The (un-)importance of liking an author?

[FacialFracture]

(First of all, I'm sorry for the length of this; I'm incapable of even asking a simple question without miles of exposition.)

Like most people who read a lot, I tend to read about authors almost as much as actually read their books. In fact, I'm terrible about it; I'll buy books with long introductions, or mini-biographies of the writers, and I often don't get around to reading the novel/poem/play itself for months. So, I tend to have a firm idea of whether or not I "like" an author (as a person, rather than as an artist). Maybe to some people this is rather silly, but I'm sure it's fairly common...

...Anyway, I've come to the conclusion that I (usually) don't need to like an author in order to like his or her books; I can very nearly hate a writer, but read his work with no diminished enjoyment--but there are exceptions.

I'm curious about how others deal with this, so please let me know, for example; If you're a liberal, can you enjoy a book written by a staunchly conservative author? Would finding out that one of your favourite books was written by a racist change your view of it? Mostly, if you read a biography and just don't like the guy you're reading about, would it/does it change your view of their work? Whatever the case, give some examples; I don't need you to justify your choices, your reasoning can be utterly petty. I'm just curious.

For me, it's all very contradictory; Some examples of my own:

-I dislike nearly everything I know about James Joyce as a person, but I love everything of his I've read.
-I really like Allen Ginsberg, but I find his stuff near-unreadable.
-I dislike everything I know about Ayn Rand's philosophy/ideology, and I can't get over it enough to just read her books.

[rgdmalaysia]

I definitely believe in trust the art not the artist!

Knut Hamsun, my favorite author, was accused of being a Nazi collaborator after WWII (although the story is more complicated than that according to Hamsun's excellent biography Enigma by Robert Hansen).

Celine (another of my favorites) had even worse Nazi problems after WWII.

Their writing in NO WAY reflects any nazi-like views and is many ways the oppposite as they both promote individualism through their narratives.

Many Japanese writers I like were self-involved and suicidal....You know what? I don't care other than it helps to know this in understanding some of the motivations of the characters in their books.

Of course, there is a limit....not sure I could read a book by a child molester or a murderer and not be bothered by that.

[PeterL]

I know little of most authors, except what they show through their writing; but I have found that learning about a person through his writing is worthwhile. I had an English professor whom I found dull, until I read his novels. His novels are excellent, except the first one; the characters are pleasant and witty, except for the rotters. I went from not liking the guy to thinking fairly highly of him. Another published that I am acquainted writes odd, poorly organized novels, and that was typical of her as a person. I would reather judge someone through his or her writings, rather than through what people say about that person or what the author says about him or her self.

[Virgil]

I agree with all three of you above me. I don't usually care too much about the writer's life, but I do care about their art. Nor am I locked in to a writer's ideas, as to whether I agree or not. It's what he does with it that counts. Henry James calls this allowing the artist his donee.

[Nico87]

-I dislike everything I know about Ayn Rand's philosophy/ideology, and I can't get over it enough to just read her books.

I think you should read The Fountainhead and/or Atlas Shrugged, or maybe some of her earlier work, then. To get a better insight in her philosophy, and maybe understand it a little bit. You don't have to be a fan of Ayn Rand, just to like her books. Remember, it's only fiction.

She makes some excellent points, but I wouldn't say that I like her philosophy, or that I want to live in a world based on her philosophy, but that doesn't make her books bad. Everyone seem to think that it's illegal to read Rand if you disagree with her philosophy, but it's not. It's actually quite interesting.

Bite your tongue, and get to reading!

[Fowles27]

This may sound too rhetorical, but I think one's own works, not his biographies, best reflect the author as a person. Often even better than the author's autobiography. (I've become pretty firm on this after reading Flaubert's Parrot :yawnb:)

I have no doubt that most biographers and academics out there do thorough research about their subjects and most of what they've discovered are true, or at least not so far from the truth. But those "facts" about the writer may merely show her persona, failing to reveal her real character or nature. (Acclaimed) writers usually have complex mindsets, philosophies, cognitive patterns, etc...and they wrote a book because it's the best, or the only, medium for them to present their ideas.

So, in my view, if I like his/her works, I like the author as a person too. (doesn't necessarily mean that he would've made a good friend of mine.)

[FacialFracture]

Thank you for your responses. Aside from anything else, I certainly think it's more fair to judge an author by his work than for his (alleged) behaviour, or character...

That said, I'm occasionally unfair...


I think you should read The Fountainhead and/or Atlas Shrugged, or maybe some of her earlier work, then. To get a better insight in her philosophy, and maybe understand it a little bit. You don't have to be a fan of Ayn Rand, just to like her books. Remember, it's only fiction.

I completely agree, Nico; I should read something of Rand's...and I do know that it's only fiction...but I can't do it, I won't do it, and I can live with the fact that I'm probably missing out.

[Petrarch's Love]

Interesting to hear about someone who reads all the forward matter first. I'm the type who much prefers afterwards (or just reading introductions as afterwards). I almost always try to read no biography, commentary, criticism etc. before I've read the book itself. Part of this may be because as a scholar I want to read a work first with as little external bias as possible so that I'm making judgments based on the text itself rather than reading through a lens of how I think it ties in with the author's life or the opinions of other critics. I feel the same way about reading I do for non-scholarly purposes too though, so maybe it's partly just that I'm impatient to get down to the lit. bit. After reading a book I often read up on the author though, and I agree with you that sometimes I like an author more than his/her work or vice versa. Most often though, I find that I had guessed a lot of the biography through reading the literary work. Not the details perhaps, but the general sense of what sort of personality and experiences were part of the author's life.

[AuntShecky]

Every once and a while you read about the Israeli Philharmonic Orchestra -- should they or should they not
perform the works of Richard Wagner? It has been well-documented how Nazi Germany usurped Wagner's works and tried to incorporate them into the corrupt and despicable culture.

Same with Ezra Pound -- his body of work lives, even among those of us who are no fan of neither anti-Semitism
nor mental illness.

On a much less earth-shaking level, what about:
the songs of Frank Sinatra?
the films of Woody Allen?

And some people (yours truly most definitely NOT included) consider D. W. Griffith's Birth of a Nation to be
a cinematic masterpiece, even though that film glorifies --
are you ready for this?-- the Ku Klux Klan.

[Nico87]

...but I can't do it, I won't do it, and I can live with the fact that I'm probably missing out.

Completely understandable. I resented Ayn Rand's philosophy for a long time, and I still do.

