Comments: 6
Ugh. I hate biographies that semi-fictionalize their topic. That (and an attention-grabbing reliance of an infamous love triangle, as well as the absence of specific source citations) are exactly my criticsms of Amanda Foreman's much-lauded -- and even screen-adapted -- "biography" of Georgina, Duchess of Devonshire, too. This sort of thing is not only profoundly unscholarly, it virtually reeks of sensationalism.

Guess I'll look for another bio of Forster, then (do you happen to have a recommendation?).

Anyway ... great review! :) What a pity this book fell short of expectations ...
BrokenTune 1 year ago
The other bio I have - and I have really high hopes for it - is the one written by Nicola Beauman.

However, the one that is most lauded is by Nick Furbank who actually knew Forster. He worked at King's College, too, and occupied rooms above (or was it below?) Forster in his last years there. He is the sort of "official biographer" of Forster but I don't know how much of the "locked" diaries he was able to have insight to.
I'll make a note of both of these. Thank you!
BrokenTune 1 year ago
If it is any help, Moffat does quote Furbank's book as her own source frequently (tho you have to dig a bit to see that she's actually quoting him). The part about Elizabeth von Arnim is given in almost the same words - I think she cites Furbank in the reference section.
For me this is more of a reflection on Moffat's book, than it is anything else.
It is. And wouldn't that also suggest (though perhaps not too forcefully) that Furbank, in turn, had access to the "locked" diaries, but -- either at Forster's request, or out of his own discretion -- chose to only quote from them with great reticence?
BrokenTune 1 year ago
That is the question I am not sure about because the sections Moffat seems to cite Furbank on aren't the sections that deal with the locked diary stuff.