{"word_count": 1513, "character_count": 9692}
By Maryam Thirriard (2015)The first thing a newcomer to the study of life-writing would be likely to do is to set off in search of some references. This could give a sense of direction in this immense new territory. However, one soon discovers it is difficult to find a reference book or an 'Oxbridge' introduction to biography theory, or to life-writing in general. So one can only rejoice at the promise of the theoretical input presented in Theoretical Discussions of Biography written by Hans Renders and Binne de Haan. This collectively-written book provides important insights into the historical approach to biography and highlights the pertinent connections between biography and microhistory. However, it seems that the representation of biography in this book is much narrower than what the full scope of biography has to offer. The theory of biography needs to be broadened. The following considerations may seem general, but they reveal that the essentials still need to be addressed and that we have quite a way to go before we find a satisfactory framework in which to build a theory of biography.Defining the termsThe aim of Theoretical Discussions of Biography is to provide the theoretical framework necessary for biography to achieve the status it deserves as an object of scientific study – a status to which the very tangible flourishing of departments of biographical studies in universities bears witness. One can only welcome such an undertaking. However, Renders and de Haan warn the reader of the price the discipline will have to pay: 'biography as a research area belongs to history' (Renders, 3). I am uncomfortable with this delimitation of biographical study, and feel that the field has shrunk from a myriad of life-writing productions of all shapes and forms to what seems more like a private club.The issue is the definition of biography. According to Renders and de Haan, 'biography will consistently designate the study of the life of an individual, based on methods of historical scholarship' (Renders, 2). The delimitation of this particular category of biography, and the will to theorize its practice is legitimate, but why seek to circumscribe the whole practice of biography within this restrictive definition? In other words, is it relevant to define biography as 'historical scholarship' biography?  What shall we do with the great mass of biographical production outside this realm such as the writings of Plutarch — 'my design is not to write Histories, but Lives' ('Alexander' 184) —, S. Johnson, J. Boswell, Strachey and Leon Edel — to take examples from Renders’ own list of 'important figures in thinking about biography' (Renders and de Haan, 23)? One may choose not to consider them as theoreticians, but, given the place their production occupies in the history of biography, there is a need for a theorization that would also give their works all the attention they deserve.Biography and BiographerThe goal of biography according to Renders and de Haan is to 'illuminat[e] what is public, explained and interpreted in part from the perspective of the personal'; but we are assured that '[t]he researcher remains in control of his subject'. Hence, Renders maintains a sort of ascendency over his subject, due to the authority of the historical methods he uses. It is also explained to us why autobiography should be disregarded as a reliable biographical source: 'Autobiographica are important in Life Writing research due to the experience which they record, more than as a possible source for illustrating or contextualizing history' (Renders, 2). This leads to another question: how do we remain in control of the biographer?  As Allen Hibbard from Middle Tennessee State University declares in his essay, 'Biographer and Subject: A Tale of Two Narratives', 'the biographer necessarily is present in the work in a variety of ways, even if that presence is elided or effaced. That presence is evident, even if subtly, in the choice of the subject, .  . .  the selection of material, interpretation of events, inclusion of related background material, narrative arrangement, pace, (comma) style, tone, and voice' (Hibbard, 21). The latter elements reveal the biographer’s use of literary form.Literary form'Literary form',  Renders and de Haan argue, 'is all too often used as a camouflage, as an excuse for not doing any serious research' (Renders, 3). I would say that literary form cannot be avoided: it comes into being as soon as pen is put to paper, whether the author is a novelist, a historian or a physicist. I would add that literary form is all we have. We use our cognitive capacities to interpret facts, and we use these skills again to express that content through literary form. The biographer has to make his choice as to which form serves this interest best. Renders