How does knowing about an author damage reading experience?

[Emil Miller]

Has knowing these details about the author affected your reading his works? If yes, how? If no, why? What difference would it make if you were to know these details only by reading his biography?

I had already read most of Maugham's work before it became known what his personal life was really like. Up to that point, biographical information, including his own, had simply presented him as a major writer who had led an amazing life; all of which was true. However, as social mores changed and the underlying facts concerning him became known, his persona obviously took on another dimension. As I have said, none of the regrettable flaws in his character are shown in his work unless, that is, one deliberately looks for them. Knowing what I do now hasn't dimmed my admiration for him as a writer and I still read him occasionally if only to remind myself just how good he was and still is.

[dark desire]

:-) Thanks! Very interesting to know this.

[dfloyd]

of an author or any other prominent person. And heterosexuals are just as profligate as homosexuals. A prominent example is JFK. A woman I know, after viewing a recent movie on the life of Cole Porter, remarked to me she would never again listen to anything written by Porter who was a promiscuous homosexual. I take the attitude that a person's sexuality is their own business. Of course, I don't mean that any person has the right to break the law such as having sex with a minor. These people, be they writers, politicians, or priests, should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

[JBI]

Of course I'm usually interested in learning of the lives of the authors, artists, and composers I admire... and such biographies... combined with a grasp of the larger scope of the history of the period and culture in which the works was created can lead to further levels of understanding and appreciation. On the other hand... there is a danger... quite prevalent among many who are unable to differentiate the artist from the art work... of assuming that all art is autobiographical. This results in interpretations of the work of art based upon tasty tidbits gleaned from the artist's personal life (ie. Lewis Carroll's Alice must be some outlet for the authors presumed pedophilia) ... or assumptions made about the artist based upon the themes, characters, subjects, etc... touched upon (ie. Nabokov must have been a pedophile himself to have fleshed out the characters of Lolita so well.)

That is an approach question, and it is rare you actually encounter people who search for the author within the text.

The real strategy would be to see the work as part of the systems contributing to the world-view and desires of the author. For instance, in Dan Brown's works, everything is calculated to maximize the sales of the text, and therefore everything could be understood to be geared toward making more readers pick up and read the books (cliffhangers help).

If your goal is something else, it is necessarily reflected in the work. That is where biography comes into play.

For the more marxist reader though, the systems surrounding the author are necessarily contained within the work. So we can read communist ideals in Beijing architecture, class-consciousness in Victorian house furnishings, or imperialism in Meiji novels.

That is probably the most credible form of contextual criticism available, biographical seems to me far less interesting, and less relevant. But, I am an historian and not a theorist, so authors sexualities or diseases do not really interest me.

In fact, I would go one step further and say I am more interested in constructions of setting and place, and not as interested in character. Plot in general does not interest me very much, as I find it both repetitive and contrived, and only read it for character development.

I mean, I can understand how you may wish to see the pedophile Carrol in Alice in Wonderland, but on the whole, I cannot bring myself to read the text like that, since I do not find reading for that reason adds anything to the interpretive enjoyment of the work. It may be a veiled personal venting, but that hardly adds to my experience reading. It's the same way Shakespeare being gay or not has no bearing on whether or not I like Henry IV.

[JBI]

of an author or any other prominent person. And heterosexuals are just as profligate as homosexuals. A prominent example is JFK. A woman I know, after viewing a recent movie on the life of Cole Porter, remarked to me she would never again listen to anything written by Porter who was a promiscuous homosexual. I take the attitude that a person's sexuality is their own business. Of course, I don't mean that any person has the right to break the law such as having sex with a minor. These people, be they writers, politicians, or priests, should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

Well, there is always a spectrum - Hate, tolerate but hate, no opinion, accept, consider normal. Making one's sexuality one's own business I would put somewhere between tolerate but hate and no opinion. The fact is, heterosexuality is considered the "considered normal" "business", and therefore, one's sexuality being one's own business is a form of marginalization. That is why, of course, the Don't ask Don't Tell bit doesn't work - there should be nothing wrong with anybody expressing their sexuality as long as it is healthy (I.e., isn't illegal by the standards of modern countries, and isn't harmful to individuals).

So, you have a work that contains gay sex in it, what do you make of it? Well, there are two possibilities for those who are not gay, or openly gay individuals - one can say, well, I am not against it, but I do not feel comfortable by it, and another can say, I am not gay, but this doesn't disturb me any more than seeing two heterosexual people depicted doing similar activities would "offend" the sensibilities of a homosexual.

In other words, there is nothing wrong with homosexuality being in art work, any more than there isn't anything wrong with depictions of heterosexuality.

[Emil Miller]

of an author or any other prominent person. And heterosexuals are just as profligate as homosexuals. A prominent example is JFK. A woman I know, after viewing a recent movie on the life of Cole Porter, remarked to me she would never again listen to anything written by Porter who was a promiscuous homosexual. I take the attitude that a person's sexuality is their own business. Of course, I don't mean that any person has the right to break the law such as having sex with a minor. These people, be they writers, politicians, or priests, should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

Well you are certainly not referring to the film Night and Day which starred Cary Grant as Porter in a biopic that like others of the period made no mention of his homosexuality or with Lorenz Hart's in the film Words and Music. Such films bore little or no resemblance to their subjects' lives and the homosexual activities were only revealed after their death, but their work lives on because its quality is obviously superior to the juvenile rubbish that has replaced it.
Similarly, there are few novelists of Maugham's quality writing today and it doesn't look as though that situation is likely to change.

[dfloyd]

but a recent film whose title escapes me. In this film, Porter is portrayed honestly as a homosexual as well as a musical genius. The woman I was referring to, took strong objection to the scene in the film where Porter was kissing another man. I viewed it as a scene in which Porter's homosexuality was presented to the audience in no uncertain terms and was contrasted with his ability to understand heterosexual relationships as he depicted them in song.

[DarkAntigone]

I don't think knowing the author damages reading experience. It's great to know them though that part of their works were realistic

[kelby_lake]

but a recent film whose title escapes me. In this film, Porter is portrayed honestly as a homosexual as well as a musical genius. The woman I was referring to, took strong objection to the scene in the film where Porter was kissing another man. I viewed it as a scene in which Porter's homosexuality was presented to the audience in no uncertain terms and was contrasted with his ability to understand heterosexual relationships as he depicted them in song.

Could it be De-Lovely? :http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0352277/

[dfloyd]

Yes, it was De-lovely. For some reason I couldn't think of the movie title. I enjoyed the film immensly, especially the early days of Porter's career.