Some questions on Marcus and Strachey
by Alessandro Mitrotti
1. If we follow the line of thinking that “biography is means of expression when the author has chosen his subject in order to respond to a secret need in his own nature (Andre Maurois as quoted in Marcus pg. 102), then what could we opine were Strachey’s “secret needs” in choosing the noble yet dry Eminent Victorians?
2.What is the significance of Strachey including four separate biographies in one volume? In contrast to biographies with a single subject, the focus is shifts to style, stance and the one constant throughout the book, Strachey…
3.What were Strachey’s contemporary critics views on Eminent Victorians? Did they take offense at his omissions and mocking style?
4. How were the dichotomies that Marcus states are central to the body of biographical discourse: inner/outer, subject/object, mind/body, public/private, fact/fiction (pg. 130) manifest in Eminent Victorians? **I think the line between subject and object is blurred for example because of the agenda Strachey brings to his work. (his anger, his sarcastic wit and his anti-Victorian stance….)
5.”New biography” was a reaction to Victorian biographical panegyric, hero-worship” (Marcus 96)
Is this type of reaction to, or rejection of a past style inherent to any literary or movement?**This is significant I think because it sets up a context….
In regard of Alessandro’s first question, I consider Strechey’s implicit need to put himself over these so called “Eminent Victorians”, in behalf the flaws of this four subjects. Is quite interesting how Strechey used a narrative that lifts them from the average people for only to suddenly change to an almost comic perspective of their personalities, supporting an idea that this biographies were meant to fulfill Strechey’s need to establish himself in a superior level than any of his subjects of study.