J-Sun
⚡
- Joined
- Oct 23, 2008
- Messages
- 5,324
SF Signal: MIND MELD: Biographies we would like to see published.
I'm not a huge biography reader, but this question interested me and I thought it might interest others. I, myself, would stick to deceased authors for book-length single-subject bios, though I agree with Gordon Van Gelder that I'd like to see a new Dream Makers-type book/series and with Farah Mendlesohn that I'd be very interested in the affinity group treatments, as well. For instance, Fletcher Pratt and his Ipsy-Wipsy Institute that Fred Pohl has described seems to beg a fuller treatment. And, speaking of Pohl, he just blogged a bit of Laumer and it seems he's a possibly historically misunderstood writer who could use a full and balanced discussion. Or maybe not - that's just it: I don't really know.
As many people indicate, it's tricky to know who would really merit a full-length biography because the greatest authors can have boring lives and the worst can be fascinating, so you never know. But the hypothetical biographer could make it at least partly a lit-crit bio or something to help compensate if necessary. I certainly wouldn't want to read a bio that ignored the writing.
In terms of importance to the field and a nexus of history such that you could talk about whole clusters of writers, I can't believe John W. Campbell, Jr. doesn't have a full-length bio. Maybe he does but I'm not aware of one for him or any of the authors that occurred to me and that I'll mention. There are lots of letters and editorials and other non-fiction books but not a bio, I don't think.
A.E. van Vogt seems like a fascinating personality who, again, was huge in the field and interacted with a lot of important people and events.
Algis Budrys had an interesting background and some interesting experiences. He also had interesting working methods and did a lot outside the field, as well.
And all three figures are - to greater or much lesser degrees - kind of tangled up in the scientology mess so it would be interesting to get a hopefully scholarly clarification on that.
It seems like Lester (and Judy-Lynn) del Rey would merit one. I've read del Rey's book on SF and it seems turnabout would be fair play. He was a fairly big deal as a writer and both were an even bigger deal as editors.
Fritz Leiber grew up in the stage world and had multi-faceted interests and personal idiosyncrasies and issues that, properly handled, could make for an interesting bio.
Theodore Sturgeon also had varied experiences and problems and degrees of productivities and produced some fascinating work, so digging into the roots of that could be interesting and informative.
Robert L. Forward was a full-tilt scientist and I'd like a comprehensive treatment of just what all ideas he had and work he accomplished. The more I learn about him, the more there seems to be to learn.
I think if I had to pick just one, the one most-missing seems to be Campbell but, after that, I might actually most want to read the Forward.
I'm not a huge biography reader, but this question interested me and I thought it might interest others. I, myself, would stick to deceased authors for book-length single-subject bios, though I agree with Gordon Van Gelder that I'd like to see a new Dream Makers-type book/series and with Farah Mendlesohn that I'd be very interested in the affinity group treatments, as well. For instance, Fletcher Pratt and his Ipsy-Wipsy Institute that Fred Pohl has described seems to beg a fuller treatment. And, speaking of Pohl, he just blogged a bit of Laumer and it seems he's a possibly historically misunderstood writer who could use a full and balanced discussion. Or maybe not - that's just it: I don't really know.
As many people indicate, it's tricky to know who would really merit a full-length biography because the greatest authors can have boring lives and the worst can be fascinating, so you never know. But the hypothetical biographer could make it at least partly a lit-crit bio or something to help compensate if necessary. I certainly wouldn't want to read a bio that ignored the writing.
In terms of importance to the field and a nexus of history such that you could talk about whole clusters of writers, I can't believe John W. Campbell, Jr. doesn't have a full-length bio. Maybe he does but I'm not aware of one for him or any of the authors that occurred to me and that I'll mention. There are lots of letters and editorials and other non-fiction books but not a bio, I don't think.
A.E. van Vogt seems like a fascinating personality who, again, was huge in the field and interacted with a lot of important people and events.
Algis Budrys had an interesting background and some interesting experiences. He also had interesting working methods and did a lot outside the field, as well.
And all three figures are - to greater or much lesser degrees - kind of tangled up in the scientology mess so it would be interesting to get a hopefully scholarly clarification on that.
It seems like Lester (and Judy-Lynn) del Rey would merit one. I've read del Rey's book on SF and it seems turnabout would be fair play. He was a fairly big deal as a writer and both were an even bigger deal as editors.
Fritz Leiber grew up in the stage world and had multi-faceted interests and personal idiosyncrasies and issues that, properly handled, could make for an interesting bio.
Theodore Sturgeon also had varied experiences and problems and degrees of productivities and produced some fascinating work, so digging into the roots of that could be interesting and informative.
Robert L. Forward was a full-tilt scientist and I'd like a comprehensive treatment of just what all ideas he had and work he accomplished. The more I learn about him, the more there seems to be to learn.
I think if I had to pick just one, the one most-missing seems to be Campbell but, after that, I might actually most want to read the Forward.
