Author's Beliefs

[Idril]

I asked this question a different forum and I was curious what the general consensus could be here so I'm going to ask it again.

I had just started Journey to the End of the Night by Céline when I found out he was a crazy anti-Semite and I was similarly in the middle of Growth of the Soul by Knut Hamsun when I found out he was a Nazi supporter. Now Growth of the Soil in no way touched on Hamsun's beliefs and from what I've read, neither does the Céline book, there is no way to know their sympathies by what they wrote but still I wonder, at what point do and should an author's political and ideological beliefs influence whether or not to read his/her works? I have to admit I was uncomfortable continuing Growth of the Soil and considered putting it down when I found out about his Nazi past and now I'm in the same quandary with Journey to the End of the Night. I did finish Growth of the Soil and was glad I did but I don't plan on reading any more Knut Hamsun books. Then I think about all the Russian novels I read and all the anti-semitism that is scattered all over those novels and yet while I cringe when I read those passages, it doesn't make me not want to read the authors. I think the difference is that I don't believe that the Russian authors I know and love (not all Russian authors of course, just the ones I'm familiar with and love) would not advocate the extermination of the jews, I think that's why I'm more willing to deal with the discomfort than with an author that did, perhaps not out and out advocate extermination, but did advocate expulsion and racial purity.

Of course you aren't and shouldn't limit yourself to authors who share your politics and ideals because that would be boring and...limiting but does there come a time when you just have to stand your ideological ground and avoid certain authors who's personal beliefs are reprehensible to you? What are your opinions?

[Jozanny]

How often is Shakespeare's The Merchant of Venice produced with any degree of empathy? Or discussed with any degree of comfort on a daily basis? Authors are not a species apart from the rest of humanity--it is the end product, language making and becoming art, which makes us a little better than primates who don't trouble themselves over the science of feces removal.

Edith Wharton had her prejudices about the Jewish race and wealth, as did her mentor master Henry James. I am a disabled writer with my own biases who has been as much abused by minorities as by members of my own clan, so to speak. Gunter Grass, who is being discussed in the forum book club, is probably one of the greatest post-war German authors of all time, and yet he recently provided full disclosure about his involvement with the Nazi Party.

You have to be cautious about off-setting writers and nominating them for sainthood. We are as imperfect or as inspired with genius as any others who are a product of their period, culture, and time.

[JBI]

Yes, but it is interesting to note that Grass only revealed his Nazi affiliations after he got his Nobel. He didn't include them on the books' dust jacket.

[Idril]

Well, Gunter Grass's involvement with the Nazi party was as a youth, it wasn't really an ideological choice. He was a German and it was war, not everyone who fought for the Germans agreed with the Nazi policies. I think he has made it clear that he wasn't a supporter of Hitler or of his opinions on the Jews and with his activism and novels since that time, he has shown just how far he is from their ideals.

And I'm not interested in sainting anyone. I love many a tarnished writer, it's just connections to that kind of racial hatred is very hard for me to overcome.

[Jozanny]

And I'm not interested in sainting anyone. I love many a tarnished writer, it's just connections to that kind of racial hatred is very hard for me to overcome.

Very few individuals are the sum of their biases; if they were an X number of Hitlers would have cropped up and ended the species. Celine was a wing nut? Big deal. So was Pound--and if James cringed at the "swarming Jewry" in his American travels, it was arguably a piece of his greatness that Victorians had no tolerance for gay and lesbian lifestyles. To be human is to exploit, to oppress.

How much African literature do we discuss on The Network? How many threads do we have for that as opposed to Euro and American centric threads and authors? Anti-Semitic sentiment is a Caucasian insider's argument which has only recently had its spleen diffused thanks to the Holocaust--but the biases of Western Imperialism are still implicit even if the impetus of empire is dead. One gets tired of these constant guilt trips.

[stlukesguild]

This is one of the reasons I dislike the idea of approaching any artist from some Freudian biographical point of view. It places too much upon the "cult of personality" as opposed to the actual art object. In the visual arts this has resulted in the fact that most museums would rather own a minor or even a poor work by a major artist, than a masterpiece by a minor or generally less-well-known artist. It also leads to the aspect of "value"... monetary and aesthetic... being based upon legitimacy of attribution. If it were suddenly discovered irrefutably that King Lear had been written by another author than Shakespeare, would it lessen the merits of that play?

