Does an author's RL affect reader's enjoyment of the book?

HeronW · Jan 13, 2009

I have this issue with L. Ron Hubbard too turning his SciFi spoutings into his Dianetics religion...sigh.

Just finished reading an old Richard Bach (Jonathan Livingston Seagul) book: The Bridge Across Forever, (a love story). I thought it was a fictionalize account of Bach's life (or a guy like him) after his first marriage and before his 2nd to Leslie Parrish. This isn't my usual cuppa--I'm only reading it because I loved JLS way way long ago.

In this book, RB goes from living the life of a barnstormer, ignorant about the money coming in from his previously published books, and cavalier about love.

He makes a whole production about the 'Perfect Woman' realizing he can have only parts as they exist in other women. No committments, no ties, no painful g'byes as he flies off from any problem until he meets LP. They become good friends, then lovers and after a few months, RB realizes he's GASP! emotionally tied to one woman and he doesn't want to be though seeking solace in empty relationships does nothing for him either. After mythical visits with future RBs and overcoming whatnot, there's a HEA because RB found his soul mate. Fine.

I go looking up about RB today...He really did wed LP, and they've been divorced for years now. He's married to someone else.

He'd left wife #1 with 6 kids to raise while he wandered the country flying and writing and being a non-supportive completely selfish asshat spewing out his need for independance for freedom for acting like a three year old in a candy story--and the scales have fallen from my eyes.

He's such a putz, says one thing, does another and life is an illusion. So is he.

MetalDog · Jan 13, 2009

I found out that Patrick O'Brian was a complete asshat and it made it very difficult to feel any of my old affection for his alter ego in the Aubrey/Maturin series for a while.

On the other hand, I can still enjoy Michael Jackson's music without liking the man himself - ditto Sean Connery movies. It is possible to enjoy the work, without liking the workman.

BarbaraKE · Jan 13, 2009

I think an author's real life can definitely affect how someone feels about their work. I think that's true about almost anyone in the public eye.

But I think there's a difference when the individual's RL affects the story (i.e. L. Ron Hubbard) as opposed to the individual's RL affecting our perception of the story (i.e. Richard Bach)

caseyquinn · Jan 13, 2009

I don't care about the author's personal life - most famous authors were womanizers, alcholics and just bad people in general. Since they are long dead and before the time of media coverage, people dont consider the nasty's they did and yet hemmingway is considered a great author.

kuwisdelu · Jan 13, 2009

Womanizing and alcoholism makes one a bad person?

Crap.

My opinion of an author's work tends to be colored by their personal life. The more badass, the better.

tehuti88 · Jan 13, 2009

I generally don't even try to find out about the personal lives of the writers (and musicians, and whatever else) whose work I enjoy, for this very reason. I know that if I find out something terribly abhorrent to me then my enjoyment of their work will be marred. Why would I want to read something by, say, a bigoted homophobe? I'd feel so bitter I'd never enjoy it. I wouldn't want my money to go in their pockets; I wouldn't even want to justify their story with a glance.

Kind of silly, yes, but that's how I am.

beautiation · Jan 13, 2009

I never like to know much about writers. Hermits FTW as far as I'm concerned

I don't care about the author's life while I'm reading the book in terms of liking autobiographical characters less, but if I read about a book in the knowledge that it makes it harder for me to find their characters not like them genuine.

Also finding out a writer has a very mundane life can ruin romantic illusions if you're that way inclined, and destroy the magic when you read them.

The Lady · Jan 13, 2009

Yes. I read GP Taylor's Shadowmancer when it first came out. God it was terrible. I was unable to finish it, or understand the hype.
Then I saw another book of his in a shop recently. I picked it up and I read the first page. It was strangely so much better. I became intrigued. Had he improved out of all proportion? I itched to know. So, I bought it and brought it home and read it. After a while I began to realise that while he had improved there was still a lot wrong. A lot. But still. A giant improvement. I was able to finish it, even if it was more to educate myself than curiosity. I say curiosity but I had none really as the plot was, well, plotless, and the characters lacked, well, character, and the magic lacked coherency, but I really did like the setting. Something about the word gas-lamps does it for me.