But, then I discovered a gem of a video game called Bioshock, available on Windows and Xbox. I'm not going to go into details on the game, as I don't find it suitable on this forum, but the game is mainly about a mad man called Ryan Andrew (which basically is a male version of Ayn Rand, and represents the same philosophies), who built a underwater city with Rand's philosophies as a foundation. I sort of wanted to know more about the stuff Rand stood for, simply because the game is really that great. (Just to make it clear, you don't play as Ryan Andrew, the villain, you play as a random person who's on a plane that crashes in the middle of the Atlantic, and so on.)

The storyline in the game is excellent, and it is kind of an attack on Rand's philosophies, as the video game shows how utterly catastrophical things would turn out if Rand's ideas were set to life. After playing through the video game, I at once bought copies of The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged, mainly because I knew that Bioshock is loosely based on The Fountainhead in terms of philosophy and idealogy.

So, long story short, I doubt you will miss anything by not reading her books. I don't think Rand was a great writer at all, she just chose literature as a platform to show the world her philosophy. As I said, I doubt I would ever have read any of her books if I hadn't played Bioshock.

In any case, if you like video games, and want a game to play, get Bioshock as soon as possible. It's much more fun than reading her books, and you get the idea of what Rand was all about after playing it through. Needless to say, the game doesn't cover all aspecs of her ideas and the like, but you get the grasp of things.

[Black Flag]

I like to focus more on an author's fictional characters, as I believe they are a manifestation of certain parts of an author's psyche, or soul. Soooooo...the actions and personalities of characters are what a certain part of the writer would LIKE to do or LIKE to be like but never would for moral or other reasons.The antagonist and the protagonist are two parts of an author's mind, or heart. Other, supporting, characters are how the author used to feel about the world, also in some hidden deep way, at one point in their life.
Long story short, by following the characters of a book, you're glimpsing into the deep inner core of someone's heart.
(By the way — I'm kind of playing devil's advocate here).

[FacialFracture]

Petrarch's Love - The way you read makes sense to me; In fact, most people with whom I discuss books skip the introductions/forewords altogether. It's probably no coincidence that most of those people are also students or professors. Part of the reason I do read intros/forewords is probably because I was a terrible student (who never even finished high school); I'm always scrambling for any contextual information I can get on whatever I'm reading--I have to, or I wouldn't understand half of what I read; Donne and Dickens would be contemporaries, and I wouldn't be able to distinguish between a book on the Boer War and one on the First World War.

AuntShecky - Ezra Pound and Birth of a Nation are both really good examples. I love Pound's poetry in spite of his views, and I appreciate the place in film history that Griffith's film has earned from a technical/artistic standpoint, even though I vehemently disagree with its glorification of the KKK. Your bringing up that film (along with Woody Allen, Sinatra, and the Israeli Philharmonic) will, hopefully, open this discussion up to other media, outside of literature.

Nico87 - I don't play video games, but I appreciate the suggestion; plus, I find it funny that a video game prompted you to go read a bunch of books. That kind of blows the whole "video games are making us all illiterate" argument out of the water.

Black Flag - I've always thought of characters as puppets that an author manipulates to make his ideas known, rather than as actual manifestations of his feelings/impulses/id/ego/whatever. I like your explanation though; I think it's a nicer, more personal one.

[Nico87]

I think you would be able to distinguish between a book on the Boer War and one on the First World War if you read two so-called important book about the two wars. Plenty was different between the two wars, but Boer War veterans who fought in WW1 could easily see the link between the wars both combatwise and warfarewise.

I agree with you about what you said about introductions. I rarely read a book without reading the intro first, no matter how long the intro is. I started reading Catch-22 by Joseph Heller without reading the introduction first. A couple of pages in, I realised that I can't begin to read this great novel without reading the introduction. I felt like I had missed something.

Introductions are also great because you get alot of insight in the authors life to a certain degree, at least in most cases. It's also interesting to read about stuff that inspired the author to write the book.

[PanzaFan]

I believe an authors work should be taken for what it is but I also believe that good interpretations should take into consideration the author's situation/philosophies. I say consideration because you can not completely understand a work because you are familiar with an author nor can you completely understand it without some context. For example, anyone that reads Yeats, but is blissfully unaware of his strange ideas, would have a difficult if not impossible time understanding his poetry while understanding a Robert Frost poem is a little less tricky (many may disagree with this). I always read the introductions and such before beginning a work and often do a little background on the author if anything is available. But I try not to let my opinion of the author effect my enjoyment of their work or heaven forbid keep me from reading it at all.

[Nico87]

Black Flag - I've always thought of characters as puppets that an author manipulates to make his ideas known, rather than as actual manifestations of his feelings/impulses/id/ego/whatever. I like your explanation though; I think it's a nicer, more personal one.

Well said. Of course this isn't the case with many books/characters, but it's true in many books.

[Petrarch's Love]

Petrarch's Love - The way you read makes sense to me; In fact, most people with whom I discuss books skip the introductions/forewords altogether. It's probably no coincidence that most of those people are also students or professors. Part of the reason I do read intros/forewords is probably because I was a terrible student (who never even finished high school); I'm always scrambling for any contextual information I can get on whatever I'm reading--I have to, or I wouldn't understand half of what I read; Donne and Dickens would be contemporaries, and I wouldn't be able to distinguish between a book on the Boer War and one on the First World War.


Yes, it makes perfect sense to read the introduction first if you don't have a general sense about where the author fits into the chronology and such. Certainly there have been books I've read for the first time only to have a lot of things fall into place after reading a bit of the introduction. Indeed, since it usually is an introduction rather than an afterward, I assume I'm in the minority as someone who reads introductions last. Regardless of when you read the background material, it's always nice to hear that someone is reading it. So many of my students are resistant to the idea of reading an introduction at all.


Every once and a while you read about the Israeli Philharmonic Orchestra -- should they or should they not
perform the works of Richard Wagner? It has been well-documented how Nazi Germany usurped Wagner's works and tried to incorporate them into the corrupt and despicable culture.

Same with Ezra Pound -- his body of work lives, even among those of us who are no fan of neither anti-Semitism
nor mental illness.

On a much less earth-shaking level, what about:
the songs of Frank Sinatra?
the films of Woody Allen?

And some people (yours truly most definitely NOT included) consider D. W. Griffith's Birth of a Nation to be
a cinematic masterpiece, even though that film glorifies --
are you ready for this?-- the Ku Klux Klan.


