Is it appropriate for authors to allow emotions to influence their work?

[Kandice]

Yes. I think all of us, with the exception of Kevin, agreed that an author writing without emotion is not only impossible to find, but completely undesirable.

[Taejas]

I don't know if it's worth resurrecting this thread, but I only found it today and it intrigued me.

If you like/dislike, for instance, Adams killing off all those characters (or any author doing anything), wouldn't that judgment come independently of why he or she did it? Either you liked the story event or you didn't.

If you're going to ask does the author have a responsibility to omit negative influences on their actions while writing, I guess I also have to ask, is simply knowing that background going to alter your opinion of the material? Or are you saying that, universally, author's shouldn't do that because it makes them make bad choices about the plot? Because then it's an issue of what makes it a bad choice, and you hit opinions for and against, etc.

My interest comes because I recently had conversations with (at different times) a couple of friends that were thematically similar.

One buddy was looking for a good book, and I recommended The Golden Compass because I love the setting contrivances. He looked at me like I had two heads and said something to the effect of, "That Pullman guys is trying to discredit religion because he hates it. I refuse to read anything by him."

Another time, I was talking recommending The Amulet of Samarkand to someone because of it's similarities in concept to Harry Potter, which this other friend liked, and his response, in summary, was: "Oh, that Stroud guy is some sort of anti-Britain anarchist, and I'm not fond of books that are written solely to put forth someone's personal agenda."

There were similar reactions on a separate occasion to the Twilight books: "I don't need to read about that crazy Mormon white superiority, it's okay to be a stalker crap."

I had no clue what any of them were talking about, so in each case I ended up doing some Googling. I honestly don't know if prior knowledge would have affected my enjoyment of those stories, and it's a little weird to me to imagine telling those author's to exclude their opinions/emotions on the subjects as influences while writing.

While on the one hand I can say that it's sort of narrow minded for someone to refuse to read something or have their opinion of it colored by the author's views, I suppose it makes me a bit of a hypocrite because I've refused to listen to bands because members were neo-nazis, even when the rhetoric didn't make it's way into the music, and I imagine that I'd avoid books in a similar situation. And a double hypocrite because I like Disney movies even though he was an anti-Semite.

Now, an agenda is a bit broader than reacting to a negative emotion brought on by events in your life, so I guess this is sort of skewing the intent of the topic here, but there are still parallels in argument.

So if you ask, should authors be letting their negative emotions/experiences drive plot elements in their stories, my simple response would be to ask, does it matter if the story stands up on its own, independent of that background knowledge?

I guess the onus on the author, then, is not so much to exclude or include their own experiences as motivating factors in writing, but to do so in a way that is still consistent with (and interesting for) the plot.

Oof, this got long for something people aren't talking about anymore.

[Taejas]

I am curious, Kevin, if you brought this up because of reading Mostly Harmless or if there was some book that drove you to bring up the topic.

[Becky]

Taejas, This thread hasn't been dead long, but I am glad you revived it. :)

I really enjoyed reading your post. I think it was extremely well said, and shows that there is quite a bit more thought put into reading choices than we consciously think of. I'm glad that you mentioned the difference between an author's agenda and events that might alter someone's emotional state and by extension, their writing. That is a huge difference.

I try to be a well rounded and unbiased reader, for the most part. I try not to write off a book or author, or refuse to read it or them because of preconceived notions or background info or whatever. But there are certain cases where I myself become a hypocrite. And Ann Coulter causes about 90% of them. I cannot see myself ever willingly reading anything written by such a vile and nasty person. And I will happily admit that choice is solely based on her Christian Republican World Takeover agenda and blatant hatred of just about everyone who isn't named Ann Coulter and who isn't a far, far, far right wing Christian Republican bent on world domination.

On the other hand, I have been known to intentionally set out to read books that others have hated or refused to read or that are controversial just because of that fact. Does hypocrisy cancel itself out? Like double negatives? ;)

[Abigail (42stitches)]

I'm pretty sure Kevin is long gone from this group, but that is an interesting take on the topic, Taejas. I hadn't really thought about it like that before. I can't say I wouldn't read something by someone who had "agendas" that I couldn't agree with. But I certainly can appreciate if they incorporate them into the story in a useful and not evangelical sort of way. If that makes sense.

