What Role Does Authorship Play In Your Reading? (12/9/18)

[Marc]

Antonomasia,
The influence of authorship is wider than an author having unacceptable opinions or bad behaviors, yes? If you take the last book you read, did the author's bio or intent have any impact upon your reading, or did you evaluate the book independent of any knowledge about the author?

I think what I'm trying to ask here is about some of the more subconscious assumptions or reactions we have without necessarily stopping to think about it (e.g., for those who joined the most recent group read, The Sound of Things Falling, does the fact of the author being Colombian and having lived part of his life there lend him any more or less credibility in telling his story?).

I do agree with you that there has been a cultural shift where younger generations are more easily "offended" or sensitive to how language is used.

[Lia]

I just want to clarify that the [un]Death of the Author thing is more about intentional fallacy, than whether we are allowed to like arts produced by morally bad people. I.e. whether the author’s intention, cultural background, literary movement etc count, or if the interpretive community gets the final say.

And the academic-unfreedom whine has more to do with different institutions endorsing different “schools of interpretation”, and students learning the craft are made to feel like they’re walking through landmines, potentially nuking any chance of academic career by publishing an interpretation using the wrong interpretive angle.

I don’t think shunning morally-bad writer is an existing issue beyond busy bodies on social media (and maybe a few Ivy League schools trying to kick out the dead white male writers from the Canon). Critics or the academia still seem to accept that good arts can be immoral or amoral, not many support the idea that arts have moral obligations. (In fact, it makes me uncomfortable how many critics were prepared to excuse Norman Mailer’s wife-stabbing, making it out to be some kind of existential performance or artistic expression. Even Mailer himself said he was surprised by how little it bothered people.)

[Lia]

Since we’ve been talking about films as well — can we talk about “Girl” on Netflix? Many transgender critics condemned the award-nominated show, calling it dangerous, irresponsible, transphobic etc:

https://ew.com/golden-globes/2018/12/...

https://www.slashfilm.com/girl-contro...

https://ew.com/golden-globes/2018/12/...

The idea is that a cis-gendered production crew (including actor), because of their identity, mentality, background, experience, cannot legitimately represent the story of a transgender person, and their attempt to do so ended up promoting misconceptions and dominant stereotype.

But it’s art, film critics find it aesthetically pleasing and technically competent — should the fact that it’s produced by cis people tarnish it? Do shows like this have obligations to educate?

[Antonomasia]

Marc wrote: "Antonomasia,
The influence of authorship is wider than an author having unacceptable opinions or bad behaviors, yes? If you take the last book you read, did the author's bio or intent have any impa..."

The historical and political context of a novel is often more interesting to me than the story itself, I interpret biographically as a matter of course, and interviews with contemporary authors I find an actively useful element of background.

Except in the small number of cases where I feel that personal ick factor and I don't want to read it, or a work simply seems unimportant now and not worth reading in order to have read it and talk about it, in all honesty it would end up as a matter of being seen to have read it on GR.

(Another of the ick-factor ones might be Elias Canetti; as a fan of Iris Murdoch - biographically of her as an individual rather than having read lots of her novels - I feel something echoing what I might feel if there were cult novels by a friend's ex whom she'd had a fraught relationship with.)

I've only ever not posted books for privacy reasons (e.g. local history of a place I was living) rather than because of that sort of potential judgement and it's not something I'd want to start doing. Now I've backed myself into a corner so that, providing I'm still using GR regularly when Paul Kingsnorth's next novel comes out, and I get a chance to read it, I'll have to at least log it. (I'd still read it if I could because it's the 3rd of a loose trilogy, but depending on what he's been saying in the media, and potentially overtones of the book, it may not be something to buy or actively promote.)

I wouldn't generally read a novel about another country by an American or British author who'd never been there. I would generally prefer to read a novel about a country by an author who'd lived there or at least in a neighbouring country, and although I'm more relaxed when it's translated works, I do think twice about reading works about less developed countries by European authors: I think this is influenced by reviewing and talking about books on GR and feeling as if one is obliged to note e.g. orientalism while not being an authority on it [a GR friend is an academic in a relevant area which makes me even more aware of that amateurism] and cringing because I can imagine other GR reviewers finding problems with the book; it's like witnessing an awful faux pas. (e.g. While I'd like to read some Ryszard Kapuscinski, it won't be his African books I go to first, and I decided not to read Sea of Ink by Richard Weihe (German author writing about China) when I had a lot of Peirene books because of similar reasons although I found the blurb lovely and very appealing, and I didn't want to end up with a negative impression of it after reading.)

