This is something I’ve been pondering for a while - how much information do I want about the person who wrote the book I’m reading or plan to read. And does the information help or hinder the reading?
I’m thinking mainly about contemporary authors (“classics” are perhaps a different story - the more I know about Chaucer’s lifestyle, for instance, the more I can appreciate him). But with contemporary authors, I now err on the side of caution. I try not to read interviews with my favourite authors and I steer clear of autobiographies. Not because I’m not interested in who they are, but because in the past I have found that it can take away from my enjoyment of their writing if I feel disillusioned by their personality. It’s about not wanting the people who write these fantastic things to be human and have personalities I wouldn’t get on with. As a fairly simple example, I happened to catch a TV interview with Terry Pratchett a few years ago. I’ve alway been a Pratchett fan and I watched eagerly, only to discover that he came accross as someone who, if I met him the street, I would probably find really irritating. It put me off his books for a little while. I know this is unfair and I got over it eventually, but having had it happen several times since, usually when reading interviews with authors in the papers, I’m now wary.
It’s the difficulty between separating the author from their writing, which is particularly difficult in the case of those who write semi-autobiographically. I’m thinking of authors like John Irving in particular - I can’t decide if I want to know more or less about his own life, considering the frequency with which the themes in his books (wrestling, Vienna, writing) mesh with what I already know about his life. If I know more, then I can relate his books to his life, but that interferes (for me) with the rest of the book. I’m left thinking “who is this character in relation to his life - is that his sister? His mother?” and missing things I might otherwise pick up if I weren’t so distracted by this.
The book that has brought this to a head is Steven King’s On Writing. I really, really want to read it. But I don’t. But I do. But I might not. Is this just me? Should we try to separate the author’s life from their writing. Is it a good or a bad thing to know about the life of the author?
I feel sympathy with the general issue: I think modern media ruins a lot of popular art by being obsessed with the ‘artists’. Not just writers, but actors and musicians. It is assumed that if someone can write, or just sing, a good 3 minute pop song, their entire life story, opinions on world politics, and taste in clothes are worthy for discussion.
It shouldn’t matter what an author is like, the only thing we should take into account is the quality of the book. Of course, if the author purposely courts publicity and reveals details about their life, they have only themselves to blame if such information affects reception of their work.
As regards John Irving, the numerous connections between his life and of Garp in The World According to Garp for me completely ruined the book. It wasn’t meant to be an autobiography, but the succesion of similarities in their lives indicates a lack of invention on Irving’s part. I enjoy autobiographical novels of the kind that George Orwell wrote, but not this half memoir, half novel that sits comfortably in neither camp.
Paul Auster is an even worse offender. I didn’t realise many of his protagonists were based on himself until I read several of his books and noticed the depressing similarity of details about them, and then compared these with the real facts of his life in his factual writings.
In Auster’s case, it wouldn’t have mattered if I’d never read anything about the author it would have been clear that his characters were autobiographical from the procession of identical backgrounds they have. I have the feeling that Auster wants tham to all be the same, and identified with him: their initials are often P.A. I detect some post-modern trick, but one that I’m particularly motivated to investigate.
Um…I have to go and eat dinner. Arse. Perhaps more later.
Alex B/Mr Fran
Not just authors, but directors, musicians - the less I know about them the better. The less I hear them talk about their work, the better. The Director’s Commentary on a DVD is a feature I’ll never use.
Case in point: Ridley Scott. I’ll never forgive that bastard for deciding, in an interview 15 years after the fact, to declare what’s going on in Blade Runner. You had your chance, you made your film. If it’s not in the film, you should have put it in there. Tough breaks kid, remake the film if you feel that way.
This isn’t really a hijack because, to bring that point to authors, I expereinced too many who wanted to give the definitive statement on their works. Again, if it’s not in the book, I don’t really care what you have to say. You wrote the book, you’re done. My wife goes nuts trying to explain to students that the author is not the last or definitive word on a work. Many people think this is simply absurd, that of course the author knows best. As a result, many such artists won’t shut up about their works, constantly wanting to redifine or explain them. That defeats the whole purpose, in my opinion.
Weighing in for the other side, I like knowing a lot about an author. I enjoy learning things about that person’s life and experiences, and seeing how they match up, or not, with the events that take place within the pages of his/her books. It can be like a fun little puzzle, but I understand it’s a personal taste issue. I have had people tell me that I’m not really enjoying a work of fiction properly if I read it within the framework of what I know about the author, which always makes my eyes roll so far back in my head that I have to put the book down until my vision returns.
