I can only think of three reasons to read a biography.

One, you admire or revile the subject. (Admiration or disgust work the same way, just in opposite directions.) For example, people read Nelson Mandela and Hitler biographies for the same reason. They want to know how a “normal” person became a world-changing figure.

This category also applies to people who read historical biographies like David McCullough’s “John Adams.” They are fascinated by a certain period of time.

Whether it be Neil Simon, Rocky Marciano or Idi Amin, people want to get a glimpse of their heroes (and villains.)

Two, sometimes people read a biography for the theme. This only applies to the rare biography that functions as literature. Recent NH Book Club selection “Black Boy” qualifies. The book told the story of Richard Wright’s life, but people don’t read it for Wright. They read it for a tale of isolation and racism in the south. The book would function the same way if it were fiction.

Another examples: Gabriel Garcia Marquez’s “Living to tell the Tale.”

Finally, people read biographies so they can see themselves in someone else. Every now and then, a relative nobody releases a biography. They didn’t break the color line in baseball or conquer Europe or release a multiplatinum genre-smashing album.

They just lived an unusual life and wrote about it.

We read their stories so we can see how we are alike. You may live in Tehran and I may live in Cleveland, but we feel the same way when a parent dies. You may be 68 and I may be 24, but we feel the same uncertainty and excitement when a beautiful woman enters the room.

I reviewed Deanna R. Adams’s “Confessions of a Not-So-Good Catholic Girl” for this Sunday’s “The News-Herald.”

I don’t suspect many people would read “Confessions” because they revile her. And, with all due respect to Ms. Adams, I don’t think she’s earned global admiration yet either.

No, most people will read Adams, a Lake County native, to find a little piece of themselves.

Her story of a young girl-gone-greaser/gone-mod/gone-hippie/gone-from-Ohio/came-back/got-married/got-divorced/got-married-again will strike a chord with baby boomer women.

If you want to find out why, specifically, you’ll have to buy a copy of Sunday’s paper.

What? I can’t give it all away online.

Leave me alone. It’s Friday.

-Jason Lea, JLea@News-Herald.com

As the de facto literary critic of The News-Herald, I receive a lot of self-published and print-on-demand books from local authors. I never crack the cover on most of them.

At the best of times, I can review maybe three or four books a month. When life gets busier, that number drops to zero. Consequently, I’m picky about what books I review. If I have two books — one from an author that has already survived the rigorous query/agent/publisher gauntlet, and the second from an unknown who sent their text to iUniverse or PublishAmerica — I’ll always pick the former.

Anyone — I repeat, anyone — can get published by these POD companies. There is no guaranteed quality control. I’ve received POD books with typos that could make a sixth-grade English teacher cry. I’m not saying everything sent by a major publisher is automatically better than any self-published text, but books from publishers have already been endorsed by someone besides the author.

I’m pretty sure 98 percent of the literate population has wanted to write a book at some point. POD publishers allow anyone to fulfill this dream, for the right price.

My biggest concern with POD publishers is not the lack of quality control. If people want to hold a copy of their dream, I see no problem with that, as long as they don’t expect me to review it for The News-Herald.

I think POD publishers are parasitic. They make their profit from authors, so they have no interest in selling their books. If a POD author makes a profit, and most of them do not, it is because of the tenacity and marketing savvy of the author.

Ideally, authors and publishers should work symbiotically. Both have something invested in the final product, so both promote it however they can.

Plenty of scams await the inexperienced author. Fake agents will try to bilk you for money. “Expert” editors may charge exorbitant fees to tighten text. Writers need to research anyone they work with and make certain their editors or agents are on the level.

And while I wouldn’t qualify POD publishers as a scam — they provide exactly what they promise, which is, your book at a price — I think they are diluting bookshelves and even hurting authors with potential. Writers need to suffer some rejection. The first thing Hemingway wrote was probably crap. Same with Chuck Palahniuk. Same with anyone. Writers improve by persistence and criticism.

If an author gets frustrated because nobody likes their manuscript, they may use a POD instead or rewriting or pursuing a new, better idea. PODs are easy, and easier rarely means better when it comes to art.

Once again, I am not saying there are no good POD books. But it is very difficult to discern them from the masses. First-time authors especially get lost in the morass. I understand why writers get frustrated and go the POD route. But it takes diligence to stand out from the pack.

Jason Lea, JLea@News-Herald.com

P.S. I have written a story about PODs and self-publishing for this Sunday’s Progress section in The News-Herald, which precipitated this post. The two authors with whom I spoke, Deanna Adams and Ruth Fawcett, did a good job of laying out the strengths and weaknesses of self-publishing and print-on-demand publishers.

Adams — who has worked with major publishers but used a POD for her latest book, “Confessions of a Not-So-Good Catholic Girl,” — said it better than I can:

I still plan on publishing with traditional publishers in the future. Credibility is still of upmost importance to serious authors, and there are still those in the media, as we spoke about, who frown on self-pub authors and in some cases, rightfully so! So until that world changes, I’ll still be using traditional publishers.