Skip to main content

When constructing Biography of a person follow these three laws*

🔴 *When constructing  Biography of a person follow these three laws*
__________________

📌 *One, first look for sources other than those emanating from your principal character.* So Elwin wrote 40 books, 400 newspaper articles, 4,000 letters and likewise with Nehru, Gandhi or Ambedkar. You can write the whole book based on what they have said – so look for sources that come from a second party, a third party, a 10th party which may be a friend or admirer. That’s the first law.

📌 *The second law is that the relationship with secondary characters illuminates the principal character.* So if you write about Ambedkar, there will be a light on Gandhi, right? If you look at their interaction or Nehru and the Hindu right, that is the second law. Pay adequate attention to the secondary characters, don’t just focus on the principal character.

📌 *The third law is always go chronologically*. A life is lived forward but understood backwards, but he has lived from day to day. So for example, in the case of Elwin, he was a celibate because of Gandhi, but then he became flagrantly exalting sex. But let that slowly develop. Don’t say – because the reader is saying ‘what an idiot to follow Gandhi in brahmacharya‘, and you as an admirer want to say, actually he later changed his mind, but don’t. Keep the reader in suspense. If you’re a sociologist or an economist, you tend to state your thesis quite early. This is a book about inequality, so the reader already knows the inequality is growing or something, right? Here the suspense because that’s how life is – unpredictable, unexpected. So these are the three laws which in retrospect I realise only apply to the biographer of a modern person where the sources are rich enough. So that’s what Patrick means when he says that he violates them.
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Helen Mirren once said: Before you argue with someone, ask yourself.......

Helen Mirren once said: Before you argue with someone, ask yourself, is that person even mentally mature enough to grasp the concept of a different perspective. Because if not, there's absolutely no point. Not every argument is worth your energy. Sometimes, no matter how clearly you express yourself, the other person isn’t listening to understand—they’re listening to react. They’re stuck in their own perspective, unwilling to consider another viewpoint, and engaging with them only drains you. There’s a difference between a healthy discussion and a pointless debate. A conversation with someone who is open-minded, who values growth and understanding, can be enlightening—even if you don’t agree. But trying to reason with someone who refuses to see beyond their own beliefs? That’s like talking to a wall. No matter how much logic or truth you present, they will twist, deflect, or dismiss your words, not because you’re wrong, but because they’re unwilling to see another side. Maturity is...
Post a Comment
Read more

The battle against caste: Phule and Periyar's indomitable legacy

In the annals of India's social reform, two luminaries stand preeminent: Jotirao Phule and E.V. Ramasamy, colloquially known as Periyar. Their endeavours, ensconced in the 19th and 20th centuries, continue to sculpt the contemporary struggle against the entrenched caste system. Phule's educational renaissance Phule, born in 1827, was an intellectual vanguard who perceived education as the ultimate equaliser. He inaugurated the inaugural school for girls from lower castes in Pune, subverting the Brahminical hegemony that had long monopolized erudition. His Satyashodhak Samaj endeavoured to obliterate caste hierarchies through radical social reform. His magnum opus, "Gulamgiri" (Slavery), delineated poignant parallels between India's caste system and the subjugation of African-Americans, igniting a discourse on caste as an apparatus of servitude. Periyar's rationalist odyssey Periyar, born in 1879, assumed the mantle of social reform through the Dravidian moveme...
Post a Comment
Read more

India needs a Second National Capital

Metta Ramarao, IRS (VRS) India needs a Second National Capital till a green field New National Capital is built in the geographical centre of India. Dr B R Ambedkar in his book "Thoughts on Linguistic States" published in 1955 has written a full Chaper on "Second Capital for India" While discussing at length justfying the need to go for a second capital has clearly preferred Hyderabad over Kolkata and Mumbai. He did not consider Nagpur. Main reason he brought out in his book is the need to bridge north and south of the country. He recommended Hyderabad as second capital of India. Why we should consider Dr Ambedkar's recommendation: Delhi was central to British India. After partition, Delhi is situated at one corner of India. People from South find it daunting to visit due to distance, weather, language, culture, etc. If Hyderabad is made second capital, it will embrace all southern states. People of South India can come for work easily. Further, if Supreme Court...
Post a Comment
Read more