The subject of this biography is the main reason to listen to this interview with the author, but not the only reason.  The biographer, himself, is another: why would a professor of international relations take on such a task?  He has a very good explanation in that interview.

Most importantly the interview hints at why the biography is likely worth a read: Cezanne’s intense and atypical sense of community, especially among well-regarded artists of his era, fascinates.  The fact that he took up fine art relatively late in life stuns (if you did not know it already).  His commitment to simple life away from the distractions of urban modernity is something we can relate to. His friend of the friendless actions inspire (except with regard to Dreyfus). The author has, according to Kirkus Reviews

researched every facet and nuance of Paul Cézanne’s life (1839–1906). His comfortable childhood in Provence, his years in Paris, where he was influenced by the Impressionists, and his dependence on the allowance from his father created the artist some suggested was “not all there.” There is a wealth of information in the correspondence between the artist and his childhood friend, Émile Zola, in which they parodied Virgil, joked in Latin and discussed Stendhal. Zola knew that Cézanne’s art was a corner of nature seen through his own curious temmpérammennte. The artist didn’t paint things; he painted the effect they had on him. He saw colors as he read a book or looked at a person, understood the inner life of an object and let his brain rework that object, sometimes illuminating it, sometimes distorting it. Danchev rightly subscribes to the theory that understanding the man is important to understanding his work, and he attempts to parse Cézanne’s psyche, digging into the background of nearly every author he discussed in his letters, quoting every writer who based a character on the man.