People write and read biographies all the time. There can be multiple biographies on the same person, each written with a different take on the subject. And ev

People write and read biographies all the time. There can be multiple biographies on the same person, each written with a different take on the subject. And every author of those biographies also has failings. But your questions seem to suggest that these biographies aren't worthy for some reason? I'm a big Heinlein fan. I find it useful to turn to some of the body of writings about Heinlein to understand why he wrote as he did. As just one example, I did not understand that the main character of "Tunnel in the Sky" was Black. This wasn't mentioned directly on the book, though it can be understood from cultural context that I, reading it 30 years after it was written, did not pick up. Similarly, how do I interpret Heinlein's "Farnham's Freehold"? Stross's commentary (see his blog, but also summarized at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farnham%27s_Freehold#Reception https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farnham%27s_Freehold#Reception ) gave me some insight, or at least something to reflect upon. While I read plenty of Asimov's work, I haven't since about 1993, and don't have the same curiosity about him. But surely there are others interested in Asimov the way I am about Heinlein. Surely there are also people interested in the culture of SF fandom in the 20th century, including in some of the systemic biases against female fans. I think it's also a useful case example of how someone can be a 'feminist, decrying “male chauvinism” and arguing that women should be given wider professional opportunities' while also being a "Dirty Old Man." It's also an example of how fame can empower a harasser. This still happens, but someone 30 years dead can't harass you back on Twitter or threaten expensive defamation lawsuits. Or, for something relevant in 2021, consider the forthcoming Foundation show, where "at least three women have been cast as characters who are male in the books". How do you have a serious discussion about that change without mentioning Asimov's decisions to choose primarily men in the first place?