> Which means MacDonald probably was inspired -- to
imagine and write
> about lives and lifestyles he didn't live himself.
It's just that the
> new bio apparently (I haven't read it, I'm just
basing this on what
> you guys said) fails to tell us what that
inspiration was. Perhaps it
> was only the next pay cheque, perhaps there was no
deeper "there"
> there. In which case, is it the bio or the life
that's disappointing?
The other Macdonald, Ross, also had a nice biography out
recently, by Tom Dolan. John D. pops up several times because
he didn't like the close call on names, and he didn't like
Ross using any colors in his titles.
I was interested in the Ross bio because I'm always curious
as to how writers start their publishing careers and how it
develops from there. Luckily, Ross was also weird enough with
a weird enough wife to be interesting for 300 pages. I mean
weird in the good way. It was really almost a dual biography
because of Margaret--their lives, both everyday and literary,
were tied so closely together.
As far as "exciting" lives, I don't know. I read the Edgar
Rice Burroughs bio recently, all the swashbuckling going on
there, and thought, "So What?" But the Ross Mac bio kept me
reading all day. A good biographer can make any life seem
interesting. Something I've heard about the A&E Biography
show and VH1's Behind The Music: no matter who's on, they
make it interesting to watch.
Neil Smith
-- # To unsubscribe from the regular list, say "unsubscribe rara-avis" to # majordomo@icomm.ca. This will not work for the digest version. # The web pages for the list are at http://www.miskatonic.org/rara-avis/ .
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 18 Sep 2000 EDT