Objectifying the author : you're only good for a story

[African_Love]

Do you have a problem reading and enjoying something that was written by someone that you dislike or consider to be a jackass? Would you be too proud or do you think that a good story is a good story, regardless of who created it?

The title was corny but do you have a problem reading something by an author you dislike?

[higley]

There's a particular author that I am growing to dislike but I do enjoy reading his novels. I think that books are easier than movies to appreciate on their own merit. In movies I sometimes have trouble separating the actor from the role they play, especially if that actor is in the news often or you just see them on the talk circuit. I don't like to know anything about actors because it interferes with how I see the movie. But it's different with books obviously, as you don't actually see the author and you're simply enjoying the story.

[Jozanny]

For me it depends. Hitler was an artist when he was young, and I certainly couldn't see the exterminator he became in his work, which critics consider lackluster at best. Would I study his art? Yes. Would I read his polemics, even for history? No. The public personas of Norman Mailer and John Updike never did much for me, but Mailer knew how to create a sense of place and period that transcends my distaste for him as a prickly pear fame hog; whereas Updike--his place on the canon will increasingly wobble, I suspect.

Authors whom I've known personally is trickier. I like some more than others and only consider one of them very good at his work who deserves more acclaim, at least off the top of my head, and I don't think my friendship with him is a factor in how I look at his talent. But at the end of the day, the enduring strength of a work has little to do with feelings and personal connections.

[Dark Muse]

If there was an author who was still living that did something in their personal life, that I had strong feelings against than I probably would not buy their books so that I would not be contributing to their profit, haha, or if I was really intrigued by the book I would wait to buy it second hand as I buy most of my books anyway.

But if it is an author who is already dead and buried, I do agree that it is easier to separate authors from their works than it is to do with film, there are things which I disagree with in the personal lives of the authors of some of the classics I read, but it never really affects my ability to view the story upon its own merit and not bring the author into it as it were.

So for the most part, I don't let someone who might be personally a jerk get in the way of a potentially good story. I don't pay that much attention to the lives of the authors I read.

[sixsmith]

My reading would be severely compromised if jackasses were off limits. For example, I love Roth's novels, but the guy is an egocentric prat. Jozanny mentioned the very public buffoonery of Mailer; it makes for compelling writing but you wouldn't give him godfather duties (or maybe you would). I suppose it gets trickier with your overt dirtbags; Celine, Hamsun etc. But so far as i can tell, 'Hunger' and 'Journey....' are not infected by the diseased delusions of their creators. And they are both great novels.

[Paulclem]

I would never buy any book by Geoffrey Archer - a British author who writes thrillers. He ran for the post of the Mayor of London a few years ago. One of his friends was so appalled at the thought that he may actually win that he informed police that Archer had committed perjury in a famous newspaper libel case in the 1980s. Archer was convicted and spent a couple of years in jail. Apart from this, there have been a few exposes about his claims. The man is clearly a fraud and a liar. Worse still he seems to be trying to make a comeback. It could only happen where there is a significant old boy network who are prepared to protect and support one of their own. It's disgusting.

So yes, I do have a problem reading authors I dislike. Of course, as has been said before, time seperates and cloaks the reader from authors, and so it becomes less relevant.

[Veva]

yes, Hamingway....

[Dark Lady]

I do tend to be able to separate the writer and the work. However, I will admit that if I have read a writer's work for the first time and really liked it I sometimes look up a bit about the writer and I do find that I want to like the writer and will be disappointed if I don't. I think I also put more emphasis on a writer's personal life if I dislike them and their writing but not if I just dislike them.

[stlukesguild]

This question often comes up in musical discussions in relation to Richard Wagner. Wagner was openly antisemitic (a common personality trait of the time and place) who wrote down some of his less-than-flattering theories and whose music (unfortunately) was embraced by Hitler. The reality is that as Whitman suggested, we "contain multitudes"... and no work of art can come close to containing the whole person. Rather, there is a distinct difference between the work of art and the artist. Mozart could be quite immature... even socially stunted... as a result of his upbringing... but his music is anything but. Michelangelo could be a real SOB... but again this in no way taints his artwork. Gesualdo was one of the most innovative of the Renaissance/early Baroque composers... in spite of the fact that he also brazenly murdered and mutilated the bodies of his wife and her lover. Verlaine composed some of the most exquisitely musical, sensitive, and sensual poems of the late 19th century... in spite of the fact that he was also prone to violence: physically abusive to his wife and family, a belligerent drunk who attempted to murder Arthur Rimbaud with whom he was involved in a torrid homosexual affair.

