UKC

Smug narcissism. Self-indulgent, patronising, revisionist, blinkered claptrap.

There are 4 reasons why biographies get written:
- 1. Someone had (usually) or is having (occasionally) a noteworthy and interesting life, and someone chooses to write about it. There are some excellent biographies of historical figures. Acts of research, scholarship and balance that illuminate both the individual and the context within which they lived. Example: The Brontes. This is ok.
- 2. Someone had (usually) or is having (occasionally) a noteworthy and interesting life and has kept a diary. The diary is not kept with a view to publicaiton, but is later recognised as a significant record of a time or a particular life. Examples: Samuel Pepys, Anne Frank. This is ok.
- 3. Someone is pursuing a cause that is bigger than themselves. They write a book that is more message than biography but is inevitably a self-record. Example: Malala Yousafzai. This is ok.
- 4. Someone has done a couple of films and a TV series and, because they are recognisable, confuses this with an interesting life. Or they have an agent who tells them that some kiss-and-tell will sell. Or they were fleetingly in Government. They then either write an autobiography or have it ghost-written. The motiviation is either money (understandable) or because they feel they can impart wisdom (crass). Examples: most of the best-sellers list. This is NOT ok. This is a travesty.

Category 4 need to realise that their JOB is to act/entertain and this is just a JOB. It doesn't mean that their life is noteworthy.

About 15 years ago I stopped to offer a lift to an old lady, who was waiting in the rain at a bus-stop to go to the funeral of one of her friends. It was about 45 minutes' drive and in that time she explained that she was Russian and that her friend had looked after her during the February revolution. She was sifting her recollections of her life at that time - and I was transfixed.

How come the presses are full of such egotistical, ephemeral shit?




(Yes, I was given a bad Chistmas present)

In reply to JJL:


Because it sells.

In reply to Tall Clare:

C'mon Clare. Rage with me?

In reply to JJL:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

Answers a lot of stuff

In reply to SenzuBean:


*Some* stuff - although cognitive bias may be an effect, rather than a cause, of egotistical behaviour?

I suppose my point reduces to "being on telly doesn't make you special". A more generous (from me) exploration of the point might be: "why is it that we pay attention to the opinions of people whose job it is to be on telly"?

In reply to JJL:



How many _really_ smart people do you see blowing their trumpet? I don't see many (if any). It's always the plonkers who yell the loudest.

I also used to recall that the Greeks (or was it the Romans?) viewed actors as being more like blobs of clay, than worthy of any praise (i.e. the lion's share of the credit should go to the creative team). Unfortunately I can't find this - so it's quite possibly not true, even though it would be great if it was.

In reply to JJL:

I was discussing this situation on holiday with friends last year. Our conclusion seemed to be: nowadays you become famous (usually for doing bugger all eg. being on reality tv), then do something of note. In 'ye olden days', you did something of note and then became famous for that.

In reply to JJL:


I have always believed that the vast majority of people who buy celebrity biographies do so to give them as presents rather than to read themsleves. That's the only reason they sell.

In reply to SenzuBean:

Today, actors, or even worse, TV presenters, sportsmen, and other C list celebs are asked for their opinions on anything from science to politics to economics to football.

I don´t mind hearing an accomplished actor talk about art, or a football player about sports (OK, some football players), but I couldn´t care less about their opinions on global warming. For this I rather ask a climate scientist, thank you very much.

Overall the medieval attitude towards actors was much more healthy: Travelling companies would have to camp and perform outside the village gates, after all they made their money by pretending to be someone they are not.

Extreme, but rather better than today´s idiotic infatuation with "celebrity".

CB

In reply to JJL:
I'm tempted to agree with you, recent low points in my life have included finding autobiographies by Justin Bieber and TOWIE's 'Nanny Pat' in a second hand shop, both of which, for yucks, I idly flicked through.

My inner monologue of rage was that one of them had had a long life, but was so devoid of any interest that it wouldn't merit a daffodil dying never mind a whole tree, the other... it was already second hand and the boy is an infant. I want to read about frogs not tadpoles. Inane vacuous tedious self important ghost written schlock. Repulsed I threw them back on the shelf, like when you pick up a log for the fire and find a huge slug on it.

But.. it's horses for course innit, if some one offered you an advance for your story, 'my life as a UKC occasional poster' AND offered to hand all the actual spelling to some bloke called Ed Reardon you wouldn't turn it down would you. Milk your ephemeral fame while you can cos it's fickle and those Iceland adverts won't keep coming.... 'Turkey dinosaurs 99p.....'

My shelves groan with the life stories of Moffat, Dawes, Hill,Messener, Simpson, Pritchard, Rouse, Bonington etc alongside a dozen WW1 diaries. Most of which will have no interest whatsoever to somebody salivating for the next installment of Katie Prices existence, and who may see the life of someone devoted to mountains as selfish, indulgent and not worth reading about. I suppose to summarise live and let live, you aren't compelled to read anything. Unlike in North Korea where you have to read the autobiographies of the dear leaders and their claims to have written 3000 operas AND invented oxygen.

Edit, ghost written for grammar, punctuation and spelling.

In reply to JJL:

I enjoyed Rod Stewart's autobiography, though it is hardly Samuel Pepys. Sorry.

In reply to DerwentDiluted:

Top ranting skills.

It's half that what gets printed is dreadful, and half the missed opportunity of fascinating lives that don't get recorded.

And half (yes, I know) that someone imagined I'd be remotely interested in the ego bathing of someone who appears to have made no real lasting contribution to the world.

In reply to JJL:

Thanks, you should hear me on my pet subjects.


With you 100% there, the WW1 diaries I referred to, most were published 70+ years after the event, usually by grandchildren finding the diaries, they make harrowing and amazing reading. We, as a culture, revere mediocrity .

In reply to JJL:

Good rant. I believe that Katie Price has produced five volumes of autobiography, which is probably excessive. Then again, I personally wouldn't want to have filled my bookshelves exclusively with climbers' autobiographies. One that I did enjoy was Shane McGowan's "autobiography" (he had quite a bit of help). To some he might not have achieved much more than any other pop star, but it was interesting to read about his life, especially how his early years contributed to what he became.

In reply to DerwentDiluted:


150% surely?

In reply to JJL:

Most of your category 4 autobiographies will be the result of sales and marketing departments of publishing houses looking for quick and easy money. As Clare said, they sell. Few of them will actually be written by their subjects. Sadly, they're a necessary part of the publishing environment, as the profits from these titles will prop up more 'worthy' but less profitable titles.

In reply to JJL: No 4 is a lot like climbers who can get up 9a or E9 doing slideshows and talks. Just because they climb well really doesn't mean they're worth listening to, and mostly they aren't. You have my sympathies.

In reply to Frank the Husky:


And the charity shop has my book.

In "as new" condition.

In reply to JJL:


What was the book?