorder how I had seen Michael unravel. This was vital since so much of the account I had established had been formed of testimonials, that failing to add my own of this pivotal moment would have served as an injustice to the uncensored portrayal of the private man I had been striving to present.
The tape recorder adds tension because it depicts that there is a lack of trust in their relationship. The recorder is an evidence keeper, and without it there is no actual proof that Michael said something and that the biographer didn’t just make it up.
I agree with Lynette in the fact that the presence of a tape recorder shows a lack of trust. It physically and figuratively sits between the interviewer and interviewee and people tend to be more cautious of what they say when they know that they’re being recorded. However, when there’s no recorder present, it becomes hard to remember every aspect of the interview with the degree of accuracy that a journalist would hope for.
I agree with Molly and Lynette. A tape recorder adds to the tension because every single word the subject says, to the T, is on tape and cannot be disputed.
When a biographer is taking notes,its easy to miss essential details while trying to take down others.
If there is no recorder present, there is no way to verify the truth 100%. So, whatever was spoken about is assumed true within the writing of the biography.
away from the authenticity of an interview.
i agree with you
I agree with your point. From a subject’s perspective, the recorder is a symbol of future evidence that is a lot harder to dispute then a reporter’s notes. Notes are taken by another person, and there is always a chance of human error, because the spoken words can be written as the journalist’s own interpretation rather then what the subject actually meant. That is easier to argue against then a recording.
once there is no recorder, there is comfort between the biographer and the subject. it becomes more intimate and natural
yes, very true.
A tape recorder shows no faith between the interviewer and interviewee. They will choose their words wisely knowing what can be documented. That being said, a recorder is useful to track the entire conversation and makes transcribing far easier. You need to make a decision on what you value more. Are you dependent of a recorder or more willing to let the other person speak in an unfiltered manner that you can comprehend?
A tape recorder does provide a credible source of information. It helps both parties, which can’t be discounted either.
The tape recorder adds to tension because whatever is said is clearly on the record, and the writer doesn’t have to recollect what thing was said, but its all there on tape. When theres no recorder present Foots guard falls and leads to him being more relaxed, more likely to let his real self be shown.
The tape recorder creates tension because while it provides the biographer with a useful reference to gather and replay a subject’s statements, it also an unauthentic conversation where the subject mind be extra careful and reserved in what he chooses to reveal since everything is on the record and none of the subject’s statements can slip through the cracks and go unnoticed.
Having a tape recorder present may make the subject more cautious or hesitant because there’s a sense of permanence to their words now. Without a recorder, the subject might suggests some edits to their dialogue to sway the final product in their favor.
General Document Comments 0
icons on the left to see existing comments.
0 archived comments