[Antonomasia]

Lia wrote: "Since we’ve been talking about films as well — can we talk about “Girl” on Netflix? Many transgender critics condemned the award-nominated show, calling it dangerous, irresponsible, transphobic etc..."

This sort of thing (as well as representation and jobs for actors and crew) comes down to standpoint theory / standpoint epistemology if one goes beyond the pop-culture manifestations, which is something it may be interesting to read around more.

[Lark]

Lia wrote: "But it’s art, film critics find it aesthetically pleasing and technically competent — should the fact that it’s produced by cis people tarnish it? Do shows like this have obligations to educate? ..."

Generally the treatment of trans characters in visual media is still very awful, and I do think any show that introduces a trans character needs to get first-hand knowledge somehow of how to build the character in a humane and realistic way. Otherwise they are harming people.

The question about who gets to play trans characters is interesting, but there is also a fundamental, earlier question that most directors aren't asking themselves, about whether they have thought through their preconceptions about what trans people look like. Frequently they are casting to a stereotype.

[Carol]

Lark wrote: "Lia wrote: "But it’s art, film critics find it aesthetically pleasing and technically competent — should the fact that it’s produced by cis people tarnish it? Do shows like this have obligations to..."

Most directors have perfected the art of casting to a stereotype by hiring Americans to play Chinese and other Asian characters.

[Lark]

Carol wrote: "Most directors have perfected the art of casting to a stereotype by hiring Americans to play Chinese and other Asian characters. ..."

Do you mean like Tilda Swinton in Dr. Strange, or Katherine Hepburn in The Good Earth? Both very weird bad decisions but at least in Swinton's case no one was pretending she was Asian. And let us not forget Mickey Rooney.

Well that is all very depressing to think about but to end on an upnote, one of my favorite casting decisions recently was Steven Yeun in "Sorry to Bother You" ... and in a lot of other ways the movie gave me hope we're making progress. I recommend it.

[Lia]

Is a film producer analogous to an “author”? FWIW the netflix show is based on the story of a real trans person, and she endorses the representation and accuracy, but the trans critics are saying a trans crew wouldn’t have filmed it that way. Again, it seems like a case of dismissing the art object based on its producer.

I’ve seen similar complaints about able bodied authors writing books with disabled characters.

It seems clear to me that the author (or producer of an art object) is not easily separable from the art itself, this goes beyond morally bad authors (abuser, pedophile, wife-stabber etc), it seems even “normal writers” transmit their prejudice subtly in their world-building.

[Whitney]

Lia wrote: "Is a film producer analogous to an “author”? FWIW the netflix show is based on the story of a real trans person, and she endorses the representation and accuracy, but the trans critics are saying a trans crew wouldn’t have filmed it that way. Again, it seems like a case of dismissing the art object based on its producer. ..."

I'm not at familiar with the show you're referencing, so really can't weigh in on that. I will say that when you have limited representation of any particular group, the one example becomes the stand-in for everyone; so naturally 99% or their cohorts will find the portrayal flawed. If the entire production crew is devoid of anyone with the experience being portrayed, then they deserve their criticism. It's not a nature show about wombats, I'm sure there are plenty of transgender writers available for the writer's room, or as consultants at a minimum.

[Carol]

Lark wrote: "Carol wrote: "Most directors have perfected the art of casting to a stereotype by hiring Americans to play Chinese and other Asian characters. ..."

Do you mean like Tilda Swinton in Dr. Strange, o..."

My immediate thought was of the casting of an American white guy as Goku (Japanese) in the live-action version of Dragon Ball Z (Evolution). That casting decision gave rise to far more angst and horror than casting Tom Cruise as Jack Reacher, largely because it indicated that the US film industry didn’t trust an Asian lead to open a film that has a built-in global audience waiting for its release.

