<< 1 >>
Rating: 
Summary: How Not to Write a Biography
Review: I've never read anything from the 'People to Know', series, and if this book is any indication, neither should you. (...). If you wish to write a bad biography, the guide:* Base your work on the officially published and easily reached autobiographies by the subject. Besides a few obvious interviews and a couple of web sites, look no further. Make no attempt to uncover the things the writer of the autobiography tried to hide. * Don't bother with even the most rudimentary of fact checking, so that your work will contain many egregious mistakes. My personal favorites: according to Karen Judson, Asimov made more money writing non fiction than fiction (p. 53), and 'Golden Age' SF was character driven (p.50). Both of these claims are not just false: they're absurd. Asimov wrote more non fiction then fiction because he enjoyed it more, even though he made much less money writing it. The main feature of Golden Age SF was a focus on scientific literacy. SF before the golden age was relatively scientifically inaccurate, and the Golden Age contained many working scientists who wrote more vigorously about science. * Do not look into any of the dark corners of your subject's past. Although Isaac Asimov lived a comfortable bourgeois existence, there are several controversies worth looking into: his conflicts with his superiors in Boston University, his infidelities, his atheism, and the way he treated his eldest son, David. In his writing career, later Asimov seemed to have sold his soul to the industry, allowing his name to be put on dozens of titles on which he did practically zero work (Stuff like: Isaac Asimov presents Superquizs) We now know that Asimov died of AIDS he received from a blood transfer in the early 1980s - all of these deserve discussion, but are hardly even mentioned. * Spend inordinary amount of time on issues of no importance. The author spends the better part of two pages discussion Isaac's World - a largely forgotten shared world anthology in the late 80s, now defunct and forgotten. She spends no less then three pages making dull summaries of books by other authors, who have very little in common besides being influential books on the developing SF scene in the 1930s. It seems like no thought was given as to what is essential and what is peripheral in Asimov's life. Despite being a homebody who lived very ordinary life, Asimov was a fascinating character, brilliant, witty, arrogant and eccentric. As a writer, Asimov revolutionized Science Fiction, and his work has influenced thousands around the world. As a Jewish Liberal and the son of an émigré, Asimov is a representative of a class that had a disproportionate influence on American Life in the 20th century. But you won't know it from reading this book. If you're interested in Isaac Asimov, I recommend reading his memoir, I, Asimov. It is deeper, more reflective, better written, and much, much more interesting.
Rating:
Summary: How Not to Write a Biography
Review: I've never read anything from the 'People to Know', series, and if this book is any indication, neither should you. (...). If you wish to write a bad biography, the guide: * Base your work on the officially published and easily reached autobiographies by the subject. Besides a few obvious interviews and a couple of web sites, look no further. Make no attempt to uncover the things the writer of the autobiography tried to hide. * Don't bother with even the most rudimentary of fact checking, so that your work will contain many egregious mistakes. My personal favorites: according to Karen Judson, Asimov made more money writing non fiction than fiction (p. 53), and 'Golden Age' SF was character driven (p.50). Both of these claims are not just false: they're absurd. Asimov wrote more non fiction then fiction because he enjoyed it more, even though he made much less money writing it. The main feature of Golden Age SF was a focus on scientific literacy. SF before the golden age was relatively scientifically inaccurate, and the Golden Age contained many working scientists who wrote more vigorously about science. * Do not look into any of the dark corners of your subject's past. Although Isaac Asimov lived a comfortable bourgeois existence, there are several controversies worth looking into: his conflicts with his superiors in Boston University, his infidelities, his atheism, and the way he treated his eldest son, David. In his writing career, later Asimov seemed to have sold his soul to the industry, allowing his name to be put on dozens of titles on which he did practically zero work (Stuff like: Isaac Asimov presents Superquizs) We now know that Asimov died of AIDS he received from a blood transfer in the early 1980s - all of these deserve discussion, but are hardly even mentioned. * Spend inordinary amount of time on issues of no importance. The author spends the better part of two pages discussion Isaac's World - a largely forgotten shared world anthology in the late 80s, now defunct and forgotten. She spends no less then three pages making dull summaries of books by other authors, who have very little in common besides being influential books on the developing SF scene in the 1930s. It seems like no thought was given as to what is essential and what is peripheral in Asimov's life. Despite being a homebody who lived very ordinary life, Asimov was a fascinating character, brilliant, witty, arrogant and eccentric. As a writer, Asimov revolutionized Science Fiction, and his work has influenced thousands around the world. As a Jewish Liberal and the son of an émigré, Asimov is a representative of a class that had a disproportionate influence on American Life in the 20th century. But you won't know it from reading this book. If you're interested in Isaac Asimov, I recommend reading his memoir, I, Asimov. It is deeper, more reflective, better written, and much, much more interesting.
<< 1 >>
| 
