I’ve started writing a new biography but I still have some doubts, so I’m not ready to announce it yet. But I’ve re-read Nigel Hamilton’s How To Do Biography: A Primer (2008) as part of my process. I first read it just as I began writing the Katharine Prichard biography and it’s been a great refresher a decade later. One of the joys of this book is his dedication to the art of biography and his strong rebuttal of the criticisms which are made of the genre. There’s a sense of having a well-armed ally on my side.
When I reveal my new subject, a common response will be that there’s already so many books about X. I take it as a sign of Australia’s immaturity – and size, admittedly – that a major figure can have only one thorough (and problematic) cradle-to-grave biography (along with other books about them) and be seen as ‘done’. Hamilton reminds us of how very differently biographers will approach the same subject and the very different portraits which will emerge. He took on JFK and Bill Clinton, among others.
Hamilton’s book follows the process of writing a biography sequentially – even though it’s never as neat as this – from selecting a subject, defining your approach, research, and following your subject through the stages of their life. He gives lots of examples from good biographies illustrating successful approaches.
Some quotes:
‘Above all, [good biographers] question fact, they play with fact – appreciating that play is something which, far from being absent from biography, is the privilege of biographers: their poetic licence, so to speak.’ (147)
[This is something which has rung so true for me. Sometimes it’s important to leave in the uncertainties, the conflicts between different accounts. It’s part of the complexity of telling someone’s life and makes it more interesting.]
‘Those biographers who cut the corners, and attempt thereby to go straight to the meat of the human drama, seldom succeed in the long run, for the trust you must build up with your reader has to be based upon gradual, painstaking detail that establishes your bona fides.’ (189)
[He was making a slightly different point, but this spoke to me about the patience required. I was having a boring time slogging through Trove for my new book, and I wanted to rush to get some words on the page. But I was reminded that the interesting stuff is always hard won. Usually from lots of boring slog. And events are least interesting as a writer (and for the reader) when the writer is not fully across the context and are trying to wing it.]
‘Total immersion, dogged research, hard work, skilful narrative, deep respect for the task, illumination of the themes tackled, compassion for the human dimension of history and achievement: these are the qualities you need.’ (197)
[Hamilton highlights these as the qualities a biographer needs rather than a background in the occupation one is writing about – hence politicians don’t usually write the best political biographies. But do political historians write the best political biographies? Well, not in every case.]
Lisa Hill said:
Oh, this is so true, look at the recent example of two biographies coming out about Frank Moorhouse within weeks of each other. I’ve read one, and have the other to start soon. But already I know that they are vastly different.
And it’s probably even more true as years go by, especially when there’s an authorised biography with all its compromises, and a later one when the biographer can access material not available when the person was alive, and can interview people more willing to talk about what they know. (I’m thinking of a bio about an artist that I read, and I had questions about some of it which clearly the biographer hadn’t canvassed with the subject for whatever reason.)
Anyway, press on, I am deeply curious of course about who your new subject might be!
LikeLike
Nathan Hobby said:
Thank you Lisa. I will be interested in your thoughts on the two Moorhouse biographies. I thought it was a good moment in Australian biography that both were published! (We had 2 or was it even 3 Christina Steads published in a short period years ago.) I will send you a message about my subject later!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Lisa Hill said:
My lips are sealed!
LikeLike
GABRIELLA Marie KELLY-DAVIES said:
HI Nathan
Yes Nigel’s book is excellent. I mention him in my article published in the Aust. J. Biography and History this week: How does on choose narrative strategy. Once biographer’s experience: – Australian Journal of Biography and History: No. 8, 2024 – ANU
I welcome your thoughts on the article.
Warmest wishes
Gabriella
LikeLike
Nathan Hobby said:
Oh, excellent, there’s a new issue of AJBH out! And congratulations on your article – I look forward to reading it.
LikeLike
gabriella851732f0f0 said:
thanks so much Nathan
LikeLike
lizzieb64 said:
how incredibly exciting. Can’t wait to hear this news!! As someone who eats literary biographies for breakfast, I say we cannot have too many takes on important figures. I loved many things about Red Witch, but one that can rarely be attributed is the detail and nuance around the writing process. I just read a large biography of a significant Australian novelist, and while I enjoyed it and learned a lot, it had almost nothing about the writing process, but the writer did talk about her process extensively in letters. All the more reason to have multiples. Bring it on ;-)
LikeLiked by 1 person
Nathan Hobby said:
Thank you, Lizzie – I’m glad you think so about multiple biographies. And I’m so pleased you thought I got the writing process right – it’s something which matters to me as a reader and seems so crucial for a literary biography.
LikeLike
Denise Faithfull said:
Great news, Nathan! I agree with all that’s been noted above about how a (famous) subject deserves several biographies. I’ve lost count of the number of biographies/biographical texts I’ve read about James Joyce and I always learn something new. Press on!! Denise
LikeLike