You bring in some good points and examples. Where does one draw the line between the author and his/her work? A case like Wagner is tricky in that the thing that really joins the work to antisemitism is Hitler's preference for and interpretation of the operas rather than something explicitly stated in the works themselves. Thus it's not only a question of what you think of Wagner (who was, I gather, moderately anti-semetic, but no more so than a near contemporary like Dickens, who gets much more historic forgiveness), but it's also a question of what you think of the cultural spin that was put on his work by a later generation.

It's also another matter when the author's personal prejudices are central to their work. The most clear cut to me of your examples is the one I've always been puzzled about because people seem hardly to acknowledge that it's even problematic: that is Griffith's Birth of a Nation. I've always been interested in film history on an amateur level and I had heard the film talked about a lot by film historians and friends of mine as a great must see film. I recall being absolutely shocked when I finally rented it and realized what it was about (and never did finish watching it). What puzzles me is the number of people who refer to this film as an important piece of cinema without any sort of qualifying statement to follow. Certainly when I refer to Shakespeare's Merchant of Venice I immediately acknowledge that the subject matter is problematic and, in many places, unacceptable by modern standards (though Merchant does display some nuance and potential for seeing Shylock's point of view despite it's clearly anti-semetic foundation, whereas from what I gather Griffith is fairly relentlessly propagandistic). I don't know why there isn't more of a fuss or controversy, or discussion at the very least about people commonly and casually referring to Birth of a Nation as a very important foundational film.

[Aiculík]

Interesting to hear about someone who reads all the forward matter first. I'm the type who much prefers afterwards (or just reading introductions as afterwards). I almost always try to read no biography, commentary, criticism etc. before I've read the book itself. Part of this may be because as a scholar I want to read a work first with as little external bias as possible so that I'm making judgments based on the text itself rather than reading through a lens of how I think it ties in with the author's life or the opinions of other critics.

That's exactly what I do! I don't like being told what should I think of the novel and what means what in it even before I started to read it. I like to make my own opinions.

I only read about authors if I think it might help me understand cultural context of what he describes in the novel, if it's different than what I know - e.g. Marukami, or Arudhati Roy or Ismail Kadare - I had to learn something about them and their countries to better understand their works. But I always do that after I read the books.

But usually I don't really care about the authors, or artists in general in the sense that I wouldn't like his works because I don't like his opinions and his life.

There might be some exceptions, though - e.g. I used to like one singer who always sings about love - romantic and pure love, not sex, from a point of view of a Christian. But, as I found out later, his private life was quite opposite. He had many lovers - he even had a relationship with only 16 years old girl (at that time, he was 56). When I found out, I was so disappointed and disgusted, that for me, he simply doesn't exist any more.

But that's rare - I can't even remember an author that had disappointed me in that way.

[schadenfreude]

A novel is essentially a work of art, and your personal opinions towards the artist should not have any real effect towards the true quality of the work. I don't particularly like Andy Warhol, but his artwork is definitely marvellous. Same goes for novels. (with the exception of Jane Austen and Sense and Sensibility- I don't like either)

Once I had a Literature teacher who said that we should never ask authors about their books because a novel is an entirely separate creation, and should only be interpreted by yourself. However, it is probably good to read about authors or read introductions (and etc) since it may foster a greater understanding of the novel.

I hope I haven't been to contradictory. What I am trying to say is that it is great to consider the authors if you want to gain a greater understanding of their works, however it is unwise to let that affect your opinions towards the book.

[ivette]

I guess I'm a lucky person: I think I liked almost all the authors I've read so far. Or maybe I just don't know enough about their life and beliefs.
I usually value author's work not biography, although it is interesting to know something about him/her. It can help you sometimes with the interpretation.
If I like writer's work really much, then I usually read something about him/her but just because I'm curious. For example, I know pretty much everything about Virginia Woolf because I love her novels! :)

[Dark Muse]

This is an intresting question, though I am terrible in this way that I do not know very much about the personal lives of many of the authors I read, with few exepctions I go to little trouble to research the authors I read, I just like to enjoy the book for the story it presents, though overall I do not think it would matter to me how much I really agreed with or liked the person behind the work for me to read it.

Some examples is, I did read a biography of Jack London once, and though it was very intresting there were somethigns about his personal like and the things he did that I personally disagreed with but I still enjoy and read his work.

I think the only way it would affect me is if I heard something about an author prior to having read one of thier books, I might than feel relutant to purchase one of thier works if I have not already become addicted to thier stories.

[Dori]

Interesting to hear about someone who reads all the forward matter first. I'm the type who much prefers afterwards (or just reading introductions as afterwards).

I also read introductions as afterwords or possibly not at all. For instance, if I read an intro to one book of Dostoevsky, most likely a good portion of that information will be in another introduction to another book of his. It's just a little repeditive.


Thank you for your responses. Aside from anything else, I certainly think it's more fair to judge an author by his work than for his (alleged) behaviour, or character...

That said, I'm occasionally unfair...

I agree. I'm not a big fan of those who gamble, and Dostoevsky was a gambler. But, I still enjoy his writing. (Perhaps this is not the best example, but it was the first to come to mind.)


I like to focus more on an author's fictional characters, as I believe they are a manifestation of certain parts of an author's psyche, or soul. Soooooo...the actions and personalities of characters are what a certain part of the writer would LIKE to do or LIKE to be like but never would for moral or other reasons.The antagonist and the protagonist are two parts of an author's mind, or heart. Other, supporting, characters are how the author used to feel about the world, also in some hidden deep way, at one point in their life.
Long story short, by following the characters of a book, you're glimpsing into the deep inner core of someone's heart.
(By the way — I'm kind of playing devil's advocate here).

I'm not sure I agree with the whole of your statment. Perhaps some authors do this some of the time, but I wouldn't go as far as saying that all authors (or even most authors) create characters as manifestations of certain parts of the author's psyche, as you put it.


Well said. Of course this isn't the case with many books/characters, but it's true in many books.

Exactly my point.


Here are a few examples of my opinion of the (un)importance of liking an author:

I hate The Birth of Venus and I dislike Sarah Dunant as well.
I love Dostoevsky's writing, but more so than him.
I like Tolstoy's ideas as much as his writing.

I don't think I've come across a book where I like the author but not the book. It seems that every time I dislike a book, I don't bother to look into the author.