Anyway, on finishing the book, I wondered should I cheer him on, (silently to myself, as I am not the loud type) as, at least, it was A LOT better than Shadowmancer.
Then I read an interview he had given recently. My word, what a steaming pile of arrogance he spouts. Plus he added that if he only knew how to write a screenplay he wouldn't even bother writing as films are where it's at.
Yes, his personality has forced me to be honest.
The book deserves a 4 out of ten. That's barely a pass. I will not be checking out more books in the series to see if the improvement continues. But I do hope he, someday soon, feels arrogant enough to have a go at screenwriting.

willietheshakes · Jan 13, 2009

caseyquinn said:
most famous authors were womanizers, alcholics and just bad people in general

Hey! I resemble that remark!
(Though, not famous yet, so...)

caseyquinn · Jan 13, 2009

sorry

no offense meant, let me rephrase as "most of the classic pieces of writing taught in schools today are written by..."

Claudia Gray · Jan 13, 2009

As a general rule, I try to keep my perceptions of authors' work separate from my perceptions of them. Ghastly people can write wonderful books (and vice versa, unfortunately.)

That said, I think what you're talking about is sort of different, and meaningful: If Bach had been a writer of adventure stories that you really loved, you probably wouldn't have cared much about his unfortunate marital history. But Bach wrote something you found personally important about the nature of love, fidelity, etc.; I think feeling disillusioned about his failure to live those ideals isn't unreasonable. (This is more true because, to some extent, Bach held himself out not only as a writer but as a source of wisdom.) It doesn't necessarily make the book untrue, though, and I hope maybe you will be able to regain your fondness for the work.

Also: Even when I decide I like work by an author who is a son of a bitch, I think it's important not to make my liking of that work an excuse for the author being a son of a bitch. Ezra Pound deserves to be remembered as one of the 20th century's most brilliant poets, but it does not let him off the hook for being an anti-Semite, Fascist and Mussolini supporter.

Kate Thornton · Jan 13, 2009

I am always delighted when the authors whose work I greatly admire turn out to be very nice people, too. Stephen King, William Gibson, Sue Ann Jaffarian, all decent people as well as good authors.

If an author whose work I admire turns out to be a jerk, I guess I am a little disappointed, but I will still read & admire their work.

This goes for painters & sculptors as well.

JLCwrites · Jan 13, 2009

I will stop spending $$ on movies if I hate the lead actor/actress's personality. Same with music. I don't know too much about the authors I read, but I am sure that if I discovered that any of them was a jerk, then I wouldn't spend any money on their books either. However, I will watch the movie, listen to the song, or read the book without spending $$ on it. (Ie.. movie is on the television, music was a 'free' download, or book came from the library.)

DeleyanLee · Jan 13, 2009

Why do I care what their real life is like? Their job --writers, actors, singers, artists of any kind--is to entertain me with what they produce. If they can entertain me, then I'm totally happy with them and support them with my money. If they don't, then I ignore them and don't support them with my money. It works.

Red-Green · Jan 13, 2009

On a related topic, I once got hate mail for writing an unflattering review of a local author. Apparently, because the writer was "such a nice guy" I was supposed to like his book. Or at least pretend to like it.

Polenth · Jan 13, 2009

I don't think about an author's history when I read books. Even in the case of false memoirs, knowing it isn't true doesn't stop the story being good. I just know to treat it like fiction.

JimmyB27 · Jan 14, 2009

You could ask the same question about anyone who provides you with any service or product. 'Does your plumber's RL affect your enjoyment of your new bathroom?' 'Does the grocer's RL affect your enjoyment of your dinner?'.
So long as the product or service does what it's meant to, who cares about the guy who produced it?

Spiny Norman · Jan 14, 2009

It can, but it shouldn’t. I think you need to have a lot of distance in between yourself and the author. Otherwise you wind up seeing the book in his terms and in his imagination rather than yours. So the book you read is filled with a resonating grief, a real heart-choking sorrow that you know and understand, and then you find out that the author was getting over the death of his gay lover. Does that make what you felt any less valid, or real? I don’t think so. You have to have that divide there between the work and the author.

This is why I like guys like T.S. Eliot and Tom Waits and Cormac McCarthy. They intentionally try and obscure their own personal histories and personalities so that you can make their work your own. Tom Waits comes out and says that the person he is on stage and in interviews is 100% a fabrication, a mask he puts on for everyone to look at. Cormac McCarthy is a recluse who hates talking about his books in interviews and refuses to speak at colleges about them because “everything you need to know is on the page.” I honestly think it’s part of an author’s duty – if he’s operating from a fictional standpoint, that is – to keep himself private and hidden from view. Otherwise his work suffers.

