What do books suggest about their author?

[Xelah]

Originally Posted by Tobytwo

I must admit I wasn't thinking about literal criminals writing books,

Good to know my peers ignore me.

In any case and more to the original point of the thread, generally I won't judge an author personally by his/her work. That's not saying I won't judge authors professionally and never touch another work from them. You never know how much of an author is getting dumped into a work, it could be the tip of the iceberg and they're a thousand times more unpleasant than you imagined, or that could just be an eggshell. Judging someone personally by their fiction... just no.

[Precise Calibre]

Many times I do find myself projecting myself into my characters. No single character takes up all of my traits, rather they are scattered about throughout the story.

Sometimes, however, it feels more like characters are writing me...

[The Ace]

Well, Toby Frost's writing suggests he's round the twist.

[paranoid marvin]

Can a piece of literature be affected by the characteristics of it's author? Undoubtedly.

Can an author's character be affected by what he writes? Now that is an entirely different kettle of fish.

[Teresa Edgerton]

I think in the long run what we write is going to be influenced by the way we view the world, what we admire, what disgusts us, what intrigues us, what obsesses us. It would be unfair to draw conclusions from a single piece of writing, because the writer might have caught on to an interesting idea and decided to explore it. (Unless the writer is really, really overtly pushing an agenda.) But by the time the writer has produced several books or a large number of short stories, I think it's fair to draw some conclusions. Particularly if you back them up with biographical details, or things the authors has said in interviews or public forums.

And it's not just the things that we consistently put into our stories, it's also the things that we consistently leave out.

That's why I think it's almost always a mistake when a writer goes in with the fixed intention of pushing a specific idea or lesson or moral. Because in the end, those ideas will come through unconsciously anyway — there is simply no way of keeping them out, because they are too intrinsic to our concept of reality— and writing with an agenda simply gives readers a double dose, the conscious part and the unconscious part, too, and comes across as heavy-handed. It can also malform the characters and the plot into strange, improbable shapes, as we keep bending them and twisting them to suit our intended purpose.

But I said almost always. I have read books written in an honest state of indignation (some things by Dickens come to mind) that in spite of their flaws are very, very good.

[Anne Lyle]

I don't think of myself as having an axe to grind, because I'm far too laid-back to get really angry about anything for long - but some things clearly bother me at a deeper level because they tend to surface whenever I start brainstorming ideas for a new project.

The nice thing about writing fantasy (or SF) is that you can bury those ideas under layers of world-building. If I set the book I'm currently planning in the present day, I would a) have to take sides over some very sensitive political issues and b) imply my fictional badness might really be happening. Better to set it in a made-up world and let readers work it out for themselves - or just enjoy the book as entertainment

[anthorn]

Originally Posted by J-WO

The only ethical time to criticize the author rather than the book is when he or she is dead. Then you can really put the boot in.

Unless you're Terry Goodkind then boot away

[J-WO]

Oh definitely! But then, I'd always be looking over my shoulder--that guy has some very loyal followers!

[Teresa Edgerton]

But we can look at a writer's body of work and say, "This writer apparently has issues with X and takes a harsh view of Y and seems to think that the world would be a better place if Z" without necessarily making moral judgments or attacking the author. We might, in fact, agree with them. Or be challenged to examine our own assumptions. Or it may help us to a better understanding of their next book.

Or ... yes, we could look at the book and say, "This writer really looks like he is pushing an agenda that I find morally repugnant."

But when we send our stories out into the world, it is risk we take that people will read our books and form conclusions about us. For me the scariest idea is not that they will arrive at wrong conclusions, but that they will see things I wasn't intending to reveal.

It's strange, because naturally I want lots and lots of people to read my books (or why have them published?), but at the same time, when someone I know says they are reading one of my books, on the one hand I am pleased and flattered that they took the time to seek it out and read it, but also I am a bit disconcerted, because by reading my book they may find me out.

Not the most comfortable reflection.

