David Michaelis’ recent biography of Charles Schulz, Shulz and Peanuts brings up an interesting concept. Is a biography about the subject or the biographer?
Michaelis contacted the Schulz family in 2000 to see if they would be open to Michaelis writing a biography of Charles Schulz. The family opened up their hearts and records to him and in return, according to the family Michaelis wrongly portrayed Schulz as a depressed and bitter womanizer.
Some of the family who commented felt deceived and disappointed. Jean Schulz, Shulz's second wife, was a temperate in her comments. She found the book was not a “full portrait” because “Sparky” was full of laughter but she recognized that "Happiness is not funny.” Interestingly, Schulz said that the biographer was “writing this for himself” and that "[h]e's got to be satisfied.â€Â
Which begs the question: What is the purpose of the biography?
Source: New York Times (and Times Review).
Loading ...
Open Threads at Dear Author. Want to know what new releases are out this month and what readers are excited about reading? Check out the threads below. 
We don’t like to censor comments nor do we endorse the comments of any poster. We do reserve the right to moderate comments but most of the time will not, believing, as Justice Brandeis did, that the greater good is in “more speech, not enforced silence.”
The purpose of a biography is determined by the biographer, as it is ultimately his or her vision of the subject — an interpretation of a life. Unfortunately, when one writes about people whose immediate families are still around and vocal, there will be conflict. That doesn’t mean that Michaelis’s biography is right and Schulz’s family is wrong or vice versa. But it does mean that any posthumous view of a famous person is always an interpretation, or more properly, a collection of interpretations.