is it just me?

[Alexander III]

Or do others on this site feel a lot more compelled to read authors who have lived fascinating and poetic lives. Personally I find it harder to have interest in an author whom (even though he may have been a literary genius) lived a dull and ordinary life. On the other hand an author which has lived an exiting and poetic life, I find myself much more drawn to them; and even though I know that ones type of life does not affect the beauty of a work (as in a dull poet can create poems just as beautiful as a fascinating poet) but the fascinating poet's poems always give me stronger and more beautiful sensation and aesthetic pleasure.

is it wrong of me to respect and appreciate far more, writers whom have not only Written, but whom have Lived and Written. And is it just me?

[Emil Miller]

Or do others on this site feel a lot more compelled to read authors who have lived fascinating and poetic lives. Personally I find it harder to have interest in an author whom (even though he may have been a literary genius) lived a dull and ordinary life. On the other hand an author which has lived an exiting and poetic life, I find myself much more drawn to them; and even though I know that ones type of life does not affect the beauty of a work (as in a dull poet can create poems just as beautiful as a fascinating poet) but the fascinating poet's poems always give me stronger and more beautiful sensation and aesthetic pleasure.

is it wrong of me to respect and appreciate far more, writers whom have not only Written, but whom have Lived and Written. And is it just me?

I think it is necessary to make the distinction between poetry and novel writing here, even though some writers have been both. I don't think it necessarily improves a work of poetry if the poet has lead an interesting or exciting life, except in the case of the soldier poets of WW1 for example, but because most writers draw on their own experience in writing novels, it follows that the more adventurous or interesting life they have led, the greater volume of experience they will have to draw on.
Of course, as in everything, there are exceptions. One of the best novels about the American civil war ( The Red Badge of Courage ) is said to have been written by a man who had never heard a shot fired in anger.
W.S. Maugham, on the other hand, was an ambulance driver in WW1, a British secret agent and was sent to Russia at the time of the 1917 revolution to lend financial support to the crumbling Kerensky regime and thus prevent Lenin coming to power. He was also a prolific playwright and probably the most travelled writer in history, as well as being an art connoisseur and notable literary critic. It's small wonder that he was so successful as a writer with such a wealth of experience to draw on. It is worth noting within the context of this thread, that he never wrote any poetry.

[Alexander III]

I was talking about writing in general, poetry, novel and plays.

But you bring up good points, though I must say I loathed RBOC, I found it to be a dismal read.

But what are your personal opinions on the matter in regards to your preferred writers?

[OrphanPip]

I don't know, some of my favourite poets are Dickinson, Marianne Moore, and Elizabeth Bishop. None of them lived particularly exciting lives. Austen and Dickens are two of my favourite novelist; Dickens had a difficult childhood but the pair of them hardly lived wild lives.

I enjoy looking up autobiographies though, so at some level I'm sure a part of me enjoys those stories of the Romantic artist figure. And I do think it is not entirely possible to separate our valuation of the work from our valuation of the artist.

[Emil Miller]

I was talking about writing in general, poetry, novel and plays.

But you bring up good points, though I must say I loathed RBOC, I found it to be a dismal read.

But what are your personal opinions on the matter in regards to your preferred writers?

Well I suppose that I instinctively gravitate to writers that have lead interesting lives although it doesn't follow that all such authors will be stylistically acceptable. Some writers, whatever their background, are simply uncongenial in their choice of subject matter or the length of their works which some trimming might make more agreeable. Others that are discussed on this forum are interesting in view of their literary milieu but don't inspire me to read them e.g. Virginia Woolf. I haven't read Orwell in years but whilst I am on the opposite side of the fence to him politically, he did live an interesting life and that is what drove me to read him in the first place, as well as his very accessible style. Similarly, Graham Greene is specifically a Catholic writer whose message isn't one that I share but he did make the effort to go to Mexico, Africa, Viet Nam etc., so I recognised that he would be writing his stories at first hand.
Another good example is Christopher Isherwood who wrote 'Mr Norris Changes Trains' and 'Goodbye to Berlin': would they have been as readable if he hadn't experienced it when the political situation was is such a state of flux in the most decadent city in Europe?

[Paulclem]

The idea of preferring experienced and exciting authors does pose a problem for genre writers such as sci fi, historical fiction, fantasy and stuff like steam punk.

Also, does a lack of experience make for a bad or less effective writer? i don't think this is true, but as has been pointed out, specific works such as Goodbye to Berlin wouldn't have had the sense of decadence perhaps.

