Penn State University Press

IS BIOGRAPHY FICTION?
[with Response]
Author(s): Carolyn G. Heilbrun and Joan M. Weimer
Source: Soundings: An Interdisciplinary Journal, Vol. 76, No. 2/3, Papers from The Drew
Symposium (Summer/Fall 1993), pp. 295-314
Published by: Penn State University Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/41179215 .
Accessed: 24/06/2014 21:24
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Penn State University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Soundings:
An Interdisciplinary Journal.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 91.229.229.44 on Tue, 24 Jun 2014 21:24:03 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
IS BIOGRAPHY FICTION?
CarolynG. Heilbrun
going to call biographyfiction- or, like

Obviously, if we are
Barthes,a novel thatdare not speak its name- we have got
to agree on what we mean by fiction. This discussion would
undoubtedlybe easier ifwe could use a word other thanfiction,
but the advantages of using the word do, as I hope to suggest,
outweigh the disadvantages.
Let us startwith the disadvantages. It is customaryin such
cases to go to the dictionary,always a solid piece of evidence
around which to argue. The American Heritage dictionaryof-
fers us this: Fiction: (1) An event, statement,or occurrence
that has been invented or feigned ratherthan having actually
takenplace. (2) A lie. (3) A literaryworkwhose contentis pro-
duced by the imaginationand not necessarily based on fact.
(4) the categoryof literaturecontainingworksof thiskind. To
which I mightadd fromthe OED: "a statementor narrative
proceeding frommere invention."
It appears, then,thatfictionis the opposite of factand ought
not to be thoughtof in the same breathwithbiography,a lifeof
a person who actuallylived, based on exactly the opposite of
"mere invention," or something that did not "actually take
place," based, in short,on facts.
There are major problems withthisassumption,but before I
take themup I would like to offeryou two of the threeways in
whichShakespeare used the word "fiction." They are both fa-
mous. In Twelfth Night,Maria, Fabian, and Sir Toby Belch play
whatwe today consider a rathercruel trickon Malvolio, during
Carolyn G. Heilbrun is Professorof English Emeritus,Columbia University,

and a writerlivingin New York City.
© Carolyn G. Heilbrun, 1993.
Soundings76.2-3 (Summer/Fall 1993). ISSN 0038-1861.

296 SOUNDINGS CarolynG. Heilbrun
whichhe prancesabout in a ludicrouscostume,claiminga so-

cial stationto whichhe is not entitled.Of his unhappyper-
formance, Fabiansays: "If thiswereplayedupona stagenow,I
would dismissit as an improbablefiction."But "this,"how-
everimprobable, is nota fiction.We turn,then,to Hamlet. In
his "Oh whata rogue and peasant slave am I" soliloquy,he
remarks,"Is it not monstrousthatthisplayerhere/but in a
fiction,in a dreamof passion,/couldforcehis soul so to his
own conceit."
These twoShakespearian uses oftheword"fiction"are help-
fulin thattheysuggest,betweenthem,the two reasons that
biography has come to be confusedwith,or at leastaccusedof,
beingfiction:one: whatis (in the currentsocial atmosphere)
mostimprobableand unsubstantiated simplybyavailablelogic
and factis, nonetheless,oftentrue;and two,passionis some-
howconnectedwithforcingthesoul,withfiction, and notwith
whatis "in fact"obviouslygoingon in thesubject's(in thiscase
Hamlet's)life,thatis, instructing theplayersand behavingin a
generally irritable manner. The biographer, unliketheElizabe-
thandramatist, does not have the soliloquy,the biographical
subject's thoughts,neatlypresentedin the audience. They
mustbe assumed,or asserted,and as such entertherealmof
fiction.
Now to the major problemsconcernedwiththe dictionary
definition of fictionwhenapplied to biography.One: Such a
definition suggeststhatthereare, as opposed to fiction, facts:
thatthereis, as opposed to "mereinvention," truth.This divi-
sion has long been doubted,and neverso fervently as today.
Two: Such a definition supposes thatfactscan, fact,be es-
in
tablishedand agreedupon. Whenit comes to biography, that
is veryfarfromthe case. Well,you mayanswer,surelythere
are some facts: dates of birth,death,marriage,etc. But are
there? Many subjectsof biographyhave long falsifiedtheir
birthdates. In fact,all factscan be falsified.Perhapstheder-
ring-dowe livewithin highplaces,Watergate, Irangate,all the
machinations of theCIA, the FBI, and variousotherso-called
intelligence agencies,to saynothingoftheclaimsand counter-
claimsof presidential campaigns,have persuadedus thatfacts
are so hardto establishas to suggestthattheymaynot,in fact,
exist.

Is Biography
Fiction? 297
You are all, I am certain,awareof thekindof demonstration