In literature I often find that correct or incorrect politics... the fact that one is imagined as having been a victim as opposed to a beneficiary of oppression (and living in the grossly wealthy and educated West are we not all such beneficiaries to a certain extent?) is imagined as reason to value of devalue an author. Maya Angelou had a crappy life but still prevailed. So we should admire her art as we admire her? I think not. By the same token I am not about to undervalue Hemingway's or Pound's or Eliot's literary achievements just because they may have been real jerks. It seems that there is too much confusion between the artist and the art... and they are not one and the same. No work of art fully defines an artist. If such were true we would certainly be able to discern which of Shakespeare's world of characters was most likely him. Unfortunately with the Romantics... and their heirs such as the Beats and the Confessional poets we have often forgotten that literature is an Art... as in "artifice" and "artificial"... it is something invented that blurs reality with fiction, invention, fantasy, ideals, etc...

[JBI]

Well, Gunter Grass's involvement with the Nazi party was as a youth, it wasn't really an ideological choice. He was a German and it was war, not everyone who fought for the Germans agreed with the Nazi policies. I think he has made it clear that he wasn't a supporter of Hitler or of his opinions on the Jews and with his activism and novels since that time, he has shown just how far he is from their ideals.

And I'm not interested in sainting anyone. I love many a tarnished writer, it's just connections to that kind of racial hatred is very hard for me to overcome.

The point is, he didn't come out and say it right after the war, and made a career of going against such views. He didn't say, in my youth I was sucked into this, he said, this is all evil yadayadayada. I don't dispute the quality of his work, but he clearly was looking out for the A man.

[Idril]

How much African literature do we discuss on The Network? How many threads do we have for that as opposed to Euro and American centric threads and authors? Anti-Semitic sentiment is a Caucasian insider's argument which has only recently had its spleen diffused thanks to the Holocaust--but the biases of Western Imperialism are still implicit even if the impetus of empire is dead. One gets tired of these constant guilt trips.

I just want to make it clear I'm not just talking about hatred towards Jews. It just happens, because most of the books I read are European, that the two examples I was talking about were connected to that but I'm talking about a general intolerance to other races, whatever they may be. I'm no more comfortable with authors who are allied with the KKK, for example, than authors who have connections with the Nazis or other anti-Semitic groups. Racial intolerance of any shape or form has always made me hugely uncomfortable.

And really, it doesn't have to be limited to racial disparity. I'm not looking to defend a point of view, I'm just looking for discussion and opinions. I know that my my issues with author's racial opinions are just that, my issues. I'm not looking to be justified or attacked for my hesitance to read certain authors. I'm just curious how other people deal with this question and what author prejudices...whatever they may be...give people pause.

And JBI, I think it's highly possible that it was something that caused a certain amount of shame for Grass, and certainly something he wanted hidden, without a doubt. The atmosphere after WWII towards anything that had anything to do with the Nazis was incredibly highly charged. There really didn't seem to be any sense of tolerance there, every German, citizen or soldier was considered suspect. It doesn't seem the least bit strange that he would want to distance himself from that. Cowardly, perhaps but understandable given what the circumstances were at that time, especially for Germans trying to separate themselves from the horror of the Nazis. And I believe he expressed the views he honestly held, as to the timing of his confession, I don't know...I do know that as people age, they feel a need for atonement and honesty. He perhaps felt that he wanted to control that reveal instead of having someone do it for him and being put in a position of defense.

[Drkshadow03]

Anti-Semitic sentiment is a Caucasian insider's argument which has only recently had its spleen diffused thanks to the Holocaust--but the biases of Western Imperialism are still implicit even if the impetus of empire is dead. One gets tired of these constant guilt trips.

What do you mean by this paragraph, Jozanny? You're tired of what constant guilt trip?

[Jozanny]

Maya Angelou had a crappy life but still prevailed. So we should admire her art as we admire her? I think not.

Why do you always single out this august old woman? She capitalizes on the norm of matriarchal dominance within the African American community. More power to her for it; she is probably old enough to remember what happened to Norma Neale Hurston, and so opts more towards being Oprah's oracle than a black poet kowtowing with muted propriety toward the *canon*. There are richer and more concurrent fields to plow luke. Terrance Hayes out of Pittsburgh, or Anjana Appachana, who isn't as famous as Rushdie but offers just as rich a palette on Indian society.

