Lives and Works...

[fajrdrako]

From February 5, 2009: Have you ever been put off an author’s books after reading a biography of them? Or the reverse - a biography has made you love an author more?

A good biography gives me exactly the impression I had of an author in the first place. It fills in background, it illuminates the person's setting, but it doesn't change my impression of them.

Only twice has knowledge of an author's life put me off that author's work, and it wasn't anything biographical that did it, it was reading essays by the author that put me off. The first such case is the homophobia of Orson Scott Card, whose story "The Princess and the Bear" I had liked. The other case is the anti-feminism of Dave Sim, author-artist-creator of Cerebus the Aardvark.

Comments

[sollersuk.livejournal.com]

Agreed up to a point about Orson Scott Card, but I've always read him at arms length (figuratively speaking) because I knew he was a Mormon and therefore that there would be only minuscule overlaps between my views and his.

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

Yes, sadly, this is the case. And the thing with Dave Sim is based on religion, too. Such a pity!

[sollersuk.livejournal.com]

Quite. However, I would find it unduly limiting if I confined my reading to writers who share my beliefs - for example, if I avoided reading all Muslim writers.

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

I'd say it would depend on the individual writer, and how they related to their religion, rather than the nature of the religion itself.

[dewline.livejournal.com]

The likes of Irshad Manji, for example...?

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

Who's he?

[dewline.livejournal.com]

She, actually. (http://muslimrefusenik.com/)

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

Thanks for the link - she looks terrific.

[sollersuk.livejournal.com]

Probably yes. If it's something they grew up in that has formed their entire world-view, that's one thing. But what I don't care for is if they try to ram their views down the reader's throat.

This may sound slightly OT, but for various reasons I spend a lot of time with my head in the late 5th century, and though religion was a very major source of contention and there were people I wouldn't like to be on the same planet as, there were also people that I find very acceptable: a Gothic king and two bishops in Gaul whose attitude - that has survived centuries when it could have been edited out - was "Of course I'd prefer it if you believed the same as me, but nobody can be made to believe against their will" and so, effectively, they just agreed to differ, and in the case of the bishops didn't let it get in the way of friendship. That's a completely different attitude from some 21st century writers.

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

there were people I wouldn't like to be on the same planet as, there were also people that I find very acceptable

Yes; I find the same in the 12th century. Though the general world view was not like ours, there was as much diversity of thought as we have - maybe not always expressed in their writings, but it was there.

So much depends on the attitude of the writer.

[silverwhistle.livejournal.com]

I don't expect mediæval people to think the same way as we do: I accept them on their own terms, even though their values would be absurd or bad in the present-day. Essentially, they inhabit a different universe, with different rules, in which we are strangers/intruders.

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

All of that is true, but I find that there is diversity among them - people living at the same time didn't all think exactly alike. People interpret the world according to their own experiences and times.

[silverwhistle.livejournal.com]

Diversity, yes, but within an intellectual framework that is very different from the one in which our own intellectual world operates. Something that annoys me greatly is when modern people expect mediæval people to have a modern secular, scientific world-view (which is my own world-view, and I think the most sensible in a modern context), and berate them for failing to live up to what would be an absurd anachronism.

[lunacy-gal.livejournal.com]

I heard Terry Pratchett speak at Worldcon in '03 and thought him a pompous prick. I haven't been able to read him since.

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

That's a shame. I wonder if oncoming Alzheimer's made a difference to his personality, since I met him back in the early 90s (or late 80s?) and liked him.

You just never know.

Meeting Harlan Ellison (on several occasions) skewed my view of his works, too.

[gillo]

I used to admire William Mayne's fiction for children/YA. Then I read about some of his activities. Perhaps it ought not to make a difference but, much as I enjoyed

Earthfasts

, I just cannot bring myself to read any more of his books.

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

Yes. We all have... I don't know if 'limits' is the word, but there are certain perceptions that are impossible to forget and overlook. If Mayne wrote mathematical textbooks, maybe it wouldn't matter. But as it is? The work feels contaminated. Not rational, maybe, but we're not entirely rational creatures, and sometimes our instincts are worth listening to.

