The Author vs the Work
'The artist usually sets out — or used to — to point a moral and adorn a tale. The tale, however, points the other way, as a rule. Two blankly opposing morals, the artist's and the tale's. Never trust the artist. Trust the tale. The proper function of a critic is to save the tale from the artist who created it.'
— D.H. Lawrence
Confession of the week: in defiance of all context, I like H.P. Lovecraft's work.
My ancestors hail from five different continents, and some of them weren't even human. Given what we know of H.P. Lovecraft's distaste for racial and cultural diversity, I think my very existence would give the man a heart attack. But whatever nastiness was simmering in his personal thoughts, I do enjoy his work.
This got me wondering about how do we decide when an author's personal views are relevant to whether we like their work, or how we understand their work? Honestly, I don't know the answer. On some level, I think that once a story-- a movie, book, or the like-- is out in the world, creator intent means little to nothing. The audience individually and collectively comes to an understanding (or understandings) of what the story means, and that interaction between the story and the audience is what makes storytelling such an integral part of human culture.
I am not a philosopher, or literary critic, but my personal feeling is that the author's views are relevant when they show up in the work. For example, Orson Scott Card has been criticised for his support of laws persecuting same-sex relationships, this isn't a theme that shows up in his science fiction work. Ender's Game stands on its own as an excellent and thought-provoking science fiction novel regardless of Card's screeds against LGBT people.
On the other hand, there are many times you 'can't un-see' something about an author which adds another layer of meaning to their work. When I first read Lovecraft's stories, I knew nothing about the man himself, and attributed the racist views and language in some of his stories to his first-person narrators. Since his characters are not Fictionland's most appealing or well-adjusted citizens, I was not deeply bothered-- this seemed like part and parcel of characters with whom one probably wouldn't want to be stuck in an elevator. Now, with the knowledge that they are probably channeling Lovecraft's own views, the stories take on an additional shade of discomfort.
How do you feel about separating (or not separating) the author and their work?
— D.H. Lawrence
Confession of the week: in defiance of all context, I like H.P. Lovecraft's work.
My ancestors hail from five different continents, and some of them weren't even human. Given what we know of H.P. Lovecraft's distaste for racial and cultural diversity, I think my very existence would give the man a heart attack. But whatever nastiness was simmering in his personal thoughts, I do enjoy his work.
This got me wondering about how do we decide when an author's personal views are relevant to whether we like their work, or how we understand their work? Honestly, I don't know the answer. On some level, I think that once a story-- a movie, book, or the like-- is out in the world, creator intent means little to nothing. The audience individually and collectively comes to an understanding (or understandings) of what the story means, and that interaction between the story and the audience is what makes storytelling such an integral part of human culture.
I am not a philosopher, or literary critic, but my personal feeling is that the author's views are relevant when they show up in the work. For example, Orson Scott Card has been criticised for his support of laws persecuting same-sex relationships, this isn't a theme that shows up in his science fiction work. Ender's Game stands on its own as an excellent and thought-provoking science fiction novel regardless of Card's screeds against LGBT people.
On the other hand, there are many times you 'can't un-see' something about an author which adds another layer of meaning to their work. When I first read Lovecraft's stories, I knew nothing about the man himself, and attributed the racist views and language in some of his stories to his first-person narrators. Since his characters are not Fictionland's most appealing or well-adjusted citizens, I was not deeply bothered-- this seemed like part and parcel of characters with whom one probably wouldn't want to be stuck in an elevator. Now, with the knowledge that they are probably channeling Lovecraft's own views, the stories take on an additional shade of discomfort.
How do you feel about separating (or not separating) the author and their work?
No comments have been added yet.