I mightput on foryou: paid accomplicesof minewouldburst
intothisroom,pretendto shootsomeonewho obligingly and
dramatically collapses,and quicklydepart. No two accounts of
whatoccurredwouldcompletely agree. I knowyou willbe re-
lievedto hearI shallexpose you to no suchcaper,butperhaps
mypointwillbe taken. Facts,as oftenas not,come down to
whomwe decideto believe. Let me merelyremindyouofPres-
identKennedy'sassassination.
Why,all the same,shouldwe insiston usingtheword"fic-
tion" in connectionwithbiography,whenwe could thinkup
anotherless confusing, less problematic term?But what?Per-
haps we shalltodayinventtheperfectword,and ifwe should
happento do that,I assureyou thatwe shouldgetlittlecredit,
and thatthe "fact"of itsinventionwouldbe quite otherthan
whatwe knowto have happenedin thisroom. Or perhapsit
willnot reallybe inventedin thisroom,because someonewill
have heardit fromsomeoneelse, alreadynameless,who did,
indeed,inventit.
I would abjure you to forgetthe idea thatthe opposite of
fictionis fact.Let us ratherrecallthatwhatis usefulabout the
word"fiction"is thatitis imaginative; thatit is invention.For
who can writea biographywithoutinventing a life? A biogra-
pher, like a writer of fiction, a
imposes patternupon events,
inventsa protagonist, and discoversthe patternof her or his
life.
Then whynotwritea novel? As youhaveno doubtnoticed,
manyrecentwriters havedone so. Myfavorite currentexample
is a bookbyPat BarkercalledRegeneration, whichbrilliantlyrec-
reatesCraiglockhart, theresthome forarmyofficers suffering
fromshell-shock duringthe FirstWorldWar. The characters
are all real: thedoctors,withtheirdiffering theoriesoftreating
the patients;SiegfriedSassoon, publishedpoet, who met the
neophytepoet WilfredOwen and helpedhimto writesome of
the greatestpoetryof WorldWar I in the monthsleftto him
untilhe was killeda fewweeksbeforethearmistice.This is a
periodI havestudiedclosely,and thenovelis remarkably accu-
ratein its depictionof theperiodand thelivesof themen in-
volved. Whythenis it nota biography?Quite simplybecause
the authormakes up conversations, createswhat she thinks

theymighthave said to each other,givenherextensiveknowl-

edge of thecircumstances. But thereis no recordof thecon-
versations, she must imagine them, and in imagining
conversationsshe writesa novel. She givesus fiction as biogra-
phy,but not biographyas fiction.1
The "fiction"thatwe nowacceptas biography has to do not
withthe creationof "facts" or conversationsor eventsfor
whichthereis no evidence,or onlytheslightest evidence.One
maysuggest,on slightevidence,thepossibility of something's
havinghappened, but one cannot assert it. The "fiction"of
biography consists entirely in the interpretation put upon the
life. Each biography is a fictioncreatedbythebiographerand
thewayin whichshe or he sees the subject. (In Writing a Wo-
man'sLifeI offeredthe evidenceof criticsand others,demon-
stratingthateven standardbiographiesare but one individual
and usuallyone generational viewof thesubject.)
Womenas subjectsofbiographies, or oftheirownautobiog-
raphies,offerus themostobviousand compellingexamplesof
how livescan be differently perceivedand biographies,there-
fore,differently written. Before the currentwomen'smove-
ment,before, that is, the last two decades,women'sliveswere
seen as faultedor failedifwomenwereambitious,successful,
loved otherwomen,were uninterested in marriageand chil-
dren,or did not see serviceto othersas theironlypropercall-
ing. Biographyas fictionis no morepalpable thanhere. Was
CharlotteBrontereallythe good, domestic,ladylikewoman
ElizabethGaskelltriedto makeher,to rescueherfromaccusa-
tionsof unwomanly angerand ambition,or was she ratherthe
creaturemore recentbiographershave offeredus? The an-
swer,clearly,is thatall theseinterpretations are fictions:the
evidenceis there,buthowthebiographerinterprets itaccounts
forwhatwe call fiction.
Whyis it important to saythis? Because,ifwe do not insist
on the qualityof fictionas inherentin biography, we are in-
clinedto acceptsome biographiesas "authentic,"or final,or
providingthe onlypossibleinterpretation of the lifein ques-
tion. And not onlythe biographer,but the biographer'ssub-
ject interpretsthelifeaccordingto theexpectations whichshe
or he imbibesfromthe culturesurrounding them. Thus, for
example,DorothyThompson,in her timeone of themostfa-

Is Biography
Fiction? 299
mous and successfulwomenin the world,a columnistwidely

read and followed,castigatedherselfbecause it was onlyas a
traditionalwifeand mother,she believed,thata womancould
consider herself whole and undeformed. Were Patrick
Buchananto writeher life,he mightagree withher. Peter
Kurth,on the other hand, writingabout her today, sees
Thompsonin a different lightand understands, betterthanshe
herself,whatthe pressureswere upon womenthenand how
these forcesmightbe judged. I believe Kurthis right,and
Thompsonherself,and her biographerof twentyyearsago,
MarionK. Sanders,are wrong: all, however,have writtenfic-
tionsof thatone life.
Let me offertwootherexamples. QuentinBell was Virginia
Woolfs nephew,and as suchwrotea lifeof his auntthatcap-
tureshermilieu,as no one else could do, fromhavinghimself
continually livedin it. He has produceda finebiography, buta
fiction,ofhisaunt,moreas a womanofhertimeand place than
as majorwriter.AlongcomesPhyllisRose and writesa biogra-
phy of Woolf as a feministand a woman writerprofoundly
awarenotonlyofthedisabilities ofherownsex,butalso ofthe
pricesocietyhas paid,in wars,fascism,oppression,fortheact-
ing out of destructive, male-centered ideas supportedby the
system we call the patriarchy.These are verydifferentbiogra-
phies,differently necessaryto an understanding of Woolf.
Again, most biographersof Woolf accept the fact that,
althoughhermarriagewasa mutually rewarding and sustaining
one, it was not sexual,and thatWoolfs mostsatisfying, iffew,
passionate sexual experiences were with women. Lyndall
Gordon,however,believingin the forceof the marriage,and
unable to acceptits lack of physicalpassion,assertsthe exist-
ence ofsexuality in theWoolfs'marriagewhiledenigrating Vir-
ginia's homosexual There
affairs. are many more biographies
ofWoolfthanthoseI havementionedhere,and,withoutin any
waybeing "mere invention,"or creatingeventsor conversa-
tionsof whichthereis no record,each is a fiction.
One last example. Diana Middlebrookin her recent,widely
discussedbiographyof Anne Sexton,had access to tapes Sex-
ton's psychiatrist had made duringtherapeutic sessions. I am
notheregoingto raisethequestionofthepropriety ofthepsy-
chiatristhaving released the tapes. What I wantto emphasize

300 SOUNDINGS CarolynG. Hálbrun
for the purposes of this discussion is Middlebrook's use of

them. She has told us that,once she heard the tapes, she began
to writethe biographyall over again, since the tapes gave her a
wholly new interpretation - may I say "fiction"- of Sexton's
life. The resultingbiographyis, I think,a stunningone, but it
reveals the marksof Middlebrook's particularfiction.Dr. Mar-
tin Orne, the doctor of the tapes, framesthe book: his words
come first,in the formof a foreword;his words come last, in
the formof a transcriptof a tape, in which we "hear" Sexton
and his responses to her words. Thus Dr. Orne provides the
setting,and largelycreates the fictionfor this biography.2
The strengthof the termfictionwhen conjoined withbiogra-
phyis preciselythatit removes the possibilityof any biography
being taken as authentic,indisputably"right," foreclosingthe
possibilityof the subject's being seen in a remarkablydifferent
light by other eyes, another sex, a differentgeneration,or a
differentculture. Barbara HerrnsteinSmith,in her book Con-
tingenciesofValue,writes: "I would suggest thatwhatwe maybe
doing - and, I think,often are doing- when we make an ex-
plicitvalue judgment of a literaryworkis (a) articulatingan es-
timateof how well thatworkwillserve certainimplicitlydefined
functions(b) fora specificimplicitlydefinedaudience, (c) who
are conceived of as experiencingthe workunder certainimplic-
itlydefinedconditions." I would, in my turn,suggest thatthis
is what one is doing when writinga biography. In a way I con-
sider to be of the firstimportance,we take already lived lives,
whetherwe meet them in textsor in the electronicmedia, not
so much as models of what our own might be, but ratheras
sketchesof the varyingpossibilitiesopen to us. It is therefore
imperativethat each generationbe enabled by imaginativebi-
ographersto see biographicalsubjects in a new light,or froma
differentperspective,or with a new ability to read what we
mightcall the subtextof a life. Biographers must feel entitled
to recreatethatlife,not endowing it withunmade speeches, or
unlikelymeetings,but interpretingit in ways previous cultural
assumptions did not allow. We have, therefore,at least for
now, to celebrate "biography as fiction"to avoid the terrible
rigidityof biographyas "fact," thatis, biographyas convention.
I would like,as seems to me only fair,to offeryou an exam-
ple from a biography I am now writing - the life of Gloria

Is Biography
Fiction? 301
Steinern - to indicatehow thebiographerand the subject(not

to mentionotherbiographers)maymake different fictionsof
thesame life.
I referhere to a periodin Steinem'schildhoodabout which
she has twicewritten, once in an essaycalled"Ruth'sSong (Be-
cause She Could Not Sing It)," and morerecentlyin herbest-
seller RevolutionFromWithin.The period was one in which
Steinernwas leftalone,fromtheage of elevenuntilhersenior
yearin highschool,as thecaretakerof a motherhighlyintelli-
gent,loving,but terribly depressed,and unablewhollyto care
forherselfor to remainsteadilyawareofwhatwas goingon at
each momentin herworld. Steinem'smuchloved fatherwas a
travelling salesmanof sorts,unable to stayhome and care for
his wife. Steinem'ssister,nearlytenyearsolder,was awayon
the east coast, firstat college and then at work. The child
Steinernand her motherlived in a run-down,rat-infested
house in the workingclass sectionof Toledo, Ohio. Steinern
wentto school,made some moneyworkingin storesand danc-
ing in clubs, observed the life of Toledo where afterhigh
school the men wentinto factoriesand the women became
pregnanteitherjust beforeorjust aftermarriage,and theonly
wayout,thedreamthenas nowin theinnercities,was forboys,
sports,and for girls,show business. Steinem'smotherhad
been to collegeand had been a newspaperwoman;she was,in
time,to regainher healthand become again a delightful and
gifted woman. Eventually, she enabled Steinern to attend
SmithCollege by sellingthe house the two had lived in in
Toledo.
The questionbeforeme is: howdid thosedeprivedand diffi-
cult years affectSteinern?Does the accomplishedwoman
Steinern eventuallybecamesuggestthattheseyearswerebene-
ficial,or onlythat,as she nowbelieves,she was workingall her
lifeto avoidfacingup to theirpain? Let me beginbyeliminat-
ing a response I receivedfroma group of psychoanalysts
beforewhomI presenteda versionofthisdiscussion.Theyre-
sponded to me by speakingof "survivors,"individualsthey
knew of who had, despite the most terriblechildhoodsof
abuse,deprivation, inconstancy, and theeffects ofnationalper-
secutions, survived to live lives of accomplishment and some
happiness.Steinernis not a "survivor" in thissense. She was

never abused, never unloved, never passed around, like

MarilynMonroe,fromone fosterhome to another,uncon-
vinced of her own realityor her own abilityto be loved.
Steinern mightbe calledneglectedin comparisonto manymid-
dle-classchildrenfromnuclearfamilies,but not,I wouldsug-
gest,in a meaningful sense. As she herselfhas said, children
have a great sense of fairness,and she knew that she was
treatedno worse thanher parentswere treatingthemselves.
She knewshe was loved,and thattheyweredoingthebestthey
could, but thatcircumstances had fallenout so thatSteinern
had moreresponsibility as a childthanis consideredusual or
desirablein our society.
My interpretation is this: I believe thatthe responsibility
Steinernassumedas a middle-agedchild (ifI mayuse such a
phrase) followingupon an early childhoodwhere she was
greatlyloved and secure,may have providedher serendip-
itouslywitha childhoodwonderfully designedto give us the
public-spirited, individualistic, -"outrageous," spokeswoman
and leader she became. I am, in short,suggestingsomething
outrageoushere: thatthenuclearfamily, whosedysfunctional
naturewe hearmoreand moreof thesedays,maybedysfunc-
tional,not leastbecause itschildrenlivelivestheyknowto be
withoutdemandsupon themor contributions fromthemnec-
essaryto, or at least and
important meaningful to, thefamily's
survival.
Childrenmustnot be neglected,nor passed around like a
packagewithouta sense of beinguniquelyloved and wanted.
But deprivation, in theformof sharingburdens,facingthein-
evitable, helpingto workout solutions,maynotprovidea
and
bad recipeforthemakingof a generousand productiveadult.
Steinernherselfsees her childhoodnow,thoughshe knows
therewas no neglectand muchlove, as havingin some way
distortedhersenseofherownreality.Perhapsitdid; I believe
we are all in someway"distorted"byour childhoods,whichis
to sayformedto be one kindof personand not another.But
myinterpretation of Steinem'schildhoodis thatit givesus, by
chance,a wayto reconsider,perhapsto reinvent, our ideas of
child-rearing. Let me add to thisthatSteinernalso ended up,
perhaps as a result of that childhood, never married,although
throughthe 1950s and early1960s she had to withstand the

Is Biography
Fiction? 303
enormouspressureon all youngwomen- as anyonefifty-five

or older can testify - to marry.She was, all her adultlife,in-
volved in a series of satisfying heterosexualrelationships.
Althoughshe neverwishedto have childrenof her own, she
servesnow as a parentalfigureto manyyoungsters.She is, in
addition,remarkably open to thevariouslifechoicesmade by
thoseunlikeherselfeitherin race,class,or sexualpreference.
Now you willeasilysee thatwhatI am suggestingis revolu-
tionary:thatmarriagemaynot be the perfectsolutionto all
heterosexual relationships, thatitmay,as divorcestatistics sug-
gest,not be a whollysuccessfulor viablearrangement; thata
womanmaylive a fulland productiveand lovinglifewithout
havingchildrenof her own body,or even raisingthemfrom
babyhood;thatliveswhichmaybe consideredsinfulor unnatu-
ral by conventioncan, in fact,be in everywaymoregratifying
thanthe "proper"livesinsistedupon by stridentmoralists.
Put concisely,I thinkthata worldof Steinemswouldbe, on
thewhole,a betterworldthanthe one we have now. That is
not to say I thinkshe is perfector beyondcriticism on many
points: not at all. It is to say thattraditionalbiographiesto-
gether with traditional ideas of child raisingmay have pre-
cluded our understanding somethingboth revolutionary and
important about childhood in general,and thislifein particu-
lar. That the greatmajorityof people maydisagreewithme,
and thatthe subjectherselfdisagreeswithme, simplyempha-
sizesthereasonswhywe need biography as fiction.Werebiog-
raphynot fiction, therewouldbe no waythatI could offerthe
interpretation aboutSteinem'searlylifethatI am offering. It is
a fiction,but not one thathas to assertanythingcontraryto
evidenceor denyanything forwhichthereis ample support.
The pointsI have triedto make todayseem to me particu-
larlyimportant at the presenttime. The old systemof patri-
archy,which we have learned to call fundamentalism, or
orthodoxy, or the extreme is with
right, attempting greatpower
and richesat its behest,to reestablishall those institutions,
genderstereotypes, racialand classassumptionsthathavebeen
thetraditional guidelinesof biography.If we do not bothcre-
- biographies
ate lifestories - and interpret
livesin new ways,

304 SOUNDINGS CarolynG. Hálbrun
we are in dangerof retreatingfromall we have learnedin the

last twoand a halfdecades.
Such a retreatwouldsharplyrestrict the possibilitiesof the
livesof all thosemen and women,of whateverrace,class,or
sexualpreference, whopassionately wishto be themselves and
to livefreelythelifetheyinherentlyrecognizeas theirown, but
whicha powerfulculturalreactionwouldforcethemto deny.
If we do nothavebiographiesthatdare to be fictions, we shall
havebiographiesthatclose off,as thefundamentalists through-
out theworldseeknowto close off,alternative lives,alternative
options,each individual'schanceto be, in fact,individual.
Whichis, finally,to saythatBiographyas Fictionis our only
defenseagainstbiographyas coercion.
NOTES
1. Anotherexample of Actionas biographyis Louis Auchincloss' novel The
Ноше oftheProphet, based on the life of Walter Lippmann. Auchincloss,
as Lippmann's lawyerand executor, helped Ronald Steele when Steele
wroteLippmann's biography. Steele found thatthe two most compelling
factsof Lippmann's lifewere his denial of hisJewishnessand his running
offwiththe wifeof his best friend. These eventswere,clearly,irresistible
to the novelistAuchincloss.
2. I owe thisinsightto Miranda Sherwin,a studentin mygraduate seminar
on biography.

A RESPONSE TO HEILBRUN
JoanM. Warner
T'm here responding to Carolyn Heilbrun's thoughts about

whetheror not biographyis fictionbecause I tried to writea
biographyabout a woman who haunted me and ended up writ-
ing the storyof how that haunting changed my life. Now the
storyI'm tellingis essentiallytrue. It's about two real women,
Constance Fenimore Woolson, an American writerwho died
ninety-nineyears ago, and myself.But I've discovered thatthe
only way to tell this essentiallytrue storyis to use the tech-
niques of fictionthatI've been teaching to undergraduatesfor
twenty-five yearsbut never dreamed I'd have to learn to do my-
self. And by the "techniques" of fiction,I mean not only dia-
logue and characterizationand even narrativestructure,but an
-
imaginativestance toward my material toward myselfas well
-
as towardWoolson thatseems to be at the heart of the fictive.
As I write,I'm learningthatnotjust mybook but all biogra-
phies are fictive.Since biographers are haunted by theirsub-
jects, who attractand repel and tease them, theywrite ghost
stories. As they struggle to solve the mysteriesof their sub-
jects' lives, they write detective stories. And they have such
complicated relations with their subjects that they can't help
writinglove stories. My book is unusual only because I'm tell-
ing those stories out loud, while most biographers keep them
quiet.
I take no creditformyapproach; it was forcedon me. I had
finishedthe research fora book on Woolson's life and literary
relationships - she was the great-niece of James Fenimore
Cooper and the intimatefriend of Henry James, and critics
praised her as the inheritorof the mantle of George Eliot. But
as I was startingto writethe firstchapter,I discovered I had to
Joan M. Weimer is Professorof English at Drew University.
1993).ISSN 0038-1861.
76.2-3(Summer/Fall
Soundings

306 SOUNDINGS JoanM. Warner
have spinal surgerywhichwould keep me fromsittingformost

of a year,fortwoyearsifmybones failedto fuse on the firsttry.
Aftera number of elaborate and fairlycomic experiments,I
discovered that you can't write a scholarlybook lying down.
But I am here to reportthatyou can writewhat myeditor calls
"creative non-fiction"from a horizontal posture, and in fact
thatmay be the verybest posture in which to writeit.
Obviouslymynew situationchallenged more thanmywriting
habits. I had to rethinkmylife,and I'm not verygood at soli-
tarythinking.A livelyexchange of ideas, as in a classroom, is
whatpushes me to findout what I think,but the classroom was
exactlywhere I couldn't be for at least a year. A month after
surgery,a dream about meetingWoolson showed me that she
could be my partnerin a dialogue about her life and my own.
Soon she was playing a number of roles: she became my
mother,my daughter,my sister,my friend,and most impor-
tantlymymentor,the woman who said "Write!" when myown
mother said, "Joan, I wish you wouldn't." She was also my
therapist,and I was hers, in an outrageous tangle of transfer-
ence and countertransference.
Along withconfusions,thisprocess produced manyillumina-
tions, one of which is central to our inquiryhere. I couldn't
write a proper biographyabout Woolson not only because I
couldn't sit but because too many essential documents had
been destroyed- her lettersto HenryJames and his to her, her
journals and diaries. AlthoughI uncovered some cover-ups-
about Woolson's drug-addictedbrother,and her own finalill-
ness- the more I found, the more aware I was of what was
missing,and the more I saw how arbitraryand probably mis-
leading was the materialI did have.
In one of Woolson's stories,a male writertriesto remove a
disruptivecharacterfroma storywrittenby an eccentricwoman
of genius, only to discover thathe "was so closely interwoven
witheverypart of the tale that to take him out was like taking
out one especial figurein a carpet: that is, impossible, unless
you unravel the whole."1 You may recognize the image of the
figurein the carpet, because HenryJames borrowed it many
years later forthe titleof a storyabout greaterand lesser writ-
ers. For me, thatcarpet suggests not only artisticunitybut the
design of a person's life. I see Woolson's life as a carpet that

Responseto Heilbrun 307
has been deliberately defaced. Because she seems to have

taken her own life,and because her friendsand relativeswere
stunned withgriefand guilt,theycut out some sections of her
carpet,and mended otherswithnew threadsthatforma differ-
ent design fromthe original. A differentpair of scissors, held
in a pair of hands with differentmotives,would have cut out
different patches of the carpet; a differenttrafficpatternwould
have worn out differentspots. I'm overwhelmedby the arbi-
trarynature of the documents that come into a biographer's
hands. How Connie's carpet looked before it was defaced, how
it looked to her, I can only imagine. I know that the design I
imagine is shaped by my experience and temperamentand
blind spots and all the furnitureof my mind. But so is every
biography- a descriptionof a defaced carpet made by a person
busy reweavingthe carpet of her own life.
You'd think an autobiographer would have complete and
privilegedaccess to the documents and historyof her own life,
but myown historywas as much a mysteryto me as Woolson's,
and harder to reconstruct. Though my friendsand relatives,
unlike Woolson's, are alive and can be consulted, we have
made up differentstories to explain to ourselves who we are
and how we got this way. What's more, as the essayist Nancy
Mairs points out, "the past, that ramshackle structure,is a
fabrication.I make it up as I go along. The only promise I can
state about its 'reality'is that I 'really' remember (reembody?
fleshout anew?) the details I record; thatis, I haven't deliber-
atelyinventedany of them .... I no longer knowwhichof the
details I can retrievefrommypast are memoriesand whichare
daydreams,and, to be honest, I no longer care. I have lost any
reverence I may once have had for the 'facts,' and withit any
genuine belief in them .... What 'really' happened ... is
always irredeemable . . . ."
This is so because "the person of the past is gone. Because
of the experiences you thinkof as in the 'past,' the person of
the past has been transformedinto you, knowing what you
know." So "you may live the past ... as oftenas you like, but
only as your present self, the one sitting. . . rightwhere you
are. The one who knowswhat you know. Each time you enter
it, you build it anew."2

308 SOUNDINGS Joan M. Warner
Whenyou tryto reconstruct anotherperson'slife,you see

evenmoresharplythetruthof Mairs'statement that"whatre-
is
allyhappened always irredeemable." So is biography fiction?
If bybiography we meana formof history, a kindofreporting
and interpreting theavailablefactsof a person'slife,and ifby
fictionwe meanimaginedpeople in imaginedcircumstances -
thenthe genreswould seem clearlydifferent. But Woolson's
intimate friendHenryJamesinsistsin "The ArtofFiction"that
"thenovelis history," becauseitattempts to "representlife. . .
and theonlydifference thatI can see [betweenthenovelistand
thehistorian]is, in proportionas he succeeds,to thehonorof
thenovelist,consistingas it does in his havingmoredifficulty
in collectinghis evidence. . . ."3
Whichrecallsforme thedaywhenthepoet,playwright, and
essayistEve Merriamsaid to me,"Well,ifyoudon'tknowwhat
happened,makeit up!"
"But I'm not writing fiction,"I said.
That was thefirstfictionof mynon-fiction book.
NOTES
1. "Miss Grief,"in Women Women
Artists, Exiles:"Miss Grief1and OtherStories,
ed. Joan MyersWeimer (New Brunswick: Rutgers UP, 1988) 264-65.
2. NancyMairs,Remembenng theBoneHouse: An EroticsofPlaceand Space (NY:
Harper and Row, 1989) 10, 14.
3. In The PortableHenryJames,ed. Morton Dauwen Zabel (NY: Penguin
1951) 390-91.

HEILBRUN: DISCUSSION
CarolynHeilbrun:To Joan Weimer, I say I thinkwe need to

make a distinctionbetween the writingof a biographyand that
new genre women have invented,the writingsimultaneouslyof
a biography and an autobiography. Eleanor Langer did this
withJosephine Herbst, and I thinkit has entered into all our
consciousnesses. There was a panel on biography at the
YWCA in New York, of whichI was the moderator,and one of
the people therewas Elizabeth Young-Breuhl,who has written
biographies of Hannah Arendtand Anna Freud. Her stance is
thatshe is a pane of glass, thatshe must not say anythingabout
who she is or what she is. I thinkthat is no longer possible.
And she indeed ran into some problems attemptingit. On the
otherhand, in a biographyseminar,I discovered thatmanywo-
men are doing whatJoan Weimer is doing, thatis, discovering
in writinga biographytheirown life too. And I would suggest
thatwe call thata differentgenre.
Joan Weimer:I agree withyou thatthe genre I am describing
ofjoint biographyand autobiographyis a distinctgenre, in fact
several distinctgenres. There are books like Eleanor Langer's
on Josephine Herbst, whichis primarilyabout the subject and
incidentallyabout the biographer. There are books like Edith
Lipton's forthcoming AliasAlipia,whichis primarilythe biogra-
pher's storyof her discoveryof the subject and her inventionof
thatsubject. In yourbiographyof Gloria Steinern,in whichyou
have the advantage of knowingyour subject and being able to
talk to her, what will your position be? Will you be Amanda
Cross? Carolyn Heilbrun? Will you be a participantobserver
or are you going to be closer to a pane of glass- even though
we know there is no such thing?
Heilbrun:Writingon a livingsubject is a whole new field,and
makes thatquestion a bit more complicated. Sufficeit here to
say that my currentintention - it changes every week- is to
writea frankintroductionwhichincludes meetingher, how she
happened to ask me to do this, and the problems of writing
about a woman who is gorgeous and thinand in the media. For
Soundings76.2-3 (Summer/Fall 1993). ISSN 0038-1861.

310 SOUNDINGS
the rest I hope to make it a biography,my interpretationof a

life whichwill surelybe writtenabout many times again.
It is only recentlythatwe have come to see thatBates in his
biographyof Keats and Richard Elman writingon Joyce, cre-
ated the persons theywanted. David Bromwichwas the firstto
point out that you can turn Keats or Joyce into persons very
different fromthe ones Bates and Elman portray. Everygener-
ation asks new questions of a life,and has to writeanother bi-
ography. I don't thinkthere are any finalbiographies, and I
don't thinkthere can be. I thinkbiographyis infinitely open.
NicoleKing: You have all used the termwomen verygener-
ally, and I was wonderingwhat women are you talkingabout
specifically.How do you consider issues of race and class in the
commentsyou have made today? If you have not considered
them, how might those considerations have altered your
presentationsand your theories?
Weimer:I can report fromthe trenches,which is essentially
myposition on the panel. The subject of mybiographywas an
Episcopalian woman fromOhio, whose familyhad verydistinct
and verydistinguishedforebearsin England, and I imagined at
one point a meetingbetween her ancestors and mine. Her an-
cestors included James Fenimore Cooper and Judge Cooper
who ran New York State for a considerable part of its history.
They were standingthere in velvetjackets, looking like some-
thingout of Deershyer at the veryworst;and myancestorswere
standing there withsaws and blowtorches- theywere artisans
out of Fiddleron theRoof. The conjunctionbetween them gave
me quite a jolt, because I wasn't sure that my beloved Con-
stance Woolson would even have talked to me, the grand-
daughter of immigrantJews. Then I discovered her writings
about theJewsof New York City,and forthe most part theyare
very good- broadminded and appreciative. Every now and
then thereis a littledig thatfeels anti-semitic.And in the first
round of work on her I did not want to deal with it. I put it
away. I loved Connie, she wasn't going to be an anti-semite.In
the second round I reallyhad to confrontthat,and it is going
to be a piece of the story,because it is forcingme to confront
my own Jewishidentityin ways I have avoided for a verylong
time. So the differencein religionand social class, though the
race is the same, creates tremendouscomplications,and I think

Heilbrun:Discussion 311
theymustbe trueforall biographers.I amjust goingto tryto

tellthestoryout loud. Your questionis an important one.
(Question:As youwritethebiographyof GloriaSteinern, how
muchare you goingto speakto heror haveherbecomea part
of thatstory?Or willshe be a partof it at all?
Heilbrun: Oh yes,theinstrument thatmostdominatesthelife
ofa biographerthesedaysis thetaperecorder,whichyouhave
to use forlegal purposes,apartfromeverything else. I have
hoursand hoursoftapeswithher. It's interesting, because the
personyou are talkingto makesthe difference.In her recent
book she said: the examinedlifeis not worthliving. Or: if
therewere an Olympicsof non-introspection, I would win it.
She is one oftheleastintrospective people,up until a fewyears
ago, thatanyonehas evermet. That adds a new dimensionto
this,because it's verydifferent fromcomingup withsomeone
who is thinking about themselvesforthe firsttime. All I can
tellyou is the decisionI had to make. A womanI shallleave
namelesswrotea biography ofLeonardBernsteinwhilehe was
stillliving,and she foundeveryconceivablenastythingto say,
not onlyabout himbut about everyoneelse. It leftone won-
deringwhather motiveswere. Now you have to be honest
aboutyoursubject,butI decidedthatI wouldnotsayanything
thatwouldinjureanotherpersonsimplybecause I had discov-
ered it. I am not going to be inhibitedby anythingI think
would affectSteinem'slife. But thereare otherpeople who
come into it, and you learn thingsabout theirlives. That's
whereI've drawntheline. If theydo not reallyaffecther life,
thenI willnot use thatmaterial.
Weimer: The factthatmysubjectis dead is a greathelp,but
thefactthatmyfamily is livingis a greatcomplication, because
whatI am writing I
is also autobiographical. have decided that
itis notappropriateto use myabilityto publishas a platform to
attackthosewho raisedme to mypresentomniscience.Annie
Dillard,in writingher autobiography, said thatnothingshe
couldputin printis moreimportant thanherrelationswiththe
people she is writing about,herown family, and thatshe gave
all of themthe rightto rejectanythingshe had said if they
thoughtit was hurtful.I thoughtthatwas a greatidea. The
troubleis, once you showthemsomethingtheydecide is hurt-
ful,it'stoo late. I wouldtendto takeyourposition.I don'tsee

312 SOUNDINGS
thatthe truthis served by being hurtful.There are other ways

to pursue it. But neitherdo I wish to censor what I thinkis
important.
Hálbrun: If I can sound ratherlike the villain in a detective
story,I thinkyou've got to waituntilyourparentsdie. Steinern
used to worryterriblythather motherwould findout (she was
close to fortyat the time) thatshe was no longer a virgin. Well,
if you are a person who tends to go out with rather famous
men, keeping thissecretfromyourmotheris not easy. That is
one problem. I thinkthat Susan Cheever had a headful of re-
sentmentand a headful of admirationfor her father,and she
puts themtogetherwell in her biographyof him. She could not
possibly have writtenit while he was alive.
Question:You said Gloria Steinern was a person virtually
withoutintrospectionuntil a few years ago, and yet here's a
person who was apparentlydriven,had specificgoals it would
seem. I can't understand how you can be that way withouta
sense of introspection. The question comes to me: What do
you do if the subject said something like that and you don't
necessarilybelieve it?
Hnlbrun: I tried to say in my talk somethingshe says about
her childhood I don't believe. As it happens, I do believe her
about this. I thinkit is a centralaspect of her character,one I
intend to explore very,verycarefully.I thinkit is a defense; it
has to be a defense. It is what got her, at the age of fifty-seven,
suddenlyinto her innerchild and all of thisintrospectionwhich
she had never done before. I thinkwe come to thingsat differ-
ent ages. And she came to this late. I thinkthe fact that she
came to it late is one of the veryinterestingthingsabout her,as
well as the question: could she have been so selflessas she has
been (and is) on behalf of so many causes had she been intro-
spectiveenough to say to herself,"what is this costing me?" I
thinkthe question "who is doing it" is a veryinterestingone.
But ifI understandthe subtextof yourquestion, you are saying
thatifshe was not introspectiveI reallycan't believe everything
she tells me because she has not thoughtit through. One of
the reasons I talk about this as I go along is not in any way to
betrayher. I don't talkabout anythingshe hasn't writtenabout
publicly. But a workingrelationshipgives us manyinsightsand
certainlyhas taughtme what speaking academicallydoesn't.

Heilbrun:Discussion 313
In DukeofDeception,
(Question: GeoffreyWolffconsciouslysets
out not to speak about himself,but he does so and I would like
to have seen him do so even more, since his fatherhurthim so
badly. You haven't addressed yourselves to the question of
writingabout someone in your own life.
Hálbrun: I want to make a distinctionbetween a man writing
about his fatherand a woman writingabout her mother. Those
ought to be differentgenres altogether,because the relation
between mothersand daughtersis probably the least explored,
the least understood, and the most problematicof all the rela-
tions we have. We are now waitingfor the generation of wo-
men with feminist mothers who write biographies and
autobiographies. So farwe have only two thatI know of: Mar-
garet Mead's daughter and Alva Myrdal's daughter. They are
very,verydifferent.I thinkthat what is so great about Vivian
Gornick's FierceAttachments is precisely the way she found the
language and rhythmfor the relationshipbetween herselfand
her mother. But I thinkfathersand sons go way, way back.
That is an established genre which one writeswell or badly,
depending on one's genius. The mother-daughterautobiogra-
phy is totallynew and mostlyunexplored. It's very difficult,
and I thinkwe should thinkabout that in a special way. Vir-
ginia Woolf has done it brilliantly,but in a novel. She only got
around to writingwhatshe reallythoughtabout her motherthe
year before she died, and then only to a group of friends.
There is another factorhere I'm onlyjust discoveringfrom
myfriendNancy Miller,who is workingon this,and thatis that
the death of a parent of the same sex has differentreverbera-
tions if the daughter or son, as the case may be, is childless.
She has worked on Simone de Beauvoir's A VeryEasy Death,a
remarkablebook about the death of her mother. Nancy Miller
is herselfchildless and is writingabout her mother'sdeath and
comparing this to Philip Roth's Patrimony, the storyof a man
withoutchildrenwritingabout his father. If you have children,
the death of a parent is a very differentexperience. I'm just
tryingto suggest how many new things come into biography
and autobiography today that we have never before asked
ourselves.
(Question:I wondered what role you findyourselfplaying in
the classroom withwomen, enabling your studentsperhaps to