If the topic of whitewashing interests, here’s my fave site.

http://casting.web.unc.edu/2017/09/dr...

[Carol]

Marc wrote: "Lia, it seems somewhat funny/ironic, that I'm sure when "the death of the author" came about, I'm sure it was probably seen as a very freeing perspective whereby those analyzing literature were per..."

Since you raised Sylvia Plath, I’ll disclose that I haven’t read any Louise Erdrich novels and likely won’t.

[Lia]

Whitney wrote: "when you have limited representation of any particular group, the one example becomes the stand-in for everyone; so naturally 99% or their cohorts will find the portrayal flawed. If the entire production crew is devoid of anyone with the experience being portrayed, then they deserve their criticism..."

I more or less agree with this assessment, but I also wonder if the same applies to other groups being represented in novels — was it problematic for Baldwin to write a story about two gay white men? (Giovanni's Room), or Sebald (Austerlitz) or James Joyce (Ulysses), to write about a Jew? Erpenbeck to write about MENA refugees? Ishiguro to write about orphans?

How many of us felt completely unaffected by Ishiguro’s ethnicity/ background when reading his very British novel, The Remains of the Day?

How truly irrelevant can the author be? (I’m wondering about this as I’m discussing the authenticity of Book X of the Iliad with another group — and whether it matters if it’s added to the canon after Homer.)

[Whitney]

Baldwin had experience with gay white men. Ishiguro grew up in England. There has been some criticism of Joyce's portrayal of Bloom.

But, the larger point. No one, except for fringe elements, is saying that writers should only write people who are identical to them. There are workshops on "writing the other". But, especially today, they need to do their research and not present two dimensional stereotypes of marginalized communities. I heard a podcast discussion of some egregious portrayal of race in a book or TV sow. As the podcasters said, its something that could have been prevented by simply asking a black person what they thought. And if the writer didn't know any black people they could ask, that was a pretty good indication they didn't know what they were talking about and maybe shouldn't write black characters.

[Lia]

Whitney wrote: "Baldwin had experience with gay white men. Ishiguro grew up in England. There has been some criticism of Joyce's portrayal of Bloom.

But, the larger point. No one, except for fringe elements, is s..."

Apparently Baldwin’s publisher really resisted publishing a novel about white people, they thought it would have ended his career, they expected his readers to feel betrayed or something.

But, since representing others is not seen as an issue in novels, I’m wondering if the same can be said about a transgender character in film. Afterall, it is based on a real trans person, she was consulted early on, she continues to endorse the representation — is there something special about TV shows that makes representing “otherness” especially problematic? Or is it simply because it’s still such a small sample size (of trans people being represented in pop culture) that it’s being (unfairly?) scrutinized?

[Lia]

Also, in an interview (about The Unconsoled, IIRC), Ishiguro talked about his frustrations with constantly being read as a Japanese writer, and how his experimentations with different settings had something to do with trying to get out of that reader expectations. I’m not dismissing the fact that he immigrated to England in his early childhood, but I think it’s fair to say that most people still evaluate his works with his ethnicity in mind. (I wasn’t saying it’s inappropriate for him to write about England, BTW, I was making a point that Ishiguro complained people can’t seem to read him outside of the Japanese-writer context. I did wonder about his frequent treatment of orphan subjects. I have a friend who is adopted, and sometimes reacts negatively to his representations.)

[Lia]

Antonomasia wrote: "This sort of thing (as well as representation and jobs for actors and crew) comes down to standpoint theory / standpoint epistemology if one goes beyond the pop-culture manifestations, which is something it may be interesting to read around more..."

Thank you Antonomasia, I tried to look it up but mostly found Math textbooks on the subject. Do you have any books or (JSTOR) articles to recommend?

[Whitney]

Lia wrote: "is there something special about TV shows that makes representing “otherness” especially problematic? Or is it simply because it’s still such a small sample size (of trans people being represented in pop culture) that it’s being (unfairly?) scrutinized?..."

