Troubles of Biographers: H is for Herriot and Hubris v. Humility

Trouble: Should a biographer rely on someone who knew the subject? Or not? What happens when the "someone" just wants to make money?

Granted, it is difficult to create a biography unless the biographer speaks to people who knew the subject! 

But personal reminiscences run the risk of being anything but objective (see G is for Grant and Gossip). 

On the other hand, not only is it difficult for a biographer to get very far without primary research, the personal recollections of a friend or family member may prove more accurate and thoughtful than the "personal" recollections of acquaintances who are trying to make a buck. 

The two biographies below point the difference. The Graham Lord biography is frankly self-serving. Jim Wight's biography of his own father, however, is quite good. 

Which doesn't mean that all biographies by sons are equally reliable. In the end, the dependability of a biography relies almost entirely on the writer's ability to balance source material.

* * *

The most positive thing about Graham Lord's book of James Herriot (James Herriot: Life of a Country Vet) is that it shows you what Jim Wight (James Herriot's son) was up against when he wrote his own biography. I highly recommend Jim Wight's biography for anyone who is interested in learning about James Herriot (Alf Wight). Jim Wight presents his book as a memoir but it follows classic biographical organization, focusing more on the subject than on the son. Wight backs up claims with evidence, at one point closely detailing his grandparents' musical careers (see below).

Graham Lord, on the other hand, appears to have done no practical research, relying instead entirely on those "witnesses"--in particular, a fellow veterinarian--who will tell him what he wants to hear without taking into consideration the inherent complexity of human beings. Single witnesses do not capture the entire truth--it is a gross error in judgment to think that one person can fully, and accurately, explain another person.

Alf and Jim Wight

Instead of reliable facts and confirmed evidence,  Mr. Lord relies almost exclusively on guesswork, and the assumptions inherent in Mr. Lord's guesswork are almost all negative. For instance, he assumes that because he, Mr. Lord, couldn't find evidence that Alf Wight's parents were musicians, ergo, they weren't; therefore, Alf Wight was lying when he referred to his parents as professional musicians. The point may be debatable but in the interests of good writing/research, the assumption is not enough. If Mr. Lord wasn't willing to do the required research to prove the point conclusively one way or the other, he should have left it out. In his book, Jim Wight conclusively shows through artifacts and a paper-trail that his grandparents were musicians who played professionally in local venues.

Ultimately, the difference between the biographers seems to be an understanding of the complexity of human nature. Mr. Lord comes across as the kind of man who is continually surprised by the inconsistencies of human behavior. He reports with something like glee that Alf once told someone that his father died in 1961, instead of 1960. This becomes evidence for...the mind boggles.

My guess is that Graham Lord was less interested in his subject and more interested in "revealing" how "celebrities" twist "facts" to aggrandize themselves. That is, he was trying to capitalize off Herriot's fame with a "tell-all"--except Herriot's life doesn't really lend itself to a "tell-all." 

As Jim Wight illustrates, his father was a honest and straight-forward guy. Alf Wight, James Herriot, didn't change names, combine stories, and alter chronology to aggrandize himself or, even, remarkably enough, to make his life more dramatic. He did it because he was part of a community; protection and self-protection required some degree of obfuscation. If one actually reads his books, rather than simply responding to him as a "celebrity", his natural, sweet self-effacement ("Okay, this is what I remember now about that event") shines through.

In fact, Jim Wight points out how much his father actually didn't alter. Siegfried (Donald Sinclair) was in fact more extreme than even James Herriot paints him. The first season of the classic BBC series All Creatures Great & Small showcases the "real" Siegfried wonderfully. He is portrayed by one of my favorite actors of all time: Robert Hardy. Robert Hardy knew Siegfried (Donald Sinclair) and portrayed him accurately. He toned him down in later seasons due to the real man's grumbles. But everyone who actually knew the family agreed that James Herriot and Robert Hardy were faithful in their depictions.

I highly recommend The Real James Herriot by Jim Wight. A book written by a son about a father may sound rather maudlin, but in fact, Jim Wight is as level-headed, fair-minded, and fastidious in his writing as his father. The book is the book to go to . . .

After James Herriot's own books, of course. 

Wight, Jim. James Herriot: A Memoir of My Father. Ballantine, 1999.