What do books suggest about their author?

[Toby Frost]

I recently read comments on a blog about a novel I hadn't read, which said that not only was the book very bad but that its author was politically extreme and sexually peculiar (nobody I know here was involved!). This got me thinking: at what point, if ever, is it fair to stop talking about the book and criticise its author personally?

Where the author is explicitly putting forward his own views - in a political tract, say - and trying to persuade the reader to agree, I think it's inevitable. You can't disagree with the content of Orwell's essays without disagreeing with Orwell. It probably becomes more difficult where the views are submerged within a story, as with Farenheit 451, say, but presumably there is a tipping point.

I've seen reviews of one of China Mieville's books in which he was accused of excessively punishing one of the characters by giving her an unpleasant fate. But is this just a case of injustice occuring in the course of a story, much like the blinding of Guthwulf in Tad Williams' trilogy or the death of most of the world in Day of the Triffids? If we feel the author is overdoing the carnage or enjoying it too much, can we draw conclusions about the author on the whole?

I'm not sure what the answers are: I suspect they're "Yes, to a degree", but is that degree just a matter of taste?

[Vladd67]

I suppose all authors put a part of themselves into their work even if it is their love for the genre and a sense of humour. However some authors such as Goodkind can become a little preachy when they insist on their characters drumming home the authors views. Of course some authors such as Heinlein put forward different views and it is sometimes hard to say what was their point of view and what was a parody.

[The Judge]

Well, if I come across a book containing excessive and irrelevant sadism and perversion, I am certainly going to wonder a good deal about the kind of mind that wrote it. I don't think I'd criticise the book just because the author was himself weird, unless the weirdness showed through in the novel -- though having said that I might not pick up the book in the first place if I'd had a hint that the writer's behaviour was of a kind of which I might disapprove (eg a convicted rapist is unlikely to get me reading his work simply because I don't want to put money into his hands).

[Ursa major]

Even preachiness may not indicate an author's own stance, only the (poor) way they're putting across an idea.


I have to admit that I do tend to associate preaching with attempts by the author to shoehorn their own views in. (It's their own fault, though, for not writing the relevant scenes as well as they should.)

[Toby Frost]

True. I must admit I wasn't thinking about literal criminals writing books, although I am always suspicious of those true-crime people who clearly worship the Kray twins. My own suspicion is that if an author keeps putting something in (heroic communists, topless wenches with red hair, inexplicable spanking, etc) without good cause, it's legitimate to start to suspect that something may be up. As to whether this is something that damages the book or offends people, that's probably up to the reader in question. And besides, writers are quite an eccentric bunch anyhow.

Of course you could have a completely crazy book that was very well written, but I must admit I've never heard of such a thing.

[Ursa major]

I do have a character who adopts a particular "fashion choice"** in my WiPs (starting in the first main chapter of WiP1), which may be taken to indicate a personal preference, but there is a major plot point involved (one that, unfortunately, is not revealed until the end of WiP3, although it's vaguely hinted at in WiP2).






** - Some readers may assume that a sort of fetishism is at play. It isn't. (Extra note to Mouse (): the choice does not involve clothes or the lack of them.)

[Toby Frost]

To battle, my nudist horde!

[ctg]

If you cannot attack the language, or the story, then the only thing left in your arsenal is to attack the Author. Therefore, by attacking the Author you give yourself a wider arsenal than what you would have in your disposal, if you would only attack the story.

Read between the lines what the blogger is saying, and think about what's in their worldview. Think about are they politically biased.

[Mouse]

Originally Posted by Ursa major

(Extra note to Mouse (): the choice does not involve clothes or the lack of them.)

Perhaps you should consider that!

[Karn Maeshalanadae]

Originally Posted by Vladd67

I suppose all authors put a part of themselves into their work even if it is their love for the genre and a sense of humour. However some authors such as Goodkind can become a little preachy when they insist on their characters drumming home the authors views. Of course some authors such as Heinlein put forward different views and it is sometimes hard to say what was their point of view and what was a parody.

You suppose, Vladd?


Writing, like drawing and music, is an art, and art is a reflection of the personality and mind of its creator. There's a few authors and books I've come across when I wondered, what is up with this?


Dean Koontz is actually a good example of this, especially if you've read a book like The Bad Place. I wasn't able to get through that one, I was so disgusted with it. And even in his mild Odd Thomas novels, at least the first one, there's a slight hint at necrophilia. (I won't tell where, suffice it to say that grief can cause some strange forms of madness.)


It just comes in as what is acceptable to polite society and what isn't. Writing can be a way to enact and control one's fantasies where other avenues are closed. Or, it can be a way to show one's disgust at such activities as well. It just all comes from how strongly which side is written.

[SJAB]

Originally Posted by Tobytwo

. My own suspicion is that if an author keeps putting something in

Like Hamsters and tea?

As to whether this is something that damages the book or offends people, that's probably up to the reader in question.

Sometimes a story is just that. It has nothing to do with the writer's personal opinions.

And besides, writers are quite an eccentric bunch anyhow.

Yes, one lovely lady writer once said to me. "I am told I write good gore."
And yes she does

[Allegra]

Interesting topic!

Originally Posted by The Judge

Well, if I come across a book containing excessive and irrelevant sadism and perversion, I am certainly going to wonder a good deal about the kind of mind that wrote it. I don't think I'd criticise the book just because the author was himself weird, unless the weirdness showed through in the novel -- though having said that I might not pick up the book in the first place if I'd had a hint that the writer's behaviour was of a kind of which I might disapprove (eg a convicted rapist is unlikely to get me reading his work simply because I don't want to put money into his hands).

Same here. When I read The Wasp Factory a few years back I wondered if Iain Banks was a psychopath himself. The book is brilliantly written but I didn't want to read another disturbing Banks until I started reading his Culture books last year. Now as a Culture fan, I think Banks may not be a psychopath after all (I hope not, if there is hard evidence he ever tortured an animal I'd burn his books!) but he definitely has a vivid imagination.

I believe a book, no matter what genre it is, inevitably draws a mental portrait of the writer one way or another. Especially those 'extrovert' writers such as Kurt Vonnegut. Reading his books is like reading his mind, hearing his voice, his sarcastic/bitter/sweet laughter, his sigh.

[Connavar]

I dont wonder about writer behind the texts because i know too many writers that are clearly different in the writer self and their personal self. It would be too easy to say a writer is clearly saying his views,putting in exactly how he thinks.

Only the poor writer is too clear with what a book says about him. Depends on the book of course,that its not a semi-biographical or someone who mostly writes about his views all the time.

[Anne Lyle]

One thing you have to remember is that every one of us is basically two people: the conscious, verbal self that we think of as "me", and an unconscious, non-verbal side that's a roiling mass of memories and feelings.

The Split Brain Revisited

Part of becoming a good writer involves tapping into that creative well - but what comes out is not always nice! Also, the conscious mind tries to make sense of the images it is given by the unconscious, but its conclusions are not always correct (see article). And sometimes you just have to follow a story idea to its logical conclusion, even if it's something that distresses you. There's some pretty dark stuff in my WiP, although I avoid going into the gory details because it's not something I want to read, still less write.

I agree that when an author writes about grim stuff, it certainly indicates that they are probing some dark corner of their own psyche. But we all have those - we're just not all brave enough to drag them kicking and screaming into the light of day

[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.