Do you have a preference between biographies vs autobiographies? Like intuitively biographies are better because they’re more objective/they aren’t trying hard to “sell something” but personally I’ve found autobiographies more interesting/information-dense. If I were to come up with potential legible reasons for this intuition (note that this is coming up with reasons after-the-fact, rather than because I carefully analyzed the merits and downsides of each before reading):
Autobiographies tend to be shorter
Getting the first-person view gives me a better sense of how someone thinks (or at least how they think they think).
Biographies (at least recent ones) might be heavily skewed towards modern sensibilities and ways of analysis, autobiographies feel more raw and gives me a better glimpse of different worldviews (though at the risk of higher probability of misunderstanding)
I think the only autobiography I ever read is Emma Goldman’s Living My Life. It was at a time not too long ago when I had felt particularly fed up with the EA community, and so was motivated by a peculiar kind of escapism. It did its job, but I feel like leaves me in a poor position to compare biographies to autobiographies more generally. :)
Incidentally, I’ve recently read John Stuart Mill’s autobiography, and I’m currently (slowly) going through Wu Lien-Teh’s Plague Fighter. Next I plan to read either From Third World to First or Double Helix.
Btw, I’m not sure if “autobiographies tend to be shorter” is right? Even if it’s correct on average, there certainly are some biographies that are fairly short.
E.g. I read a very short biography of Peter Kropotkin and a short biography of Hannah Arendt. And a short “dual (partial) biography” on Churchill and Orwell.
I think it was OK, but nearer the bottom of biographies I’ve read. In hindsight I would probably rather read a biography on just Churchill (but this might just reflect what I’m more interested in, and whom I happened to already know more about).
Do you have a preference between biographies vs autobiographies? Like intuitively biographies are better because they’re more objective/they aren’t trying hard to “sell something” but personally I’ve found autobiographies more interesting/information-dense. If I were to come up with potential legible reasons for this intuition (note that this is coming up with reasons after-the-fact, rather than because I carefully analyzed the merits and downsides of each before reading):
Autobiographies tend to be shorter
Getting the first-person view gives me a better sense of how someone thinks (or at least how they think they think).
Biographies (at least recent ones) might be heavily skewed towards modern sensibilities and ways of analysis, autobiographies feel more raw and gives me a better glimpse of different worldviews (though at the risk of higher probability of misunderstanding)
Autobiographies make me feel more ambitious
I think the only autobiography I ever read is Emma Goldman’s Living My Life. It was at a time not too long ago when I had felt particularly fed up with the EA community, and so was motivated by a peculiar kind of escapism. It did its job, but I feel like leaves me in a poor position to compare biographies to autobiographies more generally. :)
Incidentally, I’ve recently read John Stuart Mill’s autobiography, and I’m currently (slowly) going through Wu Lien-Teh’s Plague Fighter. Next I plan to read either From Third World to First or Double Helix.
Btw, I’m not sure if “autobiographies tend to be shorter” is right? Even if it’s correct on average, there certainly are some biographies that are fairly short.
E.g. I read a very short biography of Peter Kropotkin and a short biography of Hannah Arendt. And a short “dual (partial) biography” on Churchill and Orwell.
Sure, my tendency claim is about averages (and also anecdotally grounded than because I did a full survey).
Would you recommend the short dual biography on Churchill and Orwell?
SammyDMartin has now posted a review of the Churchill + Orwell biography.
Thank you, I enjoyed the review and probably would not have read it if you didn’t link it.
I think it was OK, but nearer the bottom of biographies I’ve read. In hindsight I would probably rather read a biography on just Churchill (but this might just reflect what I’m more interested in, and whom I happened to already know more about).