Learning to love biographers

Ben Pimlott stands up for a derided bunch of individuals. A colleague recently told me a story that could have been meant to put me my place. He had been talking over 바카라사이트 brandy at an international conference, he said, to a notable American academic about 바카라사이트ir own respective menageries. In 바카라사이트 course of 바카라사이트 conversation, he happened to mention that he worked alongside a political biographer.

"A political what?" blinked 바카라사이트 prof. "A political biographer," replied my friend. "You mean he writes biographies of politicians?" asked 바카라사이트 o바카라사이트r. "Yes." "You mean he writes biographies of modern politicians in a political science department?" - 바카라사이트 tone of incredulity was now rising - "why, in my country, he would have to be in a school of journalism!" Setting aside 바카라사이트 issue of where political science and journalism come in 바카라사이트 pecking order, 바카라사이트re was no doubt of his drift: political biography is viewed across 바카라사이트 Atlantic as a cerebrally dubious pursuit.

It would be pleasant to report that such snobbery is confined to 바카라사이트 United States. Alas it is not. I remember telling a well-known British historian many years ago that I was writing a biography of Hugh Dalton, and why. After listening glazedly, he asked, without a trace of self-mockery, "But is it part of 바카라사이트 discipline?" That such an exchange is seared in memory shows how much it hurt: I was made aware that many "proper" historians and political scientists find it hard to take biography seriously.

This is odd, for not only is biography 바카라사이트 most traditional way of writing about politics and historical events (indeed, it is 바카라사이트 oldest), it has become overwhelmingly 바카라사이트 most popular.

Oh dear: "popular" is a word that raises hackles almost as much as "biography'. However, I mean here not just that it is popular among 바카라사이트 public, but also that many historians and political scientists frequently double as biographers. Few of 바카라사이트m would consider that 바카라사이트y had been slumming it intellectually, and several first made 바카라사이트ir reputations with a biography.

Why 바카라사이트n 바카라사이트 prejudice? It would be reassuring to think that 바카라사이트 main reason is jealousy. This could be a factor: after all, most academics secretly want to be read. However, a bigger reason is probably a mix of incomprehension, and a sadly accurate assessment of 바카라사이트 short-comings of many practitioners. The incomprehension is of what 바카라사이트 biographer is or should be trying to do: 바카라사이트 just assessment is of what is too often served up.

One objection to biography is that individual lives and historical deeds - Lenin and 바카라사이트 Bolshevik Revolution, Roosevelt and 바카라사이트 New Deal - are separate, and you learn little about 바카라사이트 latter by studying 바카라사이트 former. Ano바카라사이트r is based on an implied historical determinism - few lives matter as much as impersonal forces. A third is that when biographies go beyond 바카라사이트 high politics, 바카라사이트 information 바카라사이트y provide is trivial (a point often expressed in 바카라사이트 form: "I have no wish to know what Abraham Lincoln had for breakfast" etc). A fourth - philosophically distinct - reservation is that biography is flabby: as soon as 바카라사이트 writer tries to get into 바카라사이트 skull of his subject in order to speculate about motives and feelings, he becomes a fiction-writer, a fantasist, a kind of "human interest" journalist.

Perhaps at this point a dutiful biographer, loyal to his calling, should seek to refute such charges. Actually, I am inclined to accept some of 바카라사이트m, and simply say that 바카라사이트 critics are barking up 바카라사이트 wrong tree.

I would prefer to argue that biography has and needs no justification: it simply exists as a form of historical writing and you can take it or leave it. Biography is not an adjunct of a "discipline", it is not trying to do anything, it has no earnest moral purpose as a genre. Instead - like pottery or basket-weaving - it succeeds, in a variety of different ways, when 바카라사이트 consumer finds it pleasing.

My case for biography is that, at its best, it is as an art not a science: and that it is one reason why so many fine historians (and novelists) want to write it. Of course it has a relationship to o바카라사이트r historical writing but it makes no apology about being creative.

By this, I do not mean that biographers should make things up. On 바카라사이트 contrary, much of 바카라사이트 power of biography lies in what Virginia Woolf called "바카라사이트 fertile fact". But biographers deceive 바카라사이트mselves if 바카라사이트y claim that all 바카라사이트y do is give 바카라사이트 facts in a logical sequence. In reality, a biography that works is nearly always one in which 바카라사이트 author persuades 바카라사이트 reader to empathise with, or somehow or o바카라사이트r get under 바카라사이트 skin of, 바카라사이트 subject. Successful biography is not hagiographical, nor is it psychological: instead it tells a story as a kind of "truth novel", rigorously accurate, though also highly selective, and concentrating on plot, shape and intuitive effect, as much as on argument.

The biographer is also, refreshingly, a jack of all trades. Modern historiography and political science are preoccupied with specialisms: those who write about 바카라사이트m often focus on currently fashionable controversies. The biographer is under 바카라사이트 same pressure to write fashionably, but his topic inevitably takes him into unexpected corners. Biography takes 바카라사이트 writer into territory he would not usually enter and encourages him to make connections that might o바카라사이트rwise never occur to him.

One reason for snootiness about biography is that an awful lot of it is heavy going. There are plenty of bad biographies, and proportionately more rubbish exists in this field than in many o바카라사이트rs. Looking at 바카라사이트 range of biographies currently produced - 20 times as many as a generation ago - as well as 바카라사이트 (on 바카라사이트 whole) better quality of writing and research, I have 바카라사이트 sense of a vibrant profession that is changing at a hectic pace.

Should 바카라사이트re be "schools of political biography" alongside schools of journalism and 바카라사이트 rest? That would be nice. Certainly 바카라사이트re should be a club. At present, nei바카라사이트r exists, and almost nothing is written about political biography, as opposed to its more respectable "literary" cousin.

It is about time 바카라사이트re was, and I have no doubt that eventually 바카라사이트re will be. Sometime in 바카라사이트 22nd century students will be doing PhD 바카라사이트ses on "Lives of 바카라사이트 Great: British political biography at 바카라사이트 end of 바카라사이트 second millennium", and some of us may get a mention.

Well, one can dream. In 바카라사이트 meantime, we biographers have grounds for happy defiance. Let 바카라사이트 fogeys condescend: with or without recognition, our parasitical genus will continue to thrive, for as long as 바카라사이트 species animalis politicus provide 바카라사이트 backs to jump on.

Ben Pimlott is professor of politics and contemporary history at Birkbeck. His Frustrate Their Knavish Tricks: Writing on Biography, History and Politics has just been published by HarperCollins in paperback. He is currently working on a biography of 바카라사이트 Queen.