[silverwhistle.livejournal.com]

The work feels contaminated. Not rational, maybe, but we're not entirely rational creatures, and sometimes our instincts are worth listening to

I don't see how that applies here. The books stand up as works in their own right: it's not as if they advocate sexual abuse, and the author's personality isn't intrusive in them.

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

What you say is true; which is why I say there is a non-rational response involved. I'm not saying that this is a problem, since I don't think it is. Just that it affects my thought. I might still read the work if I had a reason to, but I wouldn't be reading it for pleasure.

[dameruth.livejournal.com]

Yeah, agree about Orson Scott Card. I was OK with him being Mormon (heck, I grew up in a very Mormon area, and while it's no *my* belief system I've seen firsthand that the religion contains the usual mix of really cool -- and really not -- people as any other grouping), but some of his online venting about homosexuality really turned me off his writing; too bad, he's done some good stuff, and his "how to" books on writing are really worth a read.

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

some of his online venting about homosexuality really turned me off his writing

I'm not sure what it was about his tone - it was very officious or something. Not just what he said but the way he said it.

I don't expect anyone to be perfect or to share all my views, but some people can do it in an acceptable way, and Card didn't.

[silverwhistle.livejournal.com]

It's something I tend to keep pretty separate: it only bothers me in cases where the writer isn't that good and is sold on 'personality' as much as the work, or where their views are stridently expressed in their work (in which case I wouldn't read them to start with, as per Stephanie Meyer, with her sexist vampire nonsense).

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

She's a good example, I think, of image overshadowing substance. (But I don't know, since I know as little about her books as is possible, given the publicity.)

[silverwhistle.livejournal.com]

And of using her work as a vehicle for her own reactionary agenda, re: sexuality and the role of women.

[catalenamara.livejournal.com]

>>>Only twice has knowledge of an author's life put me off that author's work, and it wasn't anything biographical that did it, it was reading essays by the author that put me off. The first such case is the homophobia of Orson Scott Card, whose story "The Princess and the Bear" I had liked

You and me both. I don't think I'll ever read anything he wrote again.

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

No. Sets my teeth on edge.

[kk1raven.livejournal.com]

What put me off of reading Card's fiction wasn't his biography as such but rather it was making the mistake of reading some of his essays about the proper place of women and about his views on homosexuality. I just can't bring myself to contribute in any way to the success of someone with his views.

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

Yup, it's a problem. Everyone has a right to their own opinions but I find his appalling.

[walkingowl.livejournal.com]

That certainly is a question. Jack London. Yes, Orson Scott Card. And, in modern music, Charles Ives... although I never had liked the man's most popular stuff anyway, and finding out what a sad example of a human being he was just made me content to continue to dislike his music. And, alas if it actually happens, T.S. Eliot, of all people. I have been finding out his political views, and I strongly dislike the idea of one of the seminal building blocks of my own writing style having been someone who unapologetically excluded entire classes of people from being deserving of the full rights of human beings. It bothers me. I'm still working on this one.

Dave Sim... just seems so very shallow to me, the more I found out about him. It may have been a case of it having been much better were we never to have found out anything about the author of the stories. Especially the first few dozen issues. Then, as time passed and he grew content within his fringe-dweller fame in fandom, he let it all hang out. Ah, well. Still have Frank Miller -- he'll never disappoint me! (Gad, I hope not!)

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

Oh, Frank Miller has already disappointed me - I can't stand his recent Batman and Robin series. But that's okay. With him, I can easily overlook the bad for the good in Frank's case. I don't have to agree with him philosophically.

Dave Sim... once upon a time I liked him, as well as liking his work. But that's life... as time goes by, some people improve, others don't. I hope I am (and remain) one of the people who get better with time. Sim had wit, so I thought he had the intelligence and insight that usually goes with it. Apparently not.