I should clarify that in the case of living authors, I’m only interested when the author is the source of the information – doing interviews, writing autobiographies, authorizing biographies. It’s creepy when someone else takes it upon themselves to dig up information in a covert way.
I also don’t mind when authors (or filmmakers) make comments about their work, because I just take it as one more comment. I like asking my friends what they thought of the book or film, and depending on what they say, I either will or will not incorporate it into my personal interpretation of the work. I love having conversations with people that make me say “Wow, I never thought of it that way, and if that’s true, that would explain why the mother said what she did, etc etc.” The author’s opinion is just one more opinion, and I will disregard it if I don’t agree with it, or embrace it if it leads me to think of new cool things I haven’t thought of before.
My favorite author is Orson Scott Card. I didn’t learn until at least 15 books in that he was a devout Mormon. Never had a clue. I read the entire Homecoming series and then learned it was based off the book of Mormon. The idea never crossed my mind. To me, it was just an enjoyable series.
Once I did learn, things became a lot clearer. It was also very strange too. Had I known from the very begining, I may not have accepted it. That’s sad to say, but I am not that religious and I couldn’t imagine myself reading something by an author whose spirituality and beliefs pervade every work he’s ever done. Especially a belief system through a religion that I don’t happen to share.
It weirded me out for a bit. Here was this guy trying to sneak religion to the unwary. I’m trying to enjoy Sci-Fi and he’s trying to preach to me. This isn’t what I wanted at all.
But then I changed my mind. He wasn’t trying to preach to me. He was trying to share who he was and what his religion meant to him. There is a difference. When we write, we can’t help but bring in who we are to our words. It just isn’t possible without it being a computer generated novel. He can’t help but bring religion into it because that’s who he is at heart.
Religion doesn’t overwhelm his books, but it always plays an important role…even if you have to look beneath the surfact to find it.
I think this is how it is with most authors. You certainly don’t need to know who they are to appreciate their works. But if you do, you understand why they’ve written as they’ve written.
I think when you start bonding with an author, which a reader can do after a number of books, I think it can often be a positive experience to learn more about that author, not not always.
I think with some authors their work is an extension of their lives. Look at Lawrence Durell (sp?), Mark Twain, William Falkner and Ernest Hemingway. So to learn more about them is to learn more about his or her work and appreciate their work better.
Others it is not at all the case. In fact, some aspects of their lives could well turn me off to their works. For me some of these are Tony Hillerman, Owen Wister, Robert Heinlein, Patricia Cornell and Ayn Rand.
I usually don’t wish to know much about an author’s life (particularly in the case of J. D. Salinger and his relationship with Joyce Maynard), but I was intrigued with Kurt Vonnegut’s mental illness analysis after reading “Slaughter House Five.” A wonderful book - the analysis gave further insight into the author and his experiences as a POW and as one with mental illness.
I–literally–could not care less about the life of the author. To paraphrase Dickens, if the author has done his job well, everything you need to know about the story is in the story. If the author needs to explain what was going on, he’s left something important out in the first place.
[hijack] Scott didn’t go back 15 years later and change the meaning of Blade Runner. All the clues were there in the original cut, but some were obscured by the studio’s butchering. When the director’s cut was released, the questions cropped up again. Scott answered the questions that viewers had been asking for years. There was no revisionist history here. I do think, however, it detracts a bit to have the answer handed to you. I don’t want Paul Voerhoven to tell me in an interview what was really going on in “Total Recall”, I want to figure it out for myself.[/hijack]
I didn’t read as much by him as you did, but I had read quite a few books and stories by him before I found out he was a Mormon, just this year. Unfortunately, it has hurt my opinion of him, because I feel he’s either deluding himself to believe Mormon mythology or he’s the type of person who can just ignore stuff that doesn’t fit his worldview, and I don’t like either possibility.
I agree. I used to really appreciate Alice Walker until I read her autobiography, the title of which escapes me. She’s quite…disturbing. I wish I’d never read it. I can’t read her stuff anymore.
I’d have to say that, unless my imagination about an author is fueled beyond passing curiosity, I won’t seek more info on the their lives.
But here’s a thought (since I’m rambling and all): I will seek out info on a painter’s life. I wonder what the difference is? This is also true for musicians.