I think TV shows simply have a much wider audience than any given book, hence a larger response and likelihood to attract the internet mob. And, yes, when it's a small sample size, everyone is going to scrutinize it much closer. Everything a trans character does is going to be judged as representing transgender people in general. If a straight white guy on a show is portrayed as a murderer, who cares? There are a million other portrayals out there.

[Mark]

Marc wrote: "When you're reading a book, to what extent does the author's identity and bio impact your reading? Do aspects of an author's life color your reading or do you view the text as independent of the wr..."

The bulk of this discussion has related to the moral impact of a writer's biography, with branches relating to the visceral effect of knowing the author's belief's/ actions or the economic effect of consuming works by unappealing authors.

There's another side to knowing the author's life history: being able to trust the author's description of the world inside the novel. Dickens KNEW the world his characters inhabited, while Sarah Waters cannot know that world in the same way. Another pair is Chinua Achebe's Africa compared to H. Rider Haggard's. That has to inform the experience of reading their works. For me, knowing that I am seeing a missive from a distant world adds value to the work, separate from the quality of the writing. While I enjoyed Kate Atkinson's Transcription, my enjoyment of the work was less whole-hearted than when reading Human Voices, where Penelope Fitzgerald was writing after living IN that world. Yes, some of those residents in those distant worlds have personal views that I dislike, but if I can learn about their worlds, it can be rewarding.

I'd enjoy hearing about other literary pairs of "livers" versus "writers about".

[Carol]

Mark wrote: "Marc wrote: "When you're reading a book, to what extent does the author's identity and bio impact your reading? Do aspects of an author's life color your reading or do you view the text as independ..."

I am less concerned about lived versus researched when it comes to historical fiction/contemporary (and now classic) fiction, but - along the same vein - I avoid reading novels set in developing nations by Western authors who have (only) visited or researched the country. I want the author’s perspective as reflected in the art to be based on lived experience in that country. There’s no minimum residency period, and lack of it isn’t a knock-out factor but personal knowledge and observation tends to be the differentiating factor between books I read and those that sit in my TBR without ever rising up to the top.

[Marc]

Not sure this is completely relevant to the discussion, but there's a brief (10 min) episode of the The Art Assignment that asks whether machines can make art--there's a brief mention of writing and it does deal with the notion of authorship from a different angle and why what we get from said "authors."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FqrHmKo-cm4

[Nadine in California]

I just hope I never hear that Jane Austen slapped the servants around, I don't know what I'd do!

[Antonomasia]

Nadine wrote: "I just hope I never hear that Jane Austen slapped the servants around, I don't know what I'd do!"
She made friends with a governess, and her own precarious financial situation may have made her feel closer to someone like that than to her grander relatives - so it seems less likely than with some. But I'm guessing you've heard of Mrs. Woolf and the Servants?

WRT historical fiction. I generally would have greater trust in an author from the time but see them as having different purposes. Sarah Waters, for instance, would be to me more of a comfort-read sort of book requiring less effort than many Victorian novels.

Sometimes easier-reading books nearly contemporaneous with events get neglected in favour of low-quality recent historical fiction and that is something I really don't like. Last noticed that when I read Ashes and Diamonds, but it's the case for a lot of stuff from the early to mid 20th century which remains very readable. The main bonus with average historical fiction is that it's more likely to contain modern social attitudes amenable to contemporary readers who don't want to have to deal with the levels of casual racism etc in the older texts.

As far as good historical fiction is concerned, I think it is at its best and most purposeful when it's adding something whilst also displaying a thorough understanding of setting. e.g. Sarah Waters writes about lesbian characters who never could have been written that way at the time. Great postmodern historical fiction, such as Pynchon's Mason & Dixon and Evgeny Vodolazkin's Laurus understands the impossibility of total accuracy and occasionally plays with that idea via deliberate anachronism, at the same time as weaving in research at a level that would put most popular historical novels to shame and creating an immersive atmosphere.

[Nadine in California]

Antonomasia wrote: "Nadine wrote: "I just hope I never hear that Jane Austen slapped the servants around, I don't know what I'd do!"
She made friends with a governess, and her own precarious financial situation may ha..."

Ah, my good, dear Jane - she's still my fantasy friend :) I haven't heard of Mrs Woolf and the Servants, but it's on my TBR now, thanks! I'm not at all surprised at this side of Woolf though - class privilege drips off her pen, imho.

