This thesis analyzes how several well-known biographies of popular nineteenth-century British literary figures overturned and upset the usual heroic literary biographies that typified the genre during the Victorian era. Popular public opinion in the nineteenth century was that literary biographies existed as moral guideposts--designed to instruct and edify readers. Richard D. Altick's theory of biographical conventions of reticence--which contends that ultimately literary biographies were committed to establishing or preserving an idealized image of the author--is utilized to explore the nuances of how certain radical biographies in which the biographer is forthright about the subject's private life displeased and disturbed the public. In order to illustrate this study's central argument, several literary biographies that were considered among the most radical of the late Victorian period--John Forster's Life of Charles Dickens, James Anthony Froude's Life of Carlyle, Mathilde Blind's George Eliot, and John Cordy Jeaffreson's The Real Shelley--are analyzed as case studies. These biographies of writers' lives made heroic figures appear human, vulnerable, petty, et cetera by exposing private life matters in a public biography--something that was not done in an age that called for discreet biographies of its literary icons. Victorian periodicals such as magazines and newspapers assist in ascertaining just how the British public reacted to these biographies, and the ramifications they possessed for worshipping literary idols. Additionally explored are the implications that candid literary biographies had for Victorian author-worship and the role of literature, authors, and biography in British society. This study concludes with a discussion of the implications that these candid literary biographies had into the early twentieth century with the publication of Lytton Strachey's "deflated" biography, Eminent Victorians, published in 1918, and summarizes overall findings and conclusions.