My impatience with Idril's conscience over European nutcases is that the answer is to diversify into multicultural viewpoints, of which this board can only do on a limited basis, partly due to the economics of copyright, partly due to the fact that "classics" naturally lead to calcification. Scheherazade does a great job with the forum book club, but this community could still benefit from more contemporary diversification.

[Drkshadow03]

My impatience with Idril's conscience over European nutcases is that the answer is to diversify into multicultural viewpoints, of which this board can only do on a limited basis, partly due to the economics of copyright, partly due to the fact that "classics" naturally lead to calcification. Scheherazade does a great job with the forum book club, but this community could still benefit from more contemporary diversification.

But what if you still enjoy the material by the European nutcases despite feeling uncomfortable about the fact that they are nutcases and their nutcasery might spill into their work? Saying that one should read more multicultural literature doesn't exactly solve the problem. It just gives you more to read that might be good too. It's true that the community could benefit from more diversity in its reading and discussions, but I fail to see how this addresses Idril's concerns in the slightest or even has any logical connection to them.It is a bit of a red herring. How does one logically have anything to do with the other?

[Virgil]

Yes, but it is interesting to note that Grass only revealed his Nazi affiliations after he got his Nobel. He didn't include them on the books' dust jacket.

Yes, the criticism that Grass got was his hypocrisy:

Günter Grass Under Siege After Revealing SS Past
By ALAN RIDING
Published: August 17, 2006

PARIS, Aug. 16 — In novels, plays, essays and newspaper interviews, Günter Grass has often told Germans what they did not want to hear: about their history, about their politics, even about themselves. For many on the left, since the 1960’s he has come to represent the conscience of a country with much to lament.

After winning the Nobel Prize in Literature in 1999, he explained his obsession with Germany’s past. “There were extenuating circumstances,” he told the Swedish Academy, “mountains of rubble and cadavers, fruit of the womb of German history. The more I shoveled, the more it grew. It simply could not be ignored.”

But now, at 78, Mr. Grass has stunned Germany by confessing that he too has a buried past. In an interview with a leading German newspaper, he revealed that in the final months of World War II, when he was 17, he was drafted by the Waffen SS, the military branch of the notorious Nazi corps that played an important role in the Holocaust and other atrocities.

The reaction in Germany to this admission has been one of disbelief and indignation: not that a teenager should have been recruited into the Waffen SS as Hitler struggled to avoid defeat, but that the country’s most prominent writer should have hidden this while hectoring others for their political and social sins from the comfort of the moral high ground. “I do not understand how someone can elevate himself constantly for 60 years as the nation’s bad conscience, precisely in Nazi questions, and only then admit that he himself was deeply involved,” Joachim Fest, a prominent historian and biographer of Hitler, told the newspaper Bild. “I don’t know how he could play this double role for so long.”

[Snip]
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/17/arts/17gras.html

He was wailing against others while he had done the same thing.

[JBI]

Yes, the criticism that Grass got was his hypocrisy:


[Snip]
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/17/arts/17gras.html

He was wailing against others while he had done the same thing.

That being said, he is still a fantastic novelist, and should be read, well, at least the Tin Drum.

On the note of Ms. Angelou, she, I have no doubt, is a great person, especially in the defense of minority rights, and social justice. But as far as her poetry is concerned, I don't see the problem calling it mediocre.

There are plenty of great African American poets, such as Thylias Moss (though her newer stuff is a little too post-modern for me, and I don't quite get it, as she seems to try and fuse different media forms, into something I can't quite understand), Rita Dove, who is a fantastic poet, and Robert Hayden, who needs no introduction.

But even that is within a small fixation - why should I, as a Canadian care about Ms. Angelou's critiques of America? I'm not American. You see the problem? There are great writers of every background, why not celebrate those, as StLukes is trying to hint at. Social commentary as literature needs to go beyond its time if it is to survive. It needs to contain more than just social commentary, but a transcendental aspect that makes its appeal beyond those who are criticized, or involved.

I can't see why someone in China would want to read Ms. Angelou, and I can't see why they should.