Of course writers may just be good observers of the lives of others too.

[ladderandbucket]

I think it depends on the kind of book.
Lovecraft, Kafka and Borges led fairly reclusive lives but it certainly didn't limit their imaginations...perhaps if they had gotten out more their stories wouldn't have been so interesting.
But if you want to read about high drama the best writers seem to be those who have lived it....Tolstoy, Conrad, St-Exupery all knew what they were talking about. I don't imagine you could fake that sort of writing.

[ChicagoReader]

I agree ladder, some writers simply seem to thrive on their amazing imaginations and can create works just as strong, if not stronger than those with more "wild" lives. Though, I believe the more experiences the person has, the greater the advantage for they have so much to draw from i.e. writers that traveled the world or experienced war etc

[My2cents]

I guess it's only natural to gravitate towards writers whose personal lives are colorful and extraordinary. Still, it's the writing that counts and as such the aspect of a writer's life that I invariably find most interesting is his/her development as a writer. And that in itself, more often than not, is a story of dogged determination, intense study, and catching a break on the most random, everyday piece of luck -- not exactly the stuff of an extraordinary life.

[Desolation]

Most of my favorite novelists write somewhat autobiographical novels...So, yes, I'd say that I gravitate towards writers who lived fascinating lives...or who wrote so well that their not-so-fascinating lives seem incredible (like Proust).

[Hopfrog]

My favorite fictive author is Henry James, and although I find the story of his life fascinating it is because I want to follow his example of living for the Art of Literature. He wasn't into doing the thrilling and adventurous thing. I have wasted too much time living the wild queer punk lifestyle--fun and exciting, but not nearly as wondrous or productive as sitting in my tomb and writing my volumes. :willy_nilly:

[YesNo]

I normally don't know anything about the author of a novel or poem nor do I have much interest in finding out that information.

However, if the work is non-fiction, I would expect the author to have some background in what they are talking about.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

I normally don't know anything about the author of a novel or poem nor do I have much interest in finding out that information.

However, if the work is non-fiction, I would expect the author to have some background in what they are talking about.
This pretty much sums up my thoughts. I rarely care on the author's life; I focus on the piece of literature.

[lawpark]

Or do others on this site feel a lot more compelled to read authors who have lived fascinating and poetic lives. Personally I find it harder to have interest in an author whom (even though he may have been a literary genius) lived a dull and ordinary life. On the other hand an author which has lived an exiting and poetic life, I find myself much more drawn to them; and even though I know that ones type of life does not affect the beauty of a work (as in a dull poet can create poems just as beautiful as a fascinating poet) but the fascinating poet's poems always give me stronger and more beautiful sensation and aesthetic pleasure.

is it wrong of me to respect and appreciate far more, writers whom have not only Written, but whom have Lived and Written. And is it just me?

I think in European writings the separation of writings and lives are clearer ... e.g. Neither Shakespeare or Kant have very interesting lives ...

In Chinese I think things get mingle up a lot more. Personally I think Wang Wei is better poet than both Du Fu and Su Shi - but people drift to Du Fu (for his sufferings as a poet) or for me I ended up preferring Su Shi even though his poetry was not necessary as good - but Su Shi had an interesing life and personality that generally makes things more "fun".

[cl154576]

Sometimes it seems like the authors with exciting lives are better at portraying pain, and that appeals to me.

[Arrowni]

I hate writers who live interesting lives.

I love Henri Michaux.

[Loganm]

I think in European writings the separation of writings and lives are clearer ... e.g. Neither Shakespeare or Kant have very interesting lives ...

Shakespeare didn't lead an interesting life? I think of the few things we know of his life we can assume his life was far from boring. At 17-18 he had knocked up Anne Hathaway and hurried to marry her. A few years later he arrived in the London scene and commenced to work his way up from the bottom dredges to the official playwright of the foremost play group. He undoubtedly knew Marlowe and the other university wits on a personal level, participating in debauchery and ribaldry with them. Just because we know very little facts of Shakespeare's life does not mean those few things we know are all he did.

[Heteronym]

So what we do know about Shakespeare is that his life was just like a male college student's, looking for booze and sex all the time? You may have just found a way of making Shakespeare relevant to our modern teenagers again.

Fernando Pessoa and Franz Kafka were, as far as I know, office clerks most of their lives. I can't imagine how dull that must have been, just writing letters and proofreading all day.

