5 ms·
Maybe you’re implying this — it’s an obvious omission — but his credibility should encourage us to read “character” and “story” for their evocative imagination
by blueboo 3y ago
Maybe you’re implying this — it’s an obvious omission — but his credibility should encourage us to read “character” and “story” for their evocative imagination and not, say, for fact.
- adamgordonbell 3y agoNope, not saying that. but the other person in the comments has a point: > It is also an unrealistic ask that an author get close access to still living characters and then manage to write a book to tell you how bad that person is. They are unlikely to be able to find a subject willing to give them access on another book again.
- paulryanrogers 3y agoSo as a group I shouldn't take such authors as anything except entertainers?
- adamgordonbell 3y agoJust expect they, like everyone, have a bias. Writers who do hit piece style things will portray things as bad and authors who do deep feature pieces will be positive because they each have a certain approach and bag of tricks and this has up and down sides. A hit piece person would never spend months embedded with someone, so wont give a deep picture. A lewis will, but be appropriately stockholmed by the whole thing. That inside the actors studio guy, he only interviews people about how great they are. You learn a lot, but it has a strong perspective. Others are combative and good at it. Styles shape form.