[Ursa major]

Not comfortable? Scary, more like.


(And it means that we may, if published, be perspiring writers even when we're not writing.)

[The Procrastinator]

Plus, they might be a stalker!

Seriously, another facet of this is the perceived persona issue. I know when I've read a few books by one author I "gel with" I can start to feel as though I know the person in a way, as though they are a friend I've not yet met (not every author inspires this feeling of course). Its like watching someone likeable on tv. After a while they become a piece of your life in a weird way, but not only is it completely one way, its all based on what they choose to project - the perceived persona. Just the right blend of genuineness and artifice to intrigue our celebrity-focussed little selves. Stalker food! Stalker food!

I think for myself the best example of this would be Terry Pratchett. I've been reading his books since the second Discworld novel was published, so he's been part of my development as a reader (I was at uni when I started), part of the changes and growth (or not) I've gone through for half my life. Its like we're growing older together in a weird way, because his writing has changed a bit too, but at the same time he has such a distinctive voice that reading his books are like revisiting an old friend - and you become so familiar with the way he sees the world (at least that part he puts into his books) that you start to see the world a bit that way too - just like with a real friend, who also influences you in that way. I really do feel fond of Terry Pratchett. He's been a part of my life. And now that he's got Alzheimers, well I feel that a little personally too. It runs in my family, my nan died with it, and I can conflate it quite nicely with a similar real life case I know of, an old friend who has Parkinson's much too early, has had to stop doing what he loves and will die much too early as a result of the disease. So here I am with an emotional reaction over Terry Pratchett, someone I've never met and never will. What a weird world we live in.

[J-WO]

I'm not the biggest Pratchett fan but its impossible not to admire him, especially now.

And I feel the same way about Orwell that you do him, Procrastiny. There's books and essays of his I haven't read yet, because I'm terrified of running out! Forever!

[J-WO]

Originally Posted by Teresa Edgerton

But when we send our stories out into the world, it is risk we take that people will read our books and form conclusions about us. For me the scariest idea is not that they will arrive at wrong conclusions, but that they will see things I wasn't intending to reveal.

Its a funny old paradox, alright. Writers, by necessity, are going to be the most sensitive people by and large, yet there is this greater urge to reveal themselves to, well, anyone who can read.

I won't labour the whole moth/ flame simile of it all!

[Toby Frost]

I suspect that the more strongly the writer makes the point, and the more precise the point ("Only proportional representation can save us from the decline into cannibalism!") then the more reasonable it is to criticise the author for it. Also, the more precise the point the greater the possibility that any analogy in the story itself will seem forced and bad.

I was thinking about this re 1984. Much of the message in 1984 is to show the reader how and why dictatorships work, assuming that the BB regime is dictatorship in its most "highly-evolved" form. Orwell's own beliefs as a socialist don't come into the book very much apart from vague hope in the proles (which feels half-frustrated: I wouldn't see it as a hymn to the working man). Perhaps that's why libertarians and right-wingers seem to see 1984 as solely about communism. Anyhow, it seems that Orwell isn't pushing a point much more than "Dictators are evil and here's why", although he does so with very great skill. So perhaps books become more obnoxious if the writer is pushing a distinct agenda of their own.

Similarly, the more bizarre and unnecessary the sexual or violent stuff in a novel is, the more likely I am to think that it's come from the author's, er, dark places, so to speak. A story in which soldiers burn a town and rape and murder its citizens seems fairly standard adult villain stuff, whereas one where the soldiers do X,Y and Z with a red hot poker for several pages makes one wonder what the author's problem is.

[Ursa major]

I would expect that such authors might say, in their defence, that they are being creative, in the same way as someone inventing a spectacular heist, or social/political system, or "technology" might.

I would tend to believe them, but only if the actions portrayed illuminated the story and/or the characters.




(Personally, I don't like reading about torture and sexual violence. And if I feel the author is being gratuitous, I skim these scenes and subsequently drop the author down my list of those whose books I want to read.)

.