Diane Lockward has a great post over at her blog, Blogalicious, regarding her likes and dislikes about contributors' notes. Which got me to thinking about what I like/dislike in a bio.
I, too, am put off by contributors' notes that list more than three or four previous journal credits or which list the names of people that the writer "studied with". As if glory-by-association were possible.
Or is it?
Is anyone actually impressed when a poet lists that they received their "X degree from Y University where he/she was mentored by So-and-so Famous Poet"?
I would add to her list my own peeve about bios longer than 2-3 sentences. I cringe when I read a bio that sounds like the outline of the writer's autobiography.
Now I want to go back to my early journal publications and read my bios to see how many peeves I was guilty of!
And I will agree that if space permits, I appreciate links to an author's web site where I can look up additional information about them. Of course, I can always Google them...