Great postmodern historical fiction, such as Pynchon's Mason & Dixon and Evgeny Vodolazkin's Laurus understands the impossibility of total accuracy and occasionally plays with that idea via deliberate anachronism....

Yes, yes, yes! I love deliberate anachronisms. A recent example in movies is The Favourite. I just saw it the other day and I wasn't sure about it at first, but it is growing on me. Some of the anachronisms were so small and blithely done, I thought they were mistakes at first.

[Lily]

Nadine wrote: "...Woolf... - class privilege drips off her pen, imho...."

(Smile.) Don't disagree, but for what male writers would you say the same?

(Question was prompted by just having read several BuzzFeed articles on Facebook and on Lean In in the past few minutes. Also, by recently adding The Custom of the Country to my reading pile.)

[Carol]

Lily wrote: "Nadine wrote: "...Woolf... - class privilege drips off her pen, imho...."

(Smile.) Don't disagree, but for what male writers would you say the same?

(Question was prompted by just having read sev..."

Tolstoy.

[Hugh]

Mark wrote: "my enjoyment of the work was less whole-hearted than when reading Human Voices, where Penelope Fitzgerald was writing after living IN that world."
And not just that one - Fitzgerald has a a very interesting life and a varied career before her belated decision to become a writer, and several of her other novels reflect this, notably the Bookshop and Offshore.

[Mark]

Nadine, I agree with your take on The Favourite, though the real strength of that movie (IMHO) was Olivia's chameleon-like personifications.

Hugh, I agree with you about Penelope and those two titles. I would also argue that she's a prime exemplar of ham-handed historical settings in The Blue Flower. When an author writes of a period, he or she is acting as a translator between the setting and the writer's. (Hmmm, so now we have the question of Sir Walter Scott's Ivanhoe. Is there a pentimento between our time, Scott's time, and Ivanhoe's?)

[Nadine in California]

Mark wrote: "Nadine, I agree with your take on The Favourite, though the real strength of that movie (IMHO) was Olivia's chameleon-like personifications...."

Yes! And how she sometimes made the switch between them in nanoseconds!

And now, back to books.

[Lia]

In an opinion piece, Lionel Shriver calls this rejection (or disappearing) of the art to punish a misbehaving artist “new puritanism”, and those paying the price... “the arts consumer.”

https://harpers.org/archive/2019/02/c...

[Antonomasia]

It is unfortunately scattergun - it could have grouped the works and artists to better effect or not made such a blanket argument. e.g. She differentiates between those found guilty by due process and those who never got taken to court, or haven't yet been - but then doesn't.
Nor does it point out that there are plenty of right wing journalists and pundits who continue because that is their job.

Minor point but OJ Simpson wasn't the lead in those films and shows named which is significant.

I wonder to what extent this dropping of works is *consciously* meant to mirror the neglect of works by women and minorities or if it is one of those cultural / political transferences (like middle class Remain voters feeling a new sense of precariousness due to Brexit, precariousness that had long been the norm for a subsection of leave voters). The decision to drop works is often taken by those with arts degrees so it must sometimes be conscious.

By concentrating only on one side the piece unfortunately doesn't look at the other side: what is going in these shows' place? Is it actually resulting in different people making money who didn't before?

[Carol]

Lia wrote: "In an opinion piece, Lionel Shriver calls this rejection (or disappearing) of the art to punish a misbehaving artist “new puritanism”, and those paying the price... “the arts consumer.”

https://h..."

Of course Shriver does. Any decision to disassociate oneself from abominable conduct or offensive views must be a “rush to jusgment” notwithstanding the fact the Bill Cosby’s, RKelly’s, Kevin Spacey’s conduct spanned decades.

I shouldn’t read any whinese of hers this early in the day. My apologies.

[Lily]

Carol wrote: "I shouldn’t read any whinese of hers this early in the day. My apologies...."

I haven't read Shriver's piece yet, but you have me laughing, Carol!

(Yes, I have read some of her writing. Yes, I'm probably being guilty of at least some form of what she is saying, if I correctly grasp the tenor of the comments here. :-( )