Why I wrote a traditional biography
First-person writers make a distinction between "autobiography" (which covers a person's entire life) and "memoir" (which covers a particular dramatic episode). I'd like to make a similar distinction for third-person. Traditional biography covers a person's entire life and thus ends with a death. But an increasingly popular format these days is more akin to a "biographical episode."
That format's appeal is now obvious to me. It better fits with the strict definition of narrative that makes for powerful storytelling. You still focus on a person -- but you have far more structural freedom to choose a complication and resolution. The research is also far easier. If I write another biography-style book, it will probably be in this format.
But having completed one, I do want to add a few words in defense of the "traditional biography" format. First, it has a long history and great popularity with audiences. As all of us get older, especially, I think we enjoy contemplating how other people have lived their lives in their entirety, not merely at key junctures. (In a sense, the complication for any biography is: You are born and have to figure out how to lead your life. The ultimate resolution comes only when you die and no longer face that challenge.)
Second, the additional research required can help you develop new insights into motivations. Third, it's better suited to the non-celebrity. Take a dramatic, pivotal episode with far-reaching implications in the life of somebody that nobody has ever heard of. Might be a great book, but would it sell? How do you get someone to pick it off a bookstore shelf? On the other hand, a full-blown biography of that individual, while still not a bestseller, at least would be a recognized contribution to culture and academia. It might even raise its subject's profile enough that a subsequent author could profitably focus on the dramatic episode.
Indeed, I worry that in today's book marketplace the bio-episode format (like the memoir format) seems to be increasingly dominated by famous people. Floods of books provide great detail on particular junctures in the lives of Darwin, Lincoln, and Churchill. It's as if the market is dictating an ever-narrowing cast of characters through which our society must view its history. And one reason I wrote The Cowboy Girl is that -- for the American West at least -- that trend is damaging us.
For 20 years historians have been pointing out that our view of Western history is illogically white-male-centric. Plenty of women, Hispanics, Chinese, Native Americans, and others lived on the frontier, but we know the history only through Lewis & Clark, Custer, and Buffalo Bill.
In response to the critique, some writers have tried to elevate minority characters in those sagas, such as Sacagewea -- but these minor players can never act like the full heroes of the old-fashioned history. You can show a heroic moment for Sacajewea, but it's always going to be overshadowed by the scale and drama of the men leading her expedition. If we're to accurately depict the genuine panoply of heroes of that time, we need not new perspectives on the old characters, but previously overlooked stories that allow new heroes.
By the way, I use "heroes" here not in the sense of "admirable people" but in the looser sense of larger-than-life characters taking bold actions. You can like Custer or hate him, but he's the lens for a great deal of Western historical discussion. In my most ambitious moments, I'd like to see Lockhart serve a similar role. Some people like her and some hate her, but she confronted the barriers of gender, landscape, and progress in big bold ways. And in order to fully depict the larger-than-life-ness of her character, I needed to write the full-blown biography.
I'm always interested in feedback, via the comments below or info at johnclaytonbooks dot com
That format's appeal is now obvious to me. It better fits with the strict definition of narrative that makes for powerful storytelling. You still focus on a person -- but you have far more structural freedom to choose a complication and resolution. The research is also far easier. If I write another biography-style book, it will probably be in this format.
But having completed one, I do want to add a few words in defense of the "traditional biography" format. First, it has a long history and great popularity with audiences. As all of us get older, especially, I think we enjoy contemplating how other people have lived their lives in their entirety, not merely at key junctures. (In a sense, the complication for any biography is: You are born and have to figure out how to lead your life. The ultimate resolution comes only when you die and no longer face that challenge.)
Second, the additional research required can help you develop new insights into motivations. Third, it's better suited to the non-celebrity. Take a dramatic, pivotal episode with far-reaching implications in the life of somebody that nobody has ever heard of. Might be a great book, but would it sell? How do you get someone to pick it off a bookstore shelf? On the other hand, a full-blown biography of that individual, while still not a bestseller, at least would be a recognized contribution to culture and academia. It might even raise its subject's profile enough that a subsequent author could profitably focus on the dramatic episode.
Indeed, I worry that in today's book marketplace the bio-episode format (like the memoir format) seems to be increasingly dominated by famous people. Floods of books provide great detail on particular junctures in the lives of Darwin, Lincoln, and Churchill. It's as if the market is dictating an ever-narrowing cast of characters through which our society must view its history. And one reason I wrote The Cowboy Girl is that -- for the American West at least -- that trend is damaging us.
For 20 years historians have been pointing out that our view of Western history is illogically white-male-centric. Plenty of women, Hispanics, Chinese, Native Americans, and others lived on the frontier, but we know the history only through Lewis & Clark, Custer, and Buffalo Bill.
In response to the critique, some writers have tried to elevate minority characters in those sagas, such as Sacagewea -- but these minor players can never act like the full heroes of the old-fashioned history. You can show a heroic moment for Sacajewea, but it's always going to be overshadowed by the scale and drama of the men leading her expedition. If we're to accurately depict the genuine panoply of heroes of that time, we need not new perspectives on the old characters, but previously overlooked stories that allow new heroes.
By the way, I use "heroes" here not in the sense of "admirable people" but in the looser sense of larger-than-life characters taking bold actions. You can like Custer or hate him, but he's the lens for a great deal of Western historical discussion. In my most ambitious moments, I'd like to see Lockhart serve a similar role. Some people like her and some hate her, but she confronted the barriers of gender, landscape, and progress in big bold ways. And in order to fully depict the larger-than-life-ness of her character, I needed to write the full-blown biography.
I'm always interested in feedback, via the comments below or info at johnclaytonbooks dot com