[stlukesguild]

Aunt Shecky... interesting thread... and Petrarch's Love you bring some interesting points into the fray. As to whether you can like an artist's work and not like the artist (and yes, I know I have expanded the initial question... but certainly some of the most obvious answers to this come from the fields of music and the visual arts) based upon what you know of his or her personality, I must state a resounding "Yes, of course." As a visual artist myself I have no use for any romantic notions about the artist/creator as some morally/socially superior being. An artist is simply someone who creates art. The art work is a product that may or may not reveal something about the artist's personality. J.L. Borges somewhere in one of his essays argued that an artist cannot create a work of art greater than him or herself. That may indeed be true. Still artistic "brilliance" or "genius" need not go hand in hand with emotional maturity, a personable nature, morality, open-mindedness, etc... Personally, I'm not all that certain I'd like hanging out with T.S. Eliot, Pablo Neruda, Hemingway, Andre Breton, William Blake (gasp!:eek2:), Beethoven, Michelangelo, or Picasso. On the other hand I have no doubt that I love much about their work.

Petrarch's Love took the question to the next... "problematic" level. How do you relate to the works of artists who may have personality traits that are less than ideal... when these traits begin to show their face in the actual work? Certainly there are works of art that reveal prejudices that are unacceptable today. PL brings up the antisemitism of Shakespeare's Merchant of Venice. Of course many older works of art are often laden with such prejudices. My first response is to say that I try to accept what an artist is saying within the context that it was presented. We may judge something as unacceptable by our standards... but this can become a slippery slope. Much that we accept in art today would certainly be judged as morally/ethically unacceptable by older standards and it is the height of arrogance to imagine that the values of our culture are inherently superior to the values of another.

On the other hand... I in no way advocate for the idea of the value-free judgment (the argument, for example, that accepts the abuse of women in certain cultures because to question it would be to question the values of another culture). I accept it as a fact that when I engage a work of art there is something of a dialog. As with any dialog I do not agree with everything presented by the other person. I have written constant angered comments in the margins while reading Plato... but I would not suggest that he should not be read. I must admit, however, that if a work's entire reason for being revolved around the expression of ideas that I found repugnant I would be quite unlikely to appreciate the work. I think immediately of the writings of the Marquis de Sade. Certainly there are scholars, critics, and artist who swear that de Sade's writings are some brilliant expression of subliminal desires. One critic went so far as to suggest that much of his entire oeuvre was but a parody of Rousseau. Personally, I find nothing of use. But then again... I don't find anything in the work of any aesthetic value either. Violence, murder, and rape can certainly be presented in an aesthetic manner... as part of a powerful work of art (immediately I think of Goya's Disaster's of War, all those crucifixions, Faulkner, Cormac McCarthy's Blood Meridian, etc... Can we accept... even like art by a murderer or rapist? Caravaggio had a long history of pandering images of under-aged boys to pedophile church figures as well as a police record that included numerous instances of violence... and even murder... and yet... an unquestionably brilliant artist... probably the initiator of the entire Baroque movement in the visual arts:

http://i90.photobucket.com/albums/k255/Stlukesguild/depositionpicc.jpg

http://i90.photobucket.com/albums/k255/Stlukesguild/caravaggio_deathsmall.jpg

http://i90.photobucket.com/albums/k255/Stlukesguild/caravaggio_conversion_of_st_paulsma.jpg

[nebish]

tragically, proscribing anti-semitic writers would severely reduce the canon
- Dostoevsky, Shakespeare, Marlowe, Eliot, Pound, G.Greene, Fitzgerald; (not Dickens - his apology for unwittingly portraying Jews unsympathetically in Oliver Twist was to inscribe Riah into Our Mutual Friend)
similarly, male gender-privileging has 95% of the canon compromised.
There are no extenuating excuses for either - humans should be able to embrace all mankind wholly and warmly - and the writer is just so-much diminished but their shortcomings in this respect: the artefact may be splendid but is nevertheless tainted. To appreciate and acknowledge such imperfections in the artwork are the obligations of an active and intelligent reader.

[stlukesguild]

There are no extenuating excuses for either - humans should be able to embrace all mankind wholly and warmly - and the writer is just so-much diminished but their shortcomings in this respect: the artefact may be splendid but is nevertheless tainted. To appreciate and acknowledge such imperfections in the artwork are the obligations of an active and intelligent reader.

"When the moon is in the Seventh House
And Jupiter aligns with Mars
Then peace will guide the planets
And love will steer the stars

This is the dawning of the age of Aquarius
The age of Aquarius...":rolleyes:

[FacialFracture]

Okay, well, apparently with a few (very minor) variations on the theme, everyone agrees that (for the most part) an author's/artist's work can and should be appreciated without much consideration of their personal life/views/whatever.

I can't say I agree with "embracing all mankind wholly and warmly," but I certainly think it's easy to embrace a work of art or literature "wholly and warmly" without also embracing its creator...maybe, rather, accepting the creator of a thing is what we're going for.

Thanks again to everyone for their replies. And thanks, stlukesguild, for the illustrated examples, and the 5th Dimension lyrics.

[liberal viewer]

Okay, well, apparently with a few (very minor) variations on the theme, everyone agrees that (for the most part) an author's/artist's work can and should be appreciated without much consideration of their personal life/views/whatever.

I can't say I agree with "embracing all mankind wholly and warmly," but I certainly think it's easy to embrace a work of art or literature "wholly and warmly" without also embracing its creator...maybe, rather, accepting the creator of a thing is what we're going for.

Thanks again to everyone for their replies. And thanks, stlukesguild, for the illustrated examples, and the 5th Dimension lyrics.

I guess in an ideal world great writers should be great human beings as well. Sadly that is not the case at all, as most writers have "issues". Now, if those issues are so hateful and you know about them would you still be able to enjoy his books? Say you are a black person, would you enjoy reading a novel by a known racist? What about a novel that artistically has merit, but deals with a white racist who tortures blacks and there is no reckoning? Still, I'd say it would have to be extreme to avoid a writer. I mean, in my case I find Vargas Llosa politically repugnant, yet I love several of his novels. Feminists, I gather, reject Hemingway, do they think he is a good writer? Isn't that feminist posture one of the reasons Hemingway seems to have fallen out of flavor recently?

[PrinceMyshkin]

(First of all, I'm sorry for the length of this; I'm incapable of even asking a simple question without miles of exposition.)

Like most people who read a lot, I tend to read about authors almost as much as actually read their books. In fact, I'm terrible about it; I'll buy books with long introductions, or mini-biographies of the writers, and I often don't get around to reading the novel/poem/play itself for months. So, I tend to have a firm idea of whether or not I "like" an author (as a person, rather than as an artist). Maybe to some people this is rather silly, but I'm sure it's fairly common...

...Anyway, I've come to the conclusion that I (usually) don't need to like an author in order to like his or her books; I can very nearly hate a writer, but read his work with no diminished enjoyment--but there are exceptions.

