dirac, on 05 March 2012 - 01:38 PM, said:
My point was that if the preservation of Le Clercq's treasured privacy is the concern, as many seem to suggest, a full biography is potentially just as invasive as a respectful and sensitive piece of fiction based on fact, if not more so.
We don’t know if L’Clerq would have seen a good posthumous biography as a violation of her privacy, or if she wouldn’t have cared what people wrote after she was gone. But we do know that a good biography isn’t pretending to be something it’s not, and that a good biographer respects his subject in refusing to engage in wholesale speculation. I can understand a writer being moved by L’Clerq’s story and wanting to use it. But she should also be able to understand that for people like me, for whom L’Clerq is at the top of the list of dancers I wish I’d seen, the author’s project seems tasteless.
It seems like the heart of the dispute here is who L’Clerq’s legacy belongs to, a casual ballet fan who stumbles upon her story, or the kind of fans who go out of their way to find out all that can truly be known about her and her dancing. L’Clerq may have said neither. But I wouldn’t pretend to put words in her mouth.