How Close Is Too Close for Biographer and Subject?

all in   the education of general david petraeus1 How Close Is Too Close for Biographer and Subject?In the wake of the General Petraeus scandal–after he resigned as the director of the CIA because he had an affair with his biographer–The New York Times looks at the uniquely award relationship between scribe and subject. So, how close is too close?

Well, it’s a complex question. On the one hand, the biographers needs to establish trust and build a relationship. On the other hand, there needs to be journalistic distance so that the biographer can still be free to stab a knife in the back of the subject–or at least point out some flaws.

“The challenge of writing a biography about a person who is still alive is that an author must first establish trust and a comfort level with a subject, to get access and a free flow of information,” explains the Times. “But the biographer is still expected to evaluate and expose unsparingly.”

How about sex with your subject? That seems like a logical place to draw the line.

“I suppose it ultimately depends on the book,” said Stephen Rubin, the president of Henry Holt, told the Times. “Though I would prefer if they didn’t have sex, because you lose a sense of perspective objectivity when you are romantically linked.”

Okay, so just try not to have sex with the person you are writing about. But if the biographer does feel so compelled, then by all means, think carefully about the title of said biography. Because if it becomes public knowledge that you are sleeping with the subject of your biography, do you really want the title to be All In: The Education of General David Petraeus? Thatis just asking for it.

Article continues below
More from Politics
STAR OF DAVID OR 'PLAIN STAR'?   If you thought "CP Time" was impolitic, on July 2 Donald Trump posted a picture on Twitter of a Star of David on top of a pile of cash next to Hillary Clinton's face. You'd think after the aforementioned crime stats incident (or after engaging a user called "@WhiteGenocideTM," or blasting out a quote from Benito Mussolini, or...) Trump would have learned to wait a full 15 seconds before hitting the "Tweet" button. But not only was the gaffe itself bad, the attempts at damage control made the BP oil spill response look a virtuoso performance.  About two hours after the image went up on Trump's account, somebody took it down and replaced it with a similar picture that swapped the hexagram with a circle (bearing the same legend "Most Corrupt Candidate Ever!"!). Believe it or not, it actually got worse from there. As reports arose that the first image had originated on a white supremacist message board, Trump insisted that the shape was a "sheriff's star," or "plain star," not a Star of David. And he continued to sulk about the coverage online and in public for days afterward, even when the media was clearly ready to move on. This refusal to just let some bad press go would haunt him later on.
Donald Trump More Or Less Says He’ll Keep On Tweeting as President