I'm curious about how others deal with this, so please let me know, for example; If you're a liberal, can you enjoy a book written by a staunchly conservative author? Would finding out that one of your favourite books was written by a racist change your view of it? Mostly, if you read a biography and just don't like the guy you're reading about, would it/does it change your view of their work? Whatever the case, give some examples; I don't need you to justify your choices, your reasoning can be utterly petty. I'm just curious.

For me, it's all very contradictory; Some examples of my own:

-I dislike nearly everything I know about James Joyce as a person, but I love everything of his I've read.
-I really like Allen Ginsberg, but I find his stuff near-unreadable.
-I dislike everything I know about Ayn Rand's philosophy/ideology, and I can't get over it enough to just read her books.

Interesting topic but rather too late at night for me to do more than offer this remark that Borges is supposed have mind:

"I can admire the sort of mind that James Joyce had, but I cannot bring myself to like it."

Don't go quoting that on my say-so but if you wish to do so, see if it shows up via Google.

Speaking of Borges, however, and my own ambivalent feelings about his work, I once thought of beginning a story with a variant of the opening of the Communist Manifesto: "A specter is haunting the Western world - and it is the specter of self-consciousness..." The story would have gone on to indict Borges as the originator of that wave of self-consciousness.

[Etienne]

Voltaire thought little of New France, but he's still one of my favorites :p

[AuntShecky]

RE: this quote-- I believe it was from Petrarch's Love:

Certainly when I refer to Shakespeare's Merchant of Venice I immediately acknowledge that the subject matter is problematic and, in many places, unacceptable by modern standards (though Merchant does display some nuance and potential for seeing Shylock's point of view despite its clearly anti-Semitic foundation

During the time Shakespeare wrote The Merchant of Venice, (circa 1596-98), there were no Jews living in England. That's because they had all been banished during a previous regime. So the portrait of Shylock may have the taint of anti-Semitism, but in Shakespeare's case
it wasn't based on FIRST HAND knowledge. We also have to consider how Jessica, Shylock's daughter, presumably of Jewish heritage herself, is portrayed quite sympathetically. If memory serves,however, the happy ending which characterizes all of Shakespeare's comedies (incl. the other "dark" ones, Measure for Measure, for instance)-- includes in the Merchant of Venice a conversion
to Christianity, which would have been a big crowd-pleaser
in Elizabethan England but to twenty-first century readers such as ourselves seems like Ann Coulter trying to proselytize Donny Deutch on CNBC.

[blackbird_9]

AuntShecky, bah, if their not playing Wagner is should be because his music is duller than that chapter in Robinson Crusoe dedicated to talking about him building a canoe... not because he was a nazi. lol

Now that that's out of the way, I personally know very little the authors or artists as people. It sounds silly, but I just don't really care all that much. It's like when I tell people I'm a fan of the Beatles, and they don't believe me because I don't know about who Goerge dated or when Ringo was born. I'm a fan of their music, not them. That isn't to say they they weren't amazing people or anything, but I'd rather listen to their music than read about their lives. No harm in that. That said, it's the same with authors. I usually only read introductions if it gives me historical information I need to know to understand and interpret the book. (My knowledge of history is rather lacking :\ ) And hell, as far as I'm concerned, if I have to know about the author's life in order to understand the book, it's just going to be annoyingly cryptic anyway. I'd rather learn about them THROUGH their work, not learn about their work through them.

[DigitalLove]

I love this topic maybe because I enjoy reading about writers so much. I have always felt that fact is more interesting than fiction. For the most part reading about an authors life does not usually turn me off to their work even if I disagree with an author's philosophy or lifestyle. The one exception is Anaïs Nin. I started reading about her life and it made me sick. She had sex with her father and her cousin. She was just an overall gross person and I actually had to stop reading about her life because it was so revolting.

Also, I think it is good to read things you don't agree with because it forces you to develop and reassert what you do believe.

[stlukesguild]

bah, if their not playing Wagner is should be because his music is duller than that chapter in Robinson Crusoe dedicated to talking about him building a canoe... not because he was a nazi.

Wagner dull? Surely you jest. I could certainly understand someone suggesting that Wagner might be bombastic... overblown... pretentious... but never "dull". Personally I find his music overwhelming... lush... deeply emotional at times... almost erotically sensual in other instances. It would seem I'm not alone is this considering that Wagner is far from not being played. His work is a regular part of the orchestral and operatic repertoire here and abroad. There are many Wagner festivals the biggest being the famous annual Bayreuth Festival which draws illustrious guests and performers (and fanatics) from around the world and which has been sold out every year since 1876:eek:. Wagner seems to be one of those figures in the classical music field that has an almost cult-like following. Bach, Beethoven, and Mozart may be universally accepted as the pinnacle of classical music... but then there are the Wagnerians, the Brucknerians, the Brahmsians, the Mahlerians... and a few other groups absolutely devoted to the music of one or another composer. Personally I'm an acolyte of Bach... and then Mozart... and probably prefer Puccini to Wagner right now... but then that may just be because many of my favorite singers are such marvelous performers of Puccini rather than Wagner.

I usually only read introductions if it gives me historical information I need to know to understand and interpret the book. (My knowledge of history is rather lacking :\ ) And hell, as far as I'm concerned, if I have to know about the author's life in order to understand the book, it's just going to be annoyingly cryptic anyway.

There are surely those writers whom one almost suspects of writing in an intentionally cryptic manner. James Joyce surely falls into this category at times. On the other hand, I usually assume (as an artist myself) that most artists create for themselves to a certain extent. I'm not sure that Joyce, or T.S. Eliot or any number of other writers are being cryptic solely for the sake of being difficult... rather, they merely assume that their ideal audience is as well-read as they... that this imagined audience will not struggle with the allusions or references any more than an audience of The Simpsons struggles with the jokes that demand a prior knowledge of various aspects of popular culture.