I really don't care about the lives of writers.

[lawpark]

Or Salman Rushdie - work in an ad agency before making it big, and afterwards lived like a celebrity, despite under Iranian fatwa of murder (or something like that), is that really interesting?

[Alexander III]

So what we do know about Shakespeare is that his life was just like a male college student's, looking for booze and sex all the time? You may have just found a way of making Shakespeare relevant to our modern teenagers again.

Fernando Pessoa and Franz Kafka were, as far as I know, office clerks most of their lives. I can't imagine how dull that must have been, just writing letters and proofreading all day.

I really don't care about the lives of writers.

I shall be very un-postmodern and say that the lives of writers are incredibly important when trying to gain a further depth of understanding and comprehension of their work.

For example, Had I known nothing about Keats when first reading him I would have though this is an amazing poet, just that and nothing more. Upon learning that he died at 25 - his oeuvre is mesmerizing. He has an ouvre which competes with the greatest english poets who wrote well into their old age, and he is able to stand on equal status with them. Had Shakespeare died at 25, he would have been know as the playwright who wrote a couple of tolerable plays and would have soon been forgotten, yet Keats at 25 forced his way into the "cannon". Does that not add a whole new depth of understanding, and appreciation? Does the sadness of his poems seem so much more distinct and beautiful?

Rationally speaking you are right, the life of a writer should not determine how you appreciate his work. But, I do not appreciate poetry and literature in a rational sense, I do not go he did X and Y and Z, so this is very good - I feel it, and understanding the life of an author allows one to feel it is a whole new dimension. If I read works by authors and new little of their lives I would appreciate their works only half as much as when I have a lot of biographical information - that is why I am one of those nutjobs who spends hours on wikipedia and google looking at pictures and studying the life of various writers - in order to gain a new level of appreciation and sensation when I read their works.

[Heteronym]

I shall be very un-postmodern and say that the lives of writers are incredibly important when trying to gain a further depth of understanding and comprehension of their work.

We don't disagree on that. I think treating literature as an autonomous body free of any roots in the real world has done it more harm than good by licensing silly, unfounded interpretations for the sake of originality.

When I say that I don't care about the lives of writers, what I mean is that I don't care whether they led boring or interesting lives. This is after all the starting point of this thread. I'm sure that Joseph Conrad's exciting life as a seaman was important to his work, but I think Kafka's dreary clerk job was just as important in shaping the oppressive, bureaucratic worlds of his novels.

[OrphanPip]

Looking at the text divorced of the author is not a postmodern idea though. Most postmodern criticism depends heavily on the fact that the work is a product of an individual, who is themselves effected by certain social forces.

New Criticism, which is the school most affiliated with looking at the text as a thing of itself divorced from its creator is not a particularly post-modern school.

[Alexander III]

Looking at the text divorced of the author is not a postmodern idea though. Most postmodern criticism depends heavily on the fact that the work is a product of an individual, who is themselves effected by certain social forces.

New Criticism, which is the school most affiliated with looking at the text as a thing of itself divorced from its creator is not a particularly post-modern school.

But isnt the death of the author a Jaques Derrida conception, who is a huge contributor of post-modernism?

[JCamilo]

But then, Kafka's personal life has is a best-seller. His letter to his father is possible more read than his short stories. His diary was even considered "his best" writings.

And Pessoa, well... Pessoa personal life is not boring, his love letters for example are amazing. Simple because at some point his heteronymous became real to him and you have true dialogues between then. But of course, Pessoa is not even that well know.

There is two things, sometimes the personal life of the writer helps to create the reading of his work. Lord Byron knew it. Voltaire obviously knew it. But we have Poe, Baudelaire, Rimbaud, Shelley, Oscar Wilde and Emily Dickinson or the sisters Bronte (where the mistery is a arousing factor). Those lifes are not exactly exciting, but fascinanting. The morbid texts of Poe certainly help people to go along with him. Wilde's trial helps too. But sometimes this is not very useful for criticism at all.

And yet, you can have Robert Louis Stevenson, fascinanting life. He was almost a truly adventurer like his book (his travel books are great), but I doubt people even need to know it to get in his books.

[JCamilo]

But isnt the death of the author a Jaques Derrida conception, who is a huge contributor of post-modernism?

The death of author points much to the text as a product of social/cultural conditions. It is also about the effect of the text on society beyond the author control. But it is not the only modernist approach, and pip is right, before it some critics are already reacting to the Dr.Johnson or Coleridge style (life or authors, biographies) to a more direct analyse of the text and the relations with other texts and social conditions.