To me, multicultural reading means reading what is culturally important, and aesthetically superb from more than one culture. Ms. Angelou fails that, as do others, because she simply is writing for Americans, and not very well.

There are plenty of great African Canadian poets, for instance, who are unpublished in the States, though are of greater merit aesthetically than she is, as a poet (I haven't read her biographies, so I will reserve judgment on them). Someone like George Eliot Clarke for instance, who is a much better poet than Angelou, isn't read, because the market has been flooded by mediocre poets such as Angelou, or Gwendolyn Brooks (though the latter is better in my mind than Angelou, and has occasional good piece, however rarely).

[Jozanny]

But what if you still enjoy the material by the European nutcases despite feeling uncomfortable about the fact that they are nutcases and their nutcasery might spill into their work? Saying that one should read more multicultural literature doesn't exactly solve the problem. It just gives you more to read that might be good too. It's true that the community could benefit from more diversity in its reading and discussions, but I fail to see how this addresses Idril's concerns in the slightest or even has any logical connection to them.It is a bit of a red herring. How does one logically have anything to do with the other?

The past cannot be erased, so I do not see why contemporary readers have to turn green about the gills because of ancient bigotry. What *one* has to do with the other is education. I love the work of Henry James--that he was a stuffy repressed bigoted fart should not detract from the man's genius. Reading Chefitz and other Jewish authors teaches me just how sad James acceptance of his upper case social mores were, and that is pretty much the best one can do, in my estimation. The gift of what James did for literature outweighs his detractions; we all have biases, besides.

I am not arguing that Maya should or should not be read. I am slightly bothered that luke keeps bringing her up to trivialize her. I am a cripple, and I know how difficult it is to break stigma, and feel she should be respected for where she has gotten to, if nothing else.

[wessexgirl]

I asked this question a different forum and I was curious what the general consensus could be here so I'm going to ask it again.

I had just started Journey to the End of the Night by Céline when I found out he was a crazy anti-Semite and I was similarly in the middle of Growth of the Soul by Knut Hamsun when I found out he was a Nazi supporter. Now Growth of the Soil in no way touched on Hamsun's beliefs and from what I've read, neither does the Céline book, there is no way to know their sympathies by what they wrote but still I wonder, at what point do and should an author's political and ideological beliefs influence whether or not to read his/her works? I have to admit I was uncomfortable continuing Growth of the Soil and considered putting it down when I found out about his Nazi past and now I'm in the same quandary with Journey to the End of the Night. I did finish Growth of the Soil and was glad I did but I don't plan on reading any more Knut Hamsun books. Then I think about all the Russian novels I read and all the anti-semitism that is scattered all over those novels and yet while I cringe when I read those passages, it doesn't make me not want to read the authors. I think the difference is that I don't believe that the Russian authors I know and love (not all Russian authors of course, just the ones I'm familiar with and love) would not advocate the extermination of the jews, I think that's why I'm more willing to deal with the discomfort than with an author that did, perhaps not out and out advocate extermination, but did advocate expulsion and racial purity.

Of course you aren't and shouldn't limit yourself to authors who share your politics and ideals because that would be boring and...limiting but does there come a time when you just have to stand your ideological ground and avoid certain authors who's personal beliefs are reprehensible to you? What are your opinions?

I find this very difficult Idril. My head tells me that I should not let someone's beliefs colour my view of their work, but my heart tells me differently. I used to be quite left-wing, and so consequently had little time for artists who came from a different standpoint to me. However, I love the work of certain writers, like Evelyn Waugh, or Somerset Maugham, who I know to have been Conservative, with a large c. (Just to make it clear in case of confusion, Conservatives would probably relate to Republicans, and Labour would relate to Democrats, generally speaking). As far as I'm aware though, they weren't on a par with Nazis, although they were around at the time of the war. I try to be less judgemental and more tolerant these days, particularly as the lines between the parties become ever more blurred, but I don't know if I could stomach reading writers who I know hold, or have held, obnoxious views. I could not get rid of the fact inside my head, so it's probably a good idea for artists not to let their views become public, as they will always alienate someone. The chipping away of their "bad guy" persona, by buying into their work, would seem to make their views more palatable, and less outrageous. I don't think I could do it.