![]() The position is more ambiguous if a biography is being written with the consent of the subject and even more so when the subject co-operates with the biographer. ![]() Even an unauthorised biographer is inhibited by the law of libel. Undertaking a life of a living person is always a compromise. John Le Carré, leafing through the manuscript for his novel ‘A Perfect Spy’, 1985 He didn’t seem to consider whether Jane might mind. ![]() “I don’t mind what you write about me after I’m dead,” David said to me. ![]() Only a hard-hearted biographer would consciously cause distress to someone who had welcomed him into her home, poured him drinks and cooked him meals. In writing my life of John le Carré, whose real name was David Cornwell, I was mindful of the effect of my words on his long-suffering wife, Valérie (known as Jane). Is it right to expose the private life of an individual to general scrutiny while they are still alive? A public person may be reconciled to a concomitant loss of privacy but even if they are, their spouse or partner may not be. Nothing should be hidden from posterity.īiography of a living subject presents a further level of difficulty. A consensus emerged that it was not only legitimate but necessary for biographers to pry into the private life of their subjects. But in the 1960s it began to be possible to write frankly about sexual behaviour. Until a generation ago, respectable biographers left the bedroom door unopened.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |