Reading Shouldn't Make Me Yell and Curse

Why are biographies of living individuals so often disappointing? It seems that many accounts I have read - of fascinating people - have left me utterly unsatisfied. Occasionally, they are so bad that I want to take out a red pen and edit as I read. Or perhaps rewrite them - and it takes a spectacularly bad book for me to feel that I could surpass the writer's effort.

There are commonalities - and I am thinking now of 3 books in particular. They are Mountains Beyond Mountains, Three Cups of Tea, and Mbutu's Congo. All three have what are, to me, captivating subjects. Paul Farmer, the man who "would cure the world" - he has almost single-handedly brought a semblance of modern medical care to the central plateau of poverty-ravaged Haiti and worked to cure tuberculosis and treat AIDS around the world. Greg Mortenson, who has built hundreds of schools in the most inaccessible areas of Afghanistan and Pakistan, promoting peace and changing the lives of women and girls in the region. And, less inspiring yet equally as interesting, Mbutu Sese Seko, the dictator of Zaire (now the Democratic Republic of Congo) for 32 years (1965–1997) whose name became synonymous with kleptocracy as he plundered the country's resources and drove the country into desperate poverty.

What potential there is in each of these subjects! So why was I left angry while reading - at times yelling at anyone who would listen when I stumbled across a sentence such as, "The United Nations reported that more than 500 people got killed". Got killed? Really?

One of the main similarities, stylistically, is the insertion of the author into the books. It is almost like extended journalistic reporting - the reader is aware of the journalist's presence; the experiences of the journalist as he researches his subject are as much a part of the narrative as the subject himself. The University of Hawai‘i's Mānoa Book Project notes this characteristic in the description of Mountains, saying, "In a stylistic departure from most of Kidder's previous books, he writes in the first person, offering himself as a character and even as a foil, so that his own reactions of admiration, skepticism, exasperation and awe provide a second lens by which to see Dr. Paul Farmer."

The tone of all three works is very casual, chatty, and it feels to me, dumbed-down. This has its benefits and was most likely deliberate: the books are ready-made for a "Summer Reads" display at Barnes and Nobles, designed for maximum accessibility. I will admit that accessibility is especially crucial, as our popular culture could use more world awareness. But must I feel like I'm reading a chatty op-ed in some second-rate travel journal? I should hope that the reading public is more (dare I say it?) intelligent than that.

Maybe the authors and publishers are on to something. Many of these sub-par journalism-meets-biography endeavors are recommended to me by my less literary-inclined friends who gush over the books' excellence. And while I am glad that these issues are receiving wide exposure, I wish there were a middle ground. When passed among my more academic, book-addicted friends, these books are handed over with qualifiers and apologies. We say, "You don't know Paul Farmer?! Well, you must read this book. But I have to warn you: the writing kind of sucks. The author pisses me off. But the subject - well, you just have to read it". I am weary of these conversations and long for "summer reads" for which I do not have to compromise my literary standards.

Is there a way to create accessibility while maintaining stylistic integrity? Could these stories be told (with similar impact) without the author's presence? Or, could the journalistic feel be preserved and simply improved?

I hope to one day read a well-written biography of a living person. I will continue reading, of course - I won't give up - but will continue with skepticism, lowered expectations, and -perhaps- a red pen.