Wednesday, January 27, 2010


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...

1 comment:

Giulia said...

I am never ever impressed by where someone went, etc. Ever. I've become worse the older I get--I hate whatever I see as bragging even though, really, it's not always as bad as I think. People who put in too many 'forthcoming' are playing with embarrassment if they're not really certain it will be forthcoming. They might've been promised but that doesn't always count for much (as we both know).

Good weekend to & snow. Oh my.