refers to 'writing a biography like a novel' (Renders, 175) and he asserts that '[a] biography with too many literary pretentions betrays the expectation that everything in the biography is actually true' (Renders, 175). This reveals that an essential debate is still on. It is the issue raised in the late 19th century, on the one hand, by Leslie Stephen, the first editor of the DNB [1], and, on the other, by Marcel Schwob, whose 'L’Art de la biographie', the preface to his Vies imaginaires (1896), starts off with a daring 'La science historique nous laisse dans l’incertitude sur les individus' (Schwob, 9). It is all a matter of finding the adequate tools for imparting the truth about someone’s life through our limited linguistic capacities.Thus, it seems that literary form should not be overlooked; on the contrary, it should be considered a key tool for the biographer. These considerations call for the theorization of literary forms in biography.What of Life Writing? The fourth section of Theoretical Discussions of Biography aims at distinguishing biography from life-writing. The aim here is clearly to shake off any life-writing label we might be tempted to use for biography. In an earlier chapter entitled 'Towards Traditions and Nations', Renders writes that 'Life Writing is a kind of research in which the emancipation of the groups plays an important role and attention is devoted to rather far-fetched topics' (Renders, 18). 'Biography within life-writing has been considered from an “emancipatory” perspective' (Renders, 19). This stance is reaffirmed in Renders' chapter 'Biography in Academia and the Critical Frontier in Life Writing: Where Biography shifts into Life Writing'.  Here, he presents the differences between biography and life-writing, concluding '[this] is what Life Writing eventually is: an ideology' (Renders, 174).One may find a more sustainable approach in Joanny Moulin’s article 'Towards Biography Theory', where he places Renders’ position on a much broader spectrum. Moulin’s definition of 'récits de vie' may even elicit Renders’ use of the term 'ideology' when he describes 'life-writing' as 'concentrated . . . on studying the discursive productions of individuals always necessarily representative of one given cultural community or other' (Moulin, 4). This broader perspective leaves room for interesting developments concerning the link between biography and life-writing. For instance, if one follows Michel Foucault’s demonstration of the death of the subject, then '[e]xit biography.  Enter life-writing' (Moulin 4). Moulin goes even further, defining life-writing as 'the name, the guise, perhaps the mask, under which biography has de facto emerged on the modern academic scene as a new discipline, walking from the start on the two legs of theory and practice' (Moulin, 4). It seems that Renders and de Haan’s approach to and delimitation of biography are valid, but perhaps only in the particular case of one specific biographical genre: historical biography. This should not be surprising, since Hans Renders is a Professor of History at the University of Groningen (NL). However, the risk of generalizing this to all biographical studies is that biography, if it is considered merely as a form of historiography, would remain attached to a sub-section of the Department of History. This would strip biography of its due status as an independent subject. Is this dichotomy between biography and life-writing a pertinent assessment? The sheer volume of pages dealing with life-writing in this book seem to testify to the contrary. Finally, as Moulin shows in his article, there is still some way to go before an adequate theoretical framework for biography is achieved: a theory 'singling out biography in the larger sense . . .  as an interdisciplinary field of research within the humanities' (Moulin, 2). Only this kind of framework can enable us to live up to the expectations offered by such a fascinatingly rich and multi-faceted object of research.Works CitedHibbard, Allen. 'Biographer and Subject: A Tale of Two Narratives.' South Central Review 23.3 (2006): 19-36. &#60;jstor.org/stable/40039941&#62;. JSTOR. Web. 22 February 2015.Moulin, Joanny. 'Introduction: Towards Biography Theory'. 2014. &#60;https://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01078127&#62;. HAL. Web. 22 February 2015.Plutarch. 'Alexander'. Eight Great Lives. Trad. John Dryden. Ed. Charles Alexander Robinson. 1960. London: Holt, Rinehart &#38; Winston, 1962: 184-251. Print.Renders, Hans and Binne de Haan. Theoretical Discussions of Biography: Approaches from History, Microhistory, and life Writing. Leiden: Brill, 2014. Print.Schwob, Marcel. Vies imaginaires. 1896. Reprint. Dijon: Editions Gallimard, 2012. Print.[1] Leslie Stephen became the first editor of the Dictionary of National Biography (DNB) in 1882.