For the second time in recent months, I've discovered a biography that gave me more than I wanted. By that, I mean the author's opinion.
Biographies are essentially an author (usually well-known) telling someone else's story. For example, if I were to tell YOUR story in a book, I'd be your biographer. I would do my best to tell your story from your point of view, attempting to make potential readers understand you and your life experiences. I'm not here to judge, and I'm not here to slide my personal opinions into the book.
I've recently discovered that authors of biographies feel entitled to wedge their opinions on what their subjects have done or said, especially on their political beliefs. Not that this is too surprising. We increasingly see this in journalism, where it's obvious if the network and specific media talking head is on the right, left, or somewhere in between. (and they're never in between) Why would books be any different?
If one was a conspiracy theorist, one might wonder if this is another form of propaganda. For example, subject Mr. Whoeverthefuck is right-leaning; and this is why he's wrong. (I did see this in one book) Another example would be knocking the subject because they aren't woke enough, letting the reader know, 'This person may be someone you admire since you're reading this book, but here's why they're wrong'.
It's distasteful. I could care less what the author of a biography thinks about anything. I don't care if you're writing about a psychopath murderer or the nun at the local convent. I want to hear their story. The author letting me know their opinion not only screams their self-importance, but makes me suspicious if I'm even getting an unbiased account. How much can I trust an author who attempts to ram their own opinion down my throat?
It's not a good look for authors. In fact, for me, it's right up there with famous authors who use ghostwriters and take the credit. It's despicable.