[OrphanPip]

But isnt the death of the author a Jaques Derrida conception, who is a huge contributor of post-modernism?

I'm not sure about that. Derrida's statement that "there is nothing outside text" is often quoted, but it doesn't mean what it seems to mean on the surface. Derrida meant that all criticism relies on other textual systems to be understood. He would have considered biography to be another context through which to understand the text, and equally valid as a linguistic approach that obliterated the author. New Critics, who predate Derrida, would reject biographical approaches much more aggressively, and were much harsher critics of biographical criticism. Biographical criticism gets ignored a lot because it gets viewed as old fashion, and it is often irrelevant to many text where biographical information is not necessarily available or important.

Moreover, you have postmodern critics like Foucault who are obsessed with the relationship of author to text, and society to text. His commentary on Herculine Barbin's diaries is essentially a social and biographical critique.

Not that I buy into much postmodern ideas, I think Derrida is useless and Foucault only has a couple interesting things to say amongst his jumbled, fabricated version history.

[JCamilo]

Yeah, Derrida was victim of his own propaganda, good as it is. But he was not really found of biography as reference, just a discuss style. Him, Barthez, etc. are natural products of linguistic/semiotics huge development in the XIX final years and XX initial years. Of course, they moved to a direction that no other critic went, otherwise they would just be quoting the past. But hardly the only influential form of criticism of that time. (I would say that critics that considered tradition as Eliot, the reader as Woolf, and socio-cultural factors as Walter Benjamin are equally commun and representative as the text by the text approach of Derrida)...

[Heteronym]

But isnt the death of the author a Jaques Derrida conception, who is a huge contributor of post-modernism?

Well, it was actually put forth by Roland Barthes, a structuralist, in the essay "The Death of the Author."

I think, however, that it serves little purpose to find the originator. If we want to go further back, we can recall the Russian (or Prague?) Formalist who said that Eugene Onegin would still have been written if Alexander Pushkin hadn't existed :sosp:

The fact is that this critical view of the text, as something autonomous from the author, open to limitless interpretations, is the accepted view taught in universities around the world. I studied it but never subscribed to it. Without a guiding consciousness shaping the text into what it is, a novel would be just a messy heap of words.

[Alexander III]

Well, it was actually put forth by Roland Barthes, a structuralist, in the essay "The Death of the Author."

I think, however, that it serves little purpose to find the originator. If we want to go further back, we can recall the Russian (or Prague?) Formalist who said that Eugene Onegin would still have been written if Alexander Pushkin hadn't existed :sosp:

The fact is that this critical view of the text, as something autonomous from the author, open to limitless interpretations, is the accepted view taught in universities around the world. I studied it but never subscribed to it. Without a guiding consciousness shaping the text into what it is, a novel would be just a messy heap of words.

Ahh, as to your comment before I do agree - being a solitary and isolated clerk was as essential to Kafka's development as a writer, as being a rich and bored aristocrat with extreme sexual and traveling appetites was essential to Byron's development as a writer.

As to Eugene Onegin would have been written without Pushkin ( I know you don't support the idea) but could anyone who does do me a favor and walk me through the basics of the theory which I find to be utter bull****.

I mean In Eugene Onegin you see elements of Pushkin, which could not have been replaced by another writer who also was carried by the zeitgeist of the times. I mean Pushkin's fascination with the west and his "anxiety of Influence" with Byron, as well as his fascination with the duel and the roll of the duel within russian society - these could be said to have been factors for any russian writer, in fact they were the same factors which fueled Lermontov - yet these same factors resulted in two very different books due to the individuals take and inner relationship with said factors.

That theory seems utter bul****, and not only that, and this is mostly what gets me rilled up, it is a grave insult to Pushkin - Pushkin is put in the light of a mere tool of circumstance and zeitgeist, to demean the writer in such a way - and not just any writer but one of the greatest of all times, seems such a reprehensible thing and seems fueled more by this critics envy of these writers and thus his need to demean them, than by any logic.

[Melysnl]

I'd like to think that I've led an unconventional life and that it would interest most people simply because it's relatable, though not completely, as part of a modern day fantasy.

[Superalicat]

To some, getting up in the morning is hard. So I prefer the fantasy. The authors who live in their heads give the best entertainment. That is the main reason I read, so as to get away from reality and to get to go somewhere that I could not take me.