The most entertaining and useful biographies are of people whose most interesting features are flaws. You could read about JFK winning elections despite his crippling levels of charm, and the fact that his dad was one of the richest people in the world; or you can read about Mao, who (according to the last biography I read) was disgusting and dull, but still managed to rule a large country despite the threat of coups. For similar reasons, Shockley is probably more interesting than Noyce, Jobs more fun than Woz, etc. But that depends. After thinking about the question for a little while, I realized that I don't notice that much variation in biography quality. It's there, but I'm mostly using the book to visit a historical period in the company of some interesting characters, so the author/tourguide is not such a big deal.
I think I would have to disagree. I think the quality of biographies can vary greatly. Some do not bring the person "to life." An author may only highlight and write about the events of the subject's life, without delving deeper into the personal qualities or characteristics that make someone so intriguing.
I want to be able to understand the subject as thoroughly as possible. Some authors are able to do this more effectively than others, in my opinion.
