NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/rec/arts/books/23484

Text File | 1992-12-30 | 3.8 KB | 74 lines

Newsgroups: rec.arts.books
Path: sparky!uunet!paladin.american.edu!gatech!concert!samba!joan
From: [e-mail] (Joan Shields)
Subject: Author's traits - was: (Re: No Wise Man here)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Nntp-Posting-Host: icard.med.unc.edu
Organization: UNC-CH School of Medicine
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 16:49:38 GMT
Lines: 61

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Clayton Cramer) writes:

>Both alcoholism and lesbianism are important traits to know about if we
>wish to understand a writer's mindset and ideas.  I suppose that, for
>some types of writing, a writer's religious tradition might also be
>appropriate to remark upon as well.  (I would, however, be quite
>skeptical of the appropriateness of the remark if it were put in such
>a derogatory form as "dirty lazy Jew.")

Normally, I skim over Mr. Clayton's posts but this paragraph caught my eye.
He makes an interesting point which, at least in my opinion, occasionally
holds true.

Is it really that important that a reader know the personal history or
certain characteristics of a writer to read their work?  I think I can
safely assume that a writer's actual knowledge of a subject and/or
personal experiences and character will have a great deal to do with how
accurate their book is.  For example: a person writing about how to
skydive should at least have tried it once or it helps a writer's
credibility if they write a book about marriage that they've been married
before.  This is the case in *non-fiction* books but, is it necessary for
*fiction*?

I have met authors I did not like - I didn't like their character or
their opinions BUT I have enjoyed their books.  Then again there are
authors that I have been very fond of but whose books I find dull and
uninteresting.  Is it necessary to understand a writer's mindset and
ideas to appreciate their writing or is it only an interesting side note?

I can't answer this question.  At least, I can't answer it absolutely.  I
suppose it's nice to know whether or not an author has researched a
subject (either through personal experiences or through libraries and
interviews and other research sources) or if they're just making it up as
they go along - artistic licence, it's called.  There have been books
that have inspired me to find out more about certain topics and subjects
(ie: the Knights Templer and King James I of Scotland from reading
_George Washington Irving's Sketch Book_).  Sometimes I've discovered that the
author really did know what they were talking about and sometimes that they
must have been lost in a fog while they were writing.  And even if a person
knows a lot about a particular subject doesn't always mean that they are going
to write about it in an unprejudiced way.  I think it's not a bad idea to
have a general notion about a writer's character and mindset but it might
be difficult in detail.  There are things about me that might be helpful
to know when reading what I've written but how would you know what was
the most influential when I wrote a piece?  Even I don't always know that.
Perhaps it was something else, something completely different rather than
what seems obvious.

Agh!!!  See what I mean?  It gets confusing after a while.  It gets even
more bizzare when you take it a step forward and start talking about
interpreting the events which led to the particular writing and then you
add perception and time distance and.... it can get pretty weird, boys and
girls, pretty weird.

What all this leads to or has lead to is beyond me.  A stroll along the
bank of a river or through a sewer system - who knows (I'm sure someone
will tell me).

Yours in wet fishes and tangos on tables,

Joan