All art is a language of a sort. Some art appears more accessible than others... although it may just be that we have already developed the prior knowledge to understand it (one certainly imagines that the various references and allusions in The Simpsons will seem as cryptic as those in Dante or Bosch's Garden of Earthly Delights 400 years from now). Other seemingly more obscure... cryptic... hermetic art may simply demand we brush up a bit on the prior knowledge needed. Dante surely demands quite a bit of the contemporary reader (and I will admit that he was probably demanding even for contemporaries). Much that strikes us as cryptic, however, would certainly have been understood by a well-educated reader of his time. Picasso and DeKooning may also demand a prior experience not shared by everyone. Dare I suggest that Wagner and Bruckner and Mahler may demand the same. I would most certainly not recommend them for somebody first coming to classical music from a popular music background. Vivaldi, Handel, Mozart, even Bach would probably more accessible. This is not to suggest that they are any less profound... or even complex... but rather that their work contains elements that is closer in form and structure to the song structures of popular music. It would probably not be the ideal thing to start someone reared solely on lyrical poetry upon Proust either. When a work of art appears unaccessible it need not be solely the artist's failing. perhaps it is a thin line between that art which is challenging... and greatly rewards the efforts of the audience to overcome such challenges... and that art that is so cryptic that the demands do not seem adequately compensated. That much said if a work of art does fail to reach you it may be that you are not ready for it... or it may be that the work does indeed suck.

[stlukesguild]

This discussion leads me inevitably to Oscar Wilde, who was never wrong about anything:brow:. I think especially of the introduction to The Portrait of Dorian Gray:

The artist is the creator of beautiful things. To reveal art and conceal the artist is art's aim.

Those who find ugly meanings in beautiful things are corrupt without being charming. This is a fault.

Those who find beautiful meanings in beautiful things are the cultivated. For these there is hope.

They are the elect to whom beautiful things mean only beauty.

There is no such thing as a moral or an immoral book. Books are well written, or badly written. That is all...

Thought and language are to the artist instruments of an art. Vice and virtue are to the artist materials for an art...

All art is at once surface and symbol. Those who go beneath the surface do so at their peril. Those who read the symbol do so at their peril. It is the spectator, and not life, that art really mirrors.

I surely don't think we can or should shut off our moral or ethical compass when approaching a work of art. On the other hand, I find it a bit problematic to suggest that we may judge a work of art as being diminished or inferior if it conveys something with which we do not agree. The work of the artist is not that of the philosopher or the moralist... it is not so much to put forth ideas as it is to give form to ideas. In other words, I do not look to judge a work of art upon how well I agree with what is said as I do with how well it is said. Again... I doubt that I've come across a work that brilliantly promotes an absolutely repulsive idea... I would somewhat expect that those who are so morally or socially stunted in comparison with their culture are also going to be likely to produce an art that is aesthetically immature or stunted as well.

[PrinceMyshkin]

Aunt Shecky... interesting thread... and Petrarch's Love you bring some interesting points into the fray. As to whether you can like an artist's work and not like the artist (and yes, I know I have expanded the initial question... but certainly some of the most obvious answers to this come from the fields of music and the visual arts) based upon what you know of his or her personality, I must state a resounding "Yes, of course." As a visual artist myself I have no use for any romantic notions about the artist/creator as some morally/socially superior being. An artist is simply someone who creates art. The art work is a product that may or may not reveal something about the artist's personality. J.L. Borges somewhere in one of his essays argued that an artist cannot create a work of art greater than him or herself. That may indeed be true. Still artistic "brilliance" or "genius" need not go hand in hand with emotional maturity, a personable nature, morality, open-mindedness, etc... Personally, I'm not all that certain I'd like hanging out with T.S. Eliot, Pablo Neruda, Hemingway, Andre Breton, William Blake (gasp!:eek2:), Beethoven, Michelangelo, or Picasso. On the other hand I have no doubt that I love much about their work.

Petrarch's Love took the question to the next... "problematic" level. How do you relate to the works of artists who may have personality traits that are less than ideal... when these traits begin to show their face in the actual work? Certainly there are works of art that reveal prejudices that are unacceptable today. PL brings up the antisemitism of Shakespeare's Merchant of Venice. Of course many older works of art are often laden with such prejudices. My first response is to say that I try to accept what an artist is saying within the context that it was presented. We may judge something as unacceptable by our standards... but this can become a slippery slope. Much that we accept in art today would certainly be judged as morally/ethically unacceptable by older standards and it is the height of arrogance to imagine that the values of our culture are inherently superior to the values of another.

On the other hand... I in no way advocate for the idea of the value-free judgment (the argument, for example, that accepts the abuse of women in certain cultures because to question it would be to question the values of another culture). I accept it as a fact that when I engage a work of art there is something of a dialog. As with any dialog I do not agree with everything presented by the other person. I have written constant angered comments in the margins while reading Plato... but I would not suggest that he should not be read. I must admit, however, that if a work's entire reason for being revolved around the expression of ideas that I found repugnant I would be quite unlikely to appreciate the work. I think immediately of the writings of the Marquis de Sade. Certainly there are scholars, critics, and artist who swear that de Sade's writings are some brilliant expression of subliminal desires. One critic went so far as to suggest that much of his entire oeuvre was but a parody of Rousseau. Personally, I find nothing of use. But then again... I don't find anything in the work of any aesthetic value either. Violence, murder, and rape can certainly be presented in an aesthetic manner... as part of a powerful work of art (immediately I think of Goya's Disaster's of War, all those crucifixions, Faulkner, Cormac McCarthy's Blood Meridian, etc... Can we accept... even like art by a murderer or rapist? Caravaggio had a long history of pandering images of under-aged boys to pedophile church figures as well as a police record that included numerous instances of violence... and even murder... and yet... an unquestionably brilliant artist... probably the initiator of the entire Baroque movement in the visual arts:

http://i90.photobucket.com/albums/k255/Stlukesguild/depositionpicc.jpg

http://i90.photobucket.com/albums/k255/Stlukesguild/caravaggio_deathsmall.jpg

http://i90.photobucket.com/albums/k255/Stlukesguild/caravaggio_conversion_of_st_paulsma.jpg

It's 2:20 a.m. of the day following a very heavy one (see my poem "Support your local PBS") - not the most lucid hour to come upon this brilliant generous comment of yours but I'll come back to it, and will look for your other posts.. In the meantime,

Here's to the mind at play or at work!

[chasestalling]

intriguing thread.

though i disapprove of nabokov's politics his stuff rates at the very top in my view.

though i know that's it to my personal advantage to sing the praises of various authors, which i shan't do the violence of naming, i don't sing their praises as i'm an old dog.

[mortalterror]

When I read an author, or a book with a character in it I like, I consider that a boon. The whole book is better, and I give myself a mental pat on the back for being so cool and being just like so and so. That is what's called the halo effect. The Halo Effect tells us that if there's one good thing about somebody then they must be great but if there is one negative thing about somebody then everything they do must be wrong. This is shorthand thinking, and a form of prejudice. Hitler was a jerk, but that's no argument against vegetarianism. Jefferson owned slaves but that's not an argument against democracy. The ancient Greeks endorsed man boy love, does that negate their olympian achievement?