RickN · Jan 14, 2009

I have no problem with an author's RL affecting my perception of his work. I DO have a major problem with some actors and actresses, probably because both their work and the expression of the opinions is more 'in your face', for lack of a better term. There are several excellent performers on whom I will no longer spend money because their RL beliefs/comments/statements prevent my suspension of belief when I see their movies.

IceCreamEmpress · Jan 14, 2009

caseyquinn said:
most famous authors were womanizers, alcholics and just bad people in general

Not really, I don't think. For one thing, an awful lot of famous authors were straight women or gay men, so they weren't likely to be "womanizers".

Elizabeth Bishop was a bit of a womanizer in her youth, though. And she was certainly an alcoholic.

kuwisdelu · Jan 14, 2009

Spiny Norman said:
This is why I like guys like T.S. Eliot and Tom Waits and Cormac McCarthy. They intentionally try and obscure their own personal histories and personalities so that you can make their work your own. Tom Waits comes out and says that the person he is on stage and in interviews is 100% a fabrication, a mask he puts on for everyone to look at. Cormac McCarthy is a recluse who hates talking about his books in interviews and refuses to speak at colleges about them because “everything you need to know is on the page.” I honestly think it’s part of an author’s duty – if he’s operating from a fictional standpoint, that is – to keep himself private and hidden from view. Otherwise his work suffers.

Umberto Eco once said the most considerate thing an author can do upon finishing his masterpiece is die, so there is no chance he can harm it.

Spiny Norman · Jan 14, 2009

kuwisdelu said:
Umberto Eco once said the most considerate thing an author can do upon finishing his masterpiece is die, so there is no chance he can harm it.

Probably true. The trouble is knowing when you've written your masterpiece. Normally you're just going to keep on writing, not knowing you've peaked. Not knowing everything after pales in comparison. But eh, what else are you going to do.

Higgins · Jan 14, 2009

IceCreamEmpress said:
Not really, I don't think. For one thing, an awful lot of famous authors were straight women or gay men, so they weren't likely to be "womanizers".

Elizabeth Bishop was a bit of a womanizer in her youth, though. And she was certainly an alcoholic.

Yeahbut she got along with Robert Lowell...quite an achievement. Talk about a nasty person -- Robert Lowell is about as creepy as you can get. And of course he had to make excuses for Pound as well. I like the work of a lot of nasty people: Pound, Lowell, Patricia Highsmith, O'Brian....sometimes I find a knowledge of their nastiness makes me feel a lot better about what I find a little iffy about their work...I guess I excuse what is not-quite right in the work in view of what was perfectly awful about their lives. Dawn Powell would probably have written better if she had been more like Patricia Highsmith or Elizabeth Bishop.

IceCreamEmpress · Jan 14, 2009

Higgins said:
Dawn Powell would probably have written better if she had been more like Patricia Highsmith or Elizabeth Bishop.

Powell was an alcoholic herself, and a bit of a man-izer in her day. However, I think she would have written better and more if she hadn't been so stressed about caring for her son (who had serious disabilities) and her husband (who was not just an alcoholic, but a raging alcoholic with a huge gambling problem).

KTC · Jan 14, 2009

I met Anne Rice and was completely thrown off...that woman could hug herself like nobody's business. When I tried to read from that point on I had the vision of her self-love and was thrown off. I DO THINK that her books depreciated quite a bit, though...to be truthful. But she tore the pretty from the flower.

I met Wayson Choy and I immediately wanted to drop out of life to form the Church of Wayson. He's a beautiful person...amazingly beautiful. You change when you hit his orbit...and it stays with you. I still love his books. I was so pleased that he was such an incredible person...because his work led me to believe so.

Having said what I just said..it's really a bit unfair to compare the writer against their work. As humans, we will fall into that trap though. Just be careful who you meet. I've met quite a few famous and near-famous writers. The only one who really let me down was Anne...and not because she was mean and nasty. She was quite lovely, to be truthful....it was just the self-love and her obsession with the dark world she was writing at the time. It was just sad.

I read the works...not the writers. Or at least I try to.

Does an author's RL affect reader's enjoyment of the book?

Down Under Fan

Woof!

Just happy to be here

Revolutionize the World

Mackinac Island Fanatic

Critical Member

Gentleman. Scholar. Bastard.

Just happy to be here

Still Happy to be Here. Or Anywhere

Writing Anarchist

KoalaKoalaKoala!

Mushroom

Hoopy frood

Hapless Virago

Revolutionize the World

Hapless Virago

Stand in the Place Where You Live