That's an important question. Does learning more about an author somehow allow us to better understand his or her work? For a book to succeed, of course, it has to succeed first in the continuum comprising the page and the reader's mind. But readers certainly take books and connect them to their own lives. Why shouldn't they try to connect them to the writers' lives? If—underscore that if—it first succeeds purely as a book.
When Jonathan Franzen wrote about Edith Wharton in the New Yorker (a fine article, by the way), he theorized that her own plain looks somehow guided the creation of her characters. The thing is, being a guy, he was summarily attacked for using an female author's looks to explain her work. Wouldn't do that with a male author, would he?
Laura Miller discusses the controversy, and does seem to believe that, at least to some extent, a writer's private life can and should be taken into consideration if one wishes to dig deeply into that author's work:
Great novelists, male and female, often have personal qualities that sideline them socially but that also offer them a quiet perch from which to observe others. Frustration can spur them to write about what they see... Given that the handsome, the charismatic and the well-connected already enjoy so many other advantages in life, it seems only fair that this perk should devolve to the world’s oddballs.
The fact that we know virtually nothing about Shakespeare doesn't seem to deter us from interpreting his works, but if we actually did have some serious biographical facts, would we interpret Hamlet or Othello in their light? Bet your boots on it.
Take a look at The private lives of great writers. It'll start you thinking.
No comments:
Post a Comment