“The subject of some microhistories are important, famous people, and, at least according to Backscheider, the subjects of some biographies are humble folk. Second, it is unhelpful: it simply begs the question of classification” (Lepore 132).
I don’t like to this that everyone there has been a biography about is considered “Humble folk”. I feel there are a plethora of biographies I can name about people who were heinous human beings during their time on earth. They may be considered humble by the writer, due to the relationship procured from research; but not to the public eye. For example, no one would say a biography written about Hitler was because he was a humble man, it would be because of the havoc and war he caused. Also, who is there to classify what is considered microhistory or biography. I know these are big picture things I want to discuss more in class. The reading overall is a little tough to get through but I have a lot of strong feelings about what is said.
Why can we not consider microhistory a subgenre or combine it with biographies? Especially if they seem to be on the same scale?
“A kind of confidence man, preying on people’s vanity, ignorance, or loneliness, gaining their trust and betraying them without remorse” (Lepore 135).
This is a really piss poor image of what a journalist or biographer is considered to be. I don’t think one, or a handful of people, should be the determining factor of what the look of a journalist is. There are different types, different people,, and different intentions. To have one label across a whole group is very damaging to the image and what it is to be a journalist. The mission is to tell a story, and that does include those they interview. To then spin the story negative, or not use the influence is the choice of one said journalist, not all of them.
What makes up a journalist, or consider them a gross being?”