314 SOUNDINGS
find theirvoice, and what more you mighthave to say about

speaking in fear and tremblingas I am doing now?
Heilbrun:To be a woman teacher in a university,let me tell
you is veryhard, and I am not going to pretend it's not. I sus-
pect thatI will be joined by any woman who has triedit. Our
societyis not used to women in authority.It willtakea lot from
men; it doesn't like to take authorityfromwomen. They are
supposed to be nurturers. You don't need psychoanalysisto
experience transferenceifyou are a woman teaching,and every
woman who has taughtwill tell you that. The difficulties of be-
ing a woman teacher are in
very great, particularly graduate
school, but also in college. The thingI found is thatone has to
tell oneself, as a teacher who is tryingto representnot just a
feministpoint of view but a point of view that is franklyanti-
conventional,to be readynot to be loved. And we have always
as women been broughtup to believe that if we are nice they
will love us. You learn it's not true. They hate your guts. So
what do you say to yourself? You say: I want to tell them
something they may not even like hearing now or welcome
hearing,or maycall me all kindsof names forsaying. But when
lifehits them- and it will hit them,as Steinernsays,when they
marry,when theyget a job, when theyhave children,when they
age- instead of feeling guiltyor deciding that theyare mon-
sters, they will say: that's what that old dame was saying. I
would say to women anywhere,no matterwhat theyare doing,
don't worryabout being liked. Eventuallyyou will be, and if
you are luckyyou will have groups and friendswho like you,
but we don't make changes by sayingwhatpeople wantto hear,
and particularlywhat men want to hear. One has to make the
terribledistinctionof loving some men, but stillnot lettingall
men slip into the center of the landscape where we are.


Penn State University Press

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Penn State University Press

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

IS BIOGRAPHY FICTION?

This content downloaded from 91.229.229.44 on Tue, 24 Jun 2014 21:24:03 PM

going to call biographyfiction- or, like

Carolyn G. Heilbrun is Professorof English Emeritus,Columbia University,

© Carolyn G. Heilbrun, 1993.

Soundings76.2-3 (Summer/Fall 1993). ISSN 0038-1861.

This content downloaded from 91.229.229.44 on Tue, 24 Jun 2014 21:24:03 PM

whichhe prancesabout in a ludicrouscostume,claiminga so-

This content downloaded from 91.229.229.44 on Tue, 24 Jun 2014 21:24:03 PM

You are all, I am certain,awareof thekindof demonstration

This content downloaded from 91.229.229.44 on Tue, 24 Jun 2014 21:24:03 PM

theymighthave said to each other,givenherextensiveknowl-

This content downloaded from 91.229.229.44 on Tue, 24 Jun 2014 21:24:03 PM

mous and successfulwomenin the world,a columnistwidely

This content downloaded from 91.229.229.44 on Tue, 24 Jun 2014 21:24:03 PM

for the purposes of this discussion is Middlebrook's use of

This content downloaded from 91.229.229.44 on Tue, 24 Jun 2014 21:24:03 PM

Steinern - to indicatehow thebiographerand the subject(not

This content downloaded from 91.229.229.44 on Tue, 24 Jun 2014 21:24:03 PM

never abused, never unloved, never passed around, like

This content downloaded from 91.229.229.44 on Tue, 24 Jun 2014 21:24:03 PM

enormouspressureon all youngwomen- as anyonefifty-five

This content downloaded from 91.229.229.44 on Tue, 24 Jun 2014 21:24:03 PM

we are in dangerof retreatingfromall we have learnedin the

This content downloaded from 91.229.229.44 on Tue, 24 Jun 2014 21:24:03 PM

T'm here responding to Carolyn Heilbrun's thoughts about

Joan M. Weimer is Professorof English at Drew University.

This content downloaded from 91.229.229.44 on Tue, 24 Jun 2014 21:24:03 PM

have spinal surgerywhichwould keep me fromsittingformost

This content downloaded from 91.229.229.44 on Tue, 24 Jun 2014 21:24:03 PM

has been deliberately defaced. Because she seems to have

This content downloaded from 91.229.229.44 on Tue, 24 Jun 2014 21:24:03 PM

Whenyou tryto reconstruct anotherperson'slife,you see

This content downloaded from 91.229.229.44 on Tue, 24 Jun 2014 21:24:03 PM

CarolynHeilbrun:To Joan Weimer, I say I thinkwe need to

Soundings76.2-3 (Summer/Fall 1993). ISSN 0038-1861.

This content downloaded from 91.229.229.44 on Tue, 24 Jun 2014 21:24:03 PM

the rest I hope to make it a biography,my interpretationof a

This content downloaded from 91.229.229.44 on Tue, 24 Jun 2014 21:24:03 PM

theymustbe trueforall biographers.I amjust goingto tryto

This content downloaded from 91.229.229.44 on Tue, 24 Jun 2014 21:24:03 PM

thatthe truthis served by being hurtful.There are other ways

This content downloaded from 91.229.229.44 on Tue, 24 Jun 2014 21:24:03 PM

This content downloaded from 91.229.229.44 on Tue, 24 Jun 2014 21:24:03 PM

find theirvoice, and what more you mighthave to say about

This content downloaded from 91.229.229.44 on Tue, 24 Jun 2014 21:24:03 PM

You might also like