I certainly agree that if a work of art clearly conveys a message that we today find unacceptable (racism, sexism, etc...) these elements should be discussed and critiqued... with a full recognition of the context in which they were made. It is unrealistic and unfair to expect that an artist living, for example, in 14th century Florence, will have the same notions as to what is or is not acceptable or moral that we do. On the other hand, I have little use for criticism which dismisses the aesthetic merit of an artist because the critique disagrees with what is being expressed. I approach art as a means of engaging in a sort of dialog with some very brilliant minds... many from other times and places... many with very different ideas than my own. I don't need a work of art to reinforce my own beliefs, values, or even prejudices. I can fully appreciate Plato while disagreeing with almost everything he has to say. Neither am I the least influenced by an artist's personal life... one way or the other. The fact that Wagner or Picasso were jerks and even generally unlikable guys in no way leads me to prefer Delius or Chagall because they were generally nice guys. I come to art for the art... not for the artist... or rather not for any more of the artist than that which is found in the art.

[bluosean]

Some great points Stluke. I have heard it said that if we disregard every work of art where the authors morals are in question our libraries and museums would be empty.

Nevertheless, I have to agree with Veva about Hemingway. He had things real good and then he dicided to be not a cool person and then kill himself. I don't want to read his books because of that. Wont there be some of the poison from his brain rubbed off on them? If unsensitivity was one of his traits, wont it be somewhere in his books?

[Paulclem]

I would not buy a living author with whom I had an issue, because it is showing some kind of support for them - even if it is only financial. Geoffrey Archer, the author I cited, is a living writer with whom I take issue as detailed above.

As for dead authors, I don't see this as a problem. You can apply literary criticism and study without the implicit support for the authors views and actions.

[stlukesguild]

I have to agree with Veva about Hemingway. He had things real good and then he dicided to be not a cool person and then kill himself. I don't want to read his books because of that. Wont there be some of the poison from his brain rubbed off on them? If unsensitivity was one of his traits, wont it be somewhere in his books?

Every artist... no matter whom... certainly has some elements to his or her personality that are less than ideal. Who knows what personal hatreds he or she harbors... what strange sexual desires... what prejudices? Am I to refuse to read Alice in Wonderland or Through the Looking Glass because Lewis Carroll collected photographs of naked young girls and may have held hidden desires that we find unnatural? The art and the artist are not the same. The painter Vermeer created the most exquisite jewel-like paintings that convey such perfection of form... order... and silence...

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3480/3981349353_6918b3dbea_o.jpg

... and yet he ran a bed-and-breakfast/tavern where he also lived with his wife, mother-in-law, and 12 daughters. I cannot imagine him having the least moment of such peace and order. By the same token, Carlo Gesualdo, of whom I mentioned above, was able to murder and mutilate the bodies of his wife and her lover... there are even suggestions he forced her lover to first dress in his wife's clothing as a further form of humiliation... and yet he could compose music of such transcendent beauty as this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NiEBfrk7LA4

[Paulclem]

When you are talking about dead people, then there's no problem. Their dogy characters aren't a factor in your consideration of their craft. It can be objective and make informed decisions about art, life etc.

To say that art and the artist are different, and that one is seperate from the other in a living person is on dodgy ground. I don't think you can seperate a living person from the art they produce. It implies some kind of complicity in whatever is distasteful about them however good they are at what they do. Can we ignore an important and negative facet of a person's life and laud the artist in them?

What about a paedophile artist? If Michael Jackson was one, should we have ignored that and just carry on buying records that fund the rich opportunities for abuse?

[Jozanny]

What about a paedophile artist? If Michael Jackson was one, should we have ignored that and just carry on buying records that fund the rich opportunities for abuse?

I don't have much respect for Jackson as a musician, but the alleged pedophilia in no way detracted from his celebrity. Give or take two hundred years and Jackson world will be the next major religion to emerge from the West, but as to his music, it destroyed the grit and unique expression of the blues, has none of the complexity of jazz, and dilutes rock to pisswater, and at best smoothed out disco so that it was less tacky.

I often write about fame, because I am curious about it as a dynamic force, but if it was ever an insane curse, then that is what it was for Michael Jackson. We at once know too much and shield ourselves from the fact that he was rather inane. He had a voice, and knew what to do with a beat, but I bet his father never imagined he was creating a tinsel deity out of this child.

[Paulclem]

I think it has everything to do with his "art". It's all academic now that he has died, but I wouldn't buy anything from someone who was a paedophile. I still maintain that if you choose to ignore something as serious as that in a living artst, then you are complicit in whatever they do. I used Jackson as an obvious example, though of course it was alleged.

Another thing I find interesting is the complicity in celebrity self destruction for the so-called art. There are plenty of examples of musicians dying young, through the rock star lifestyle. It seems to be ok because they made good music.