People who attack biography choose as their models vulgar and offensive biography. You could equally attack novels or poems by choosing bad poems or novels.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
Biography should be written by an acute enemy.
People always want to identify a writer with their protagonist.
Stereotypes, they're sensual, cultural weapons. That's the way that we attack people. At an artistic level, stereotypes are terrible writing.
As a writer, you rely on whatever makes you up as a person, whether those things are twisted and nasty or otherwise.
With poets, the choice of words is invariably more telling than the story line; that's why the best of them dread the thought of their biographies being written.
People respect nonfiction but they read novels.
It seems like every few years a big name author will holler something about how evil, heinous, and morally wrong fan fiction and fan fiction writers are, and then the Internet gets all upset and shocked, and then the author is shocked that people could get so upset.
As a writer, I tend to be drawn to marginal people - writers, poet-prophets, seers, eccentrics - who embody the deeper ambivalences of their societies and bear deeper witness to their world than the famous figures we are used to celebrating, or demonizing, in our histories.
Those whose character is mean and vicious will rouse others to animosity against them.
The real biographies of poets are like those of birds, almost identical - their data are in the way they sound. A poet's biography lies in his twists of language, in his meters, rhymes, and metaphors.
No opposing quotes found.