To use an example, a lot of people say Hemingway was anti-feminism. That isn't what stops me from reading his books. Especially since I see no evidence of that in his writing. I just generally find his novels (writing and subject matter) boring. So that's why I usually avoid them.

Becky it's funny you mention reading things specifically because they are controversial. I do that too. Mostly because I want to know what the big deal is. I wouldn't say that is being hypocritical. I think denotes a healthy curiosity in society. ;)

[Alexander]

I am also heaps late to add something, but that's due to my not knowing of this site's existence.

I don't understand how someone could write something without drawing from their own emotions. I imagine if you didn't draw from your emotions, the story and characters would be a little flat.

However, I also think people can go too far when writing something "close to them". Their emotions can get in the way of their writing and communicating with the reader and it reads more like self indulgent rubbish than a heart felt, moving, story.

[Monique]

A book without emotion, would just be like a school textbook...dull and pointless.

[Jason]

I really don't think Kevin meant authors should be emotionless as they write, but that their emotions should not lead them to 'destroy' a story by not being true to it or the characters. He might have been better off not using the word emotion. Perhaps something more along the lines of 'whim' or 'mood.'

Of course what is destructive or constructive to a story comes down to a matter taste. As Taejes said, whether or not you like or disliked what happened in the story. If you liked it then the authors fits are just the way they create and it's fine with you. If you found it disruptive or destructive you may think he or she needs to calm down a bit before writing.

All that being said, biographical information can shed some insight on certain story or book, but it's not the most important thing. The story is. How it got to us is secondary.

[Taejas]

Jason wrote: "I really don't think Kevin meant authors should be emotionless as they write, but that their emotions should not lead them to 'destroy' a story by not being true to it or the characters. He might h..."

Yeah. That stuff Jason said in the first paragraph. =D

[Taejas]

Now I'm really curious. Do you guys know of any stories that are particular affected by author's (to use Jason's word) whim? I mean, in either way, where they did something which was destructive/not in keeping with the story (like Kevin's original mention of Adams, or that Doyle thing with Sherlock), or which simply caused the story to be (someone said Misery came about in this way...? And I'm also thinking of the comic book The Crow).

[Susanna - Censored by GoodReads]

Some people think that's the case with the Peter Wimsey novels - Dorothy L. Sayers grew sick of him, so she married him off.

[Becky]

I don't really get Kevin's alcoholism link to Misery, to be honest. Stephen King is my favorite author, and it is true that he had some substance abuse issues around the time when he wrote the book, but Misery has very, very little to do with that. (Not sure where Kevin got that info from, as it doesn't appear that he has read the book, or any other King as far as I know.)

"'Misery', horror-master Stephen King's eighteenth novel, is seen as the author's self-examination of his fans, his writing and his work's genre. 'Misery' is likewise a psychological thriller about the frightening realities of daily life, including repressed fears, insecurity, loneliness, dependence and disintegration. Although King presented no explicit sexual scene in the novel, many Freudian metaphorical representations of sexuality were noted. 'Misery' also dwelt on a battle of the sexes as fought between the main protagonist, Paul Sheldon, and Annie Wilkes, the middle-aged, manic depressive woman who 'took care' of him after surviving a car wreck." -- Natalie Schroeder (From the "Journal of Popular Culture" on Sociology and Social Work)

The Shining does have very clear links to alcoholism and substance dependency and addiction and urge-control issues, so would be a better example of what Kevin was getting at. But regardless of the author's emotional state at the time, or maybe because of it, The Shining is one of my favorite books of all time.

Anyway, Stephen King has always written honestly and let the story be what it is, without trying to make it something that has nothing to do with the author's personal life. King shines through his work, and that is what appeals to me. I couldn't imagine reading something by him and NOT feeling that it is a part of him.

I think that it would be a sad day indeed when all we have to read is contrived tripe from authors who are too afraid to write what they feel.

Sorry about the length of this post. :)

[Saara]

I think it is totally appropriate for authors to allow feelings 2 influence their work. their feelings ia wat keeps them going in writing and sometime creates bestselling novels.