The problem, as I see it, is that too many people are identifying with authors and characters and they are afraid that if they read them they will somehow become like them. But reading Celine doesn't make me a nazi. Reading Oscar Wilde doesn't make me a homosexual. Watching violent movies doesn't make me want to hurt people. I object to the drug use, and foul language in Naked Lunch. I'm not crazy about some of the things Henry Miller has to say in Tropic of Cancer. I enjoy anti-heroes like Lautreamont's Maldoror, or Camus' protagonist in The Stranger. There's such a thing as aesthetic distance. We don't have to approve of or like everything we read. Personally, I think that people who only read what they already like, aren't challenging themselves to grow as readers and human beings. Sometimes that's the whole point of a book. Try on some new hats. Look at the world through other's eyes. Expand your mind. Try reading a book that you know you won't like and try to get something new out of it you didn't have before. I mean, if you want to play it safe and you don't want to be bothered with exposure to ideas that might conflict with your own pre-conceived notions, don't ever read another book. Don't even leave the house. Don't talk to other people, you might learn something.

I'm not saying we shouldn't make value judgements. I'm saying that we should judge people by the values of their own time, rather than our own. We don't look down upon Copernicus for his sloppy scientific method. He was pretty far ahead of the curve a couple of centuries ago. Then again, none of us is perfect. Why stop at novelists? My friends and family have all been complete scumbags at one time or another. Everyone has. But you make your peace and live with them as best you can 'cause you aren't perfect either. I guess people who make these fine moral distinctions have a touch of arrogance about them, thinking that they are all so morally superior to whomever wrote whatever they are reading. If that's so, then look at it this way: You can denounce them, and make yourself feel or look good, without doing a thing. But give the book a fair chance. You can take the high road and then have even more to brag about.

[superunknown]

If you judged the merit of the work of an artist based on his life you'd end up disliking many of the world's masterpieces. A lot of great artists have personality issues. Take Miles Davis. I can and have listened to his music all day, but he wasn't the nicest guy around.

[byrd]

The only time I really consider who an author is is when trying to find new books to read, so if I've read a book which I liked, I'm inclined to seek out their other work if there is other work.

Otherwise, the majority of the time I'm completely ignorant to who the author of the book I'm reading is, and I read a lot.

I have a certain objective and unbiased view in most things I do (Anything from computer software (Linux vs Microsoft vs Apple type thing) to movies) - if I like something, or think it's a good choice for me, I will seek it out regardless of petty politics (Bad use of the word..) or so.

This, of course, can be slightly annoying when trying to remember authors and so on, but not so much. Also, as superunknown pointed out, a lot of people wouldn't read a lot of literature if they knew certain things about the author, so that's another positive thing about not putting so much emphasis on who the author is.

I also find little interest in the lives of others, well, in relation to the whole modern celebrity thing as I like reading about historical figures and so on.

[Zeruiah]

This is something I've struggled with for a very long time. Is it right to abandon a piece of art because you disagree with its ideologies or theme?

This problem first came about for me when I began listening to black metal. (Now, I'm ninety-eight percent sure that no one on this board listens to black metal, but bear with me.) Many black metal artists are racists. This fact would not trouble me entirely if the pinnacle of black metal--Varg Vikernes--was not only the main believer of prejudice, but also the cause of the belief in the entire f'n black metal scene.

It's nowhere explicitly stated in his lyrics or felt in his music that he prejudices, but once you learn about him and then listen to his music, his extremely conservative European views come to life.

To be completely honest (and this is a fact I am entirely ashamed of), I would not care about his beliefs if they did not affect me directly. I'm African American, Native American, and Irish (in no particular order) so I would be a target of his hate. I'm proud of my ethnicity, but it has brought me no end of trouble when it comes to the music I enjoy.

However, his music is FREAKING GENIUS. He was the first black metal musician to use the traditional speed metal/hardcore punk mix and add industrial, classical music, ambient music, and folk music into it. His albums mostly differ from each other, but they all have a certain atmosphere to them that only Varg would be capable of concocting. I would not be wise to suggest this board to listen to him, given how most folk treat extreme metal, but maybe you should read about him here (http://www.anus.com/metal/burzum/). He's very interesting, and (once again, ashamedly) I probably would agree with him if the circumstances were different.

[believin]

When I read an author, or a book with a character in it I like, I consider that a boon. The whole book is better, and I give myself a mental pat on the back for being so cool and being just like so and so. That is what's called the halo effect. The Halo Effect tells us that if there's one good thing about somebody then they must be great but if there is one negative thing about somebody then everything they do must be wrong. This is shorthand thinking, and a form of prejudice. Hitler was a jerk, but that's no argument against vegetarianism. Jefferson owned slaves but that's not an argument against democracy. The ancient Greeks endorsed man boy love, does that negate their olympian achievement?

The problem, as I see it, is that too many people are identifying with authors and characters and they are afraid that if they read them they will somehow become like them. But reading Celine doesn't make me a nazi. Reading Oscar Wilde doesn't make me a homosexual. Watching violent movies doesn't make me want to hurt people. I object to the drug use, and foul language in Naked Lunch. I'm not crazy about some of the things Henry Miller has to say in Tropic of Cancer. I enjoy anti-heroes like Lautreamont's Maldoror, or Camus' protagonist in The Stranger. There's such a thing as aesthetic distance. We don't have to approve of or like everything we read. Personally, I think that people who only read what they already like, aren't challenging themselves to grow as readers and human beings. Sometimes that's the whole point of a book. Try on some new hats. Look at the world through other's eyes. Expand your mind. Try reading a book that you know you won't like and try to get something new out of it you didn't have before. I mean, if you want to play it safe and you don't want to be bothered with exposure to ideas that might conflict with your own pre-conceived notions, don't ever read another book. Don't even leave the house. Don't talk to other people, you might learn something.

I'm not saying we shouldn't make value judgements. I'm saying that we should judge people by the values of their own time, rather than our own. We don't look down upon Copernicus for his sloppy scientific method. He was pretty far ahead of the curve a couple of centuries ago. Then again, none of us is perfect. Why stop at novelists? My friends and family have all been complete scumbags at one time or another. Everyone has. But you make your peace and live with them as best you can 'cause you aren't perfect either. I guess people who make these fine moral distinctions have a touch of arrogance about them, thinking that they are all so morally superior to whomever wrote whatever they are reading. If that's so, then look at it this way: You can denounce them, and make yourself feel or look good, without doing a thing. But give the book a fair chance. You can take the high road and then have even more to brag about.


