Biographical notes are first and foremost for contemporary readers and I can
only guess that they are constructions if not quite untruths, glimmers of
life behind the authorless text. Sometimes they can grow into statements on
poetics, but often they're intent on creating a) pedigree and/or b) persona.
I try to lie as often as I can. To throw folk off the scent.
I suspect that it's publishers who request/require this (I know I do),
rather than poets who wish to share their interesting social or career
highlights with their prospective readership.
As a publisher I hope that the glimmer of human interest may arrest the
customer (a nanosecond more) and help sell a book. It's part of the
commodification of the book rather than the author though. For the same
reason I like to see photos of authors too. In my experience this appears to
create an odd kind of bond for readers, almost a kind of social experience,
akin to something like "good to put a face to the name . . ."
However, getting the balance right is difficult. Roddy's little gems had me
sniggering with recognition. It's best not to place any real emphasis on
such things, I imagine.
But *real* autobiography, and statements on poetics can be deeply rewarding
stuff. Though that's a little different from cover blurbs, puffs and author
biodata. In the grown up world, pedigree and persona are recognised as the
dust that lays around the text once the lips have rotted away. So to speak.
We don't really matter.
Best
Chris
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|