I was surprised, and rather disappointed, to find only one review for the late Martin Seymour-Smith's generous (in every sense) biography of Hardy. I've had it since it was published, and I consider it's the best biography, and believe me I've read 'em all! The last reviewer is not exactly wrong to point to the detail with which Seymour-Smith examines aspects of Hardy which might not in themselves seem important, or to complain about the sheer length of the book. But you have to know the history of Hardy biography, which has perpetuated so many myths, inaccuracies, misjudgements and just plain tripe about poor old Hardy, that it needed someone as dogged and learned and sensible as Seymour-Smith to sort out fact from fiction from speculation, and that was never going to be a quick job. He does, it is true, spend a great deal of time pointing out where other biographers got it wrong, and why. Gittings and Millgate, usually reckoned the standard biographies, take an essentially snobbish view of Hardy, both socially and intellectually, marvelling that a peasant such as Hardy could have somehow by a fluke come up with such great work. Neither is willing to cut Hardy any slack as a human being either, repeating the usual stuff about his being a curmudgeonly nay-sayer. (As he probably was when dealing with pains, but completely different in congenial company.) If this book has a fault it is in being if anything *too* generous to Hardy, though I'm willing to forgive that, as it balances things. Most biographers have taken such a dim view of the great man, you wonder why they bothered to labour over books about someone they clearly had litle time for. (And coming up to date, Claire Tomalin's much-lauded biography contributes almost nothing that Seymour-Smith hasn't already covered and in a far wittier style. The other recent survey by Ralph Pite is worthy and interesting, but again doesn't have the weight of understanding and close reading that Seymour-Smith brings to his subject.) What Seymour-Smith doesn't refer to in so many words, but his close analyses make clear, is the sheer dimness of most Hardy biography, reading things literally when it suits, and guessing the rest. Of course, there is a reason for this, and that is Hardy's attempt to create his own authorised biography in the form of the ghost-written volumes under his gloomy second-wife's name. One can see why he wanted to do it, wishing to forestall inaccurate biography and get his retaliation in fisrt, but this was probably not a good idea, and asking for trouble, as it left out much that would have been of interest, and as we all know all sorts of rubbish gets sucked in to fill a vacuum. It also left Hardy studies with the uneasy feeling that there must have been something, or somethings, he wanted to hide. No smoke without fire, etc. This seems not to have been the case at all, but again it took a painstaking examination of all the evidence, and a sympathetic, psychologically-literate, culturally-encyclopaedic, and large-minded biographer to do Hardy justice, and this is just what we have in Seymour-Smith's book. For the sort of money it's available for now on Amazon, it's an absolute steal. You don't have to read it all in one session, but you may find you want to!