I think this gets to a very important point about reading well. It is so easy to confuse the characters on the page with the writer and his/her personal point of view. This is often not the case, though. Poetry, fiction, etc., are forms of creative expressions, and the space for creativity often means that the author is actually hidden by the text rather than revealed by it (as per the quotation from Wilde above).

This is a really interesting thread to read. I know I am late chiming in (just found the board), but I enjoyed reading what everyone had to say here.

[stlukesguild]

I think this gets to a very important point about reading well. It is so easy to confuse the characters on the page with the writer and his/her personal point of view. This is often not the case, though. Poetry, fiction, etc., are forms of creative expressions, and the space for creativity often means that the author is actually hidden by the text rather than revealed by it (as per the quotation from Wilde above).

Yes. Too often the artist is confused with the art which leads to the notions of the inspired genius just spilling his or her guts out on the page or the canvas. This concept is part of what leads to an overly Romanticized notion of certain artists (ie. Van Gogh, Jackson Pollack, Beethoven, the Romantic poets) and an under-appreciation of the real effort and thought and preparation that went into the creation of such work. As an artist myself I know that my art reveals only parts of who I am. At times it reveals who I am not or who I would like to be. In other instances it reveals aspects about myself I would rather were not admitted to. However... it is not me. The relationship between the artist and the art is very complex. Sometimes the artist hides behind an illusion. Sometimes the artist intentionally screws with his or her audience. This is the reason I am very wary of the Romantic notion of "self-expression" which virtually suggest that the art and the artist are one, as well as any Freudian or psychoanalytic approaches to art which imagine that we can discern the artist behind the mask. Just which character really IS Shakespeare?

[kelby_lake]

I think that knowing about the author's life definitely changes your opinion of the
book- whether this means it makes more sense or whether it just seems totally hideous, you still change your opinion. Generally I have an 'image' of the author in my head, especially if they're the narrator, and a preconcieved idea of what they look like based on what I have read. Learning that they aren't like what you think they are can destroy the enigma, if you like.
The fun thing when writing is to make characters that are the total opposite of you.

[JBI]

I think this gets to a very important point about reading well. It is so easy to confuse the characters on the page with the writer and his/her personal point of view. This is often not the case, though. Poetry, fiction, etc., are forms of creative expressions, and the space for creativity often means that the author is actually hidden by the text rather than revealed by it (as per the quotation from Wilde above).

Yes. Too often the artist is confused with the art which leads to the notions of the inspired genius just spilling his or her guts out on the page or the canvas. This concept is part of what leads to an overly Romanticized notion of certain artists (ie. Van Gogh, Jackson Pollack, Beethoven, the Romantic poets) and an under-appreciation of the real effort and thought and preparation that went into the creation of such work. As an artist myself I know that my art reveals only parts of who I am. At times it reveals who I am not or who I would like to be. In other instances it reveals aspects about myself I would rather were not admitted to. However... it is not me. The relationship between the artist and the art is very complex. Sometimes the artist hides behind an illusion. Sometimes the artist intentionally screws with his or her audience. This is the reason I am very wary of the Romantic notion of "self-expression" which virtually suggest that the art and the artist are one, as well as any Freudian or psychoanalytic approaches to art which imagine that we can discern the artist behind the mask. Just which character really IS Shakespeare?

I like to think he is closest to Feste, or perhaps Touchstone, though it is said he played the Ghost of Hamlet. Perhaps he is a Touchstone gone Sir John?

[believin]

Yes. Too often the artist is confused with the art which leads to the notions of the inspired genius just spilling his or her guts out on the page or the canvas. This concept is part of what leads to an overly Romanticized notion of certain artists (ie. Van Gogh, Jackson Pollack, Beethoven, the Romantic poets) and an under-appreciation of the real effort and thought and preparation that went into the creation of such work. As an artist myself I know that my art reveals only parts of who I am. At times it reveals who I am not or who I would like to be. In other instances it reveals aspects about myself I would rather were not admitted to. However... it is not me. The relationship between the artist and the art is very complex. Sometimes the artist hides behind an illusion. Sometimes the artist intentionally screws with his or her audience. This is the reason I am very wary of the Romantic notion of "self-expression" which virtually suggest that the art and the artist are one, as well as any Freudian or psychoanalytic approaches to art which imagine that we can discern the artist behind the mask. Just which character really IS Shakespeare?

That is exactly the idea in my mind too, stlukesguild. I think there is a tendency to think we can know an author (artist, etc.) by his or her works. To do so, I think, is not productive. A fiction is something decidedly not true. So, in seeking to know the author personally through a work of fiction is to take a known falsehood for truth. It's naive, and it leads to all sorts of misreading. And, on top of that, it seems to imply that the reader is objective in all of this, somehow "decoding" the things on the page. It ignores the idea that the reader brings his/her own baggage to the reading of the text. This will, always, cloud the view that s/he has of the author and the text.

As for which is the real Shakespeare, I would say none of the characters... not even the "poetic voice" of The Sonnets. And how many times have you heard it argued, from The Sonnets, that Shakespeare was bisexual? I think that is really misunderstanding the way creative texts work. The man may or may not have been bisexual, but it would take something completely other than a creative text that he wrote to prove it to me. As far as I can tell, that is something completely unknowable to us today.

[Inderjit Sanghe]

Funnily enough, it was this very question that lead to one of the greatest novels of the 20th century, In Search of Lost Time, by Marcel Proust, as the seeds of the novel lie in his critical essay, Against Saint-Beuve. I (on the whole) agree with Proust's claim that the author's personality is irrelevant in relation to the actual work itself. The inclusion of Proust, however, is somewhat ironic, given that many people read Rechere as being a partially autobiographical account of Proust's life, and that the narrator of Recherce is Proust himself, least of all because they share the same first name and have a similar lifestyle, and to extent personality.

Proust's point, however, stands, as Nabokov stated, Recherce, despite the supposed similarities between the author and the narrator is essentially a fairy tale, like all great novels, and as a novel is in essence the working of the writer's imagination, his personality, political views and sexual traits are irrelevant to the work itself. As some posters have already pointed out, Hamsun and Celine supported the Nazi regime, Tolkien and Waugh supported Franco in the Spanish Civil war, and mediocre authors such as Sartre were ardent supporters of Stalin. Does the fact that Gogol eventually went insane and burned the second half of Dead Souls, or that Dostoevski was by all accounts a pretentious prick effect the quality of their works? Dante, Poe and Wilde would probably now be condemned as paedophiles, does this make them lesser artists?