InsaneJournal

Tweak says, "kiss me i'm drunk"

zephre (zephre) wrote,
@ 2007-10-26 11:23:00

Entry tags:

books, fandom, meta, writing

reading in a connected world
Ok, comments to an earlier LJ post have made me think about the issue of reading books in this connected world. I have dozens of authors and editors in my Google Reader feed. Some authors I found because I liked their work and now read their blogs; others I liked their blogs and then picked up their books.
But does having such immediate and pseudo-intimate access to an author cause a shift in the way I read their books? Can knowing details of the book's long writing process alter the essential interpretation of the words on the page? Do authorial comments at readings or in blogs trump the basic text, or merely augment the reader/fan experience?

Maybe this runs into the discussion another blogger was having about spoilers. Does it matter that one knows the book's ending, or the author's intentions, or the author's personal beliefs about some side issue not-appearing-in-this-book, when the real experience of the book is the words on the published page?
How does knowing the author's beliefs and experiences color one's buying habits? I know I have bought certain books to support authors I respected, even if the subject was not interesting to me. Likewise I have not bought books from authors to whom I did not want to give the tacit support my purchase would have been. Thank goodness for the public library. Is that a good thing in the long run? Does knowing that the author of a book you loved is actually a person you intensely dislike somehow diminish the book itself? Or the art, or the music, or the architecture, or whatever creative expression it may be.

Where do the boundaries between the creative offering and the creator of the offering stand firm, and where do they crumble? As the web diminishes personal privacy boundaries and creates a culture of information saturation, is the idea of judging a book on the book alone obsolete? Reviewers hypothesize authorial motivation and intention for classic literature all the time. Is this inundation of actual records of intention and motivation a limiting factor, or another place from which to jump? Should it matter?

(Post a new comment)

auctasinistra
2008-03-22 01:28 am UTC (link)

I've had several long and intelligent discussions (that is, everyone was intelligent, not just me *g*) on the topic of separation of artist and art. It's all but impossible for me to pick a "side," and that is a rarity for a person like me when confronted with an important topic (and I think this topic is important). I tend toward, personally, refusing to support an artist who is a fucker in person, because it's the same person who created the art. But I cannot emotionally disagree with the position that great art is, aside from being beautiful in itself, creates further beauty in that it stirs meaningful thoughts and emotions in others, and that, if those thoughts and emotions are positive ... who am I to say that art should be "banned" in any way because the creator of it was a jerk? It's not a theoretical consideration. Wagner was a fucker. But the human race would be less without his art.

It's a very hard question. Perhaps it's a question that can't have an answer.

To more specifically address your first question, I don't read fanfic with a different mindset regarding the author than I do profic. I read with a less critical bent toward the work itself, but, truly, I'm not thinking about the author when I read.

This would astonish

aubrem, who's listened to me rant about how offensive it is to listen to a reader suggest his/her interpretation is more right than the author's, and how insulting and arrogant it is for any reader to suppose he/she knows, from reading the book, what the author was in fact thinking: I don't think it matters a rat's ass that a reader know the author's intent. The relationship between a reader and a book is complete in itself, or it certainly should be. That isn't to say a reader or an author shouldn't want or enjoy a dialogue about the book in addition to the book - I love being able to have those kinds of discussions with other writers I've read, and with readers of my stuff. It's a pleasure, it's a bonus. But it's in no way necessary to a complete and satisfying relationship between book and reader (or music and listener, or any other art form and its audience). The art should speak for itself, and the audience doesn't need anyone else's input to be fulfilled by the art experience. (Notice how tidily this ties back in to my inability to decide whether art should be separate from the artist)

(Reply to this) (Thread)

zephre
2008-03-23 12:36 am UTC (link)

I don't think it matters a rat's ass that a reader know the author's intent. The relationship between a reader and a book is complete in itself, or it certainly should be. That isn't to say a reader or an author shouldn't want or enjoy a dialogue about the book in addition to the book - I love being able to have those kinds of discussions with other writers I've read, and with readers of my stuff. It's a pleasure, it's a bonus. But it's in no way necessary to a complete and satisfying relationship between book and reader (or music and listener, or any other art form and its audience). The art should speak for itself, and the audience doesn't need anyone else's input to be fulfilled by the art experience.

Yes, exactly what I'm thinking regarding author/artist commentary. I was in an art class recently discussing an exhibit where the art on display had a long paragraph by the artist next to it, explaining the work. It was billed as 'part of the art experience' but at the same time, I thought, why? Why burden the art with the artist's perspective alone? Maybe it really added something to the works on display for that particular artist, I don't know. But in general I feel that visual art certainly rarely benefits from long explanatory asides.
And I also think of DVD commentaries here - I *adore* DVD commentaries. It's hilarious and illuminating to get some of that backstory. But would I ever watch the commentary before the film itself? No. Would I consider the commentary a substitute for the film? Certainly not. It's an interesting bonus, as you say, but not required or even necessarily improving for the art.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

geri_chan
2008-03-28 11:26 pm UTC (link)

Hi, here via your Snapedom members essays link!

These are issues I've been pondering myself for awhile. Generally, I like reading meta from my favorite writers, both fanfic and published. Partly this is because I'm a fanfic writer myself, so I like hearing how other writers do things. David Eddings and Mercedes Lackey both published encyclopedia/companion type books about their fantasy worlds, and I enjoyed reading about how they built their respective universes. And Tamora Pierce has a great website where she talks about the research that went into her fantasy novels, including some tips for budding writers, like finding inspiration for characters' names in baby names books. (Which tickled me because I do that too!)

On the other hand, I also find that knowing too much about an author can spoil my enjoyment of their books. SF writer Orson Scott Card, for example--I used to love his books until I found out that he was a homophobe who wrote a bigoted, hateful diatribe against gay marriage on his blog. After that, I decided that I'd never spend another penny on his books, but would instead borrow them from the library. However, I find that I can't really enjoy them the way I used to, because my real life perception of the author is tainting my reading experience. I believe that books should be able to stand on their own apart from the author's beliefs, but emotionally, sometimes it's hard to separate the two.

Similarly, I hate the comments JKR has made about Snape not being a hero, or Snape being sort of an anti-hero but still a mean and petty bully, etc. I don't so much object to the fact that her perception of Snape turned out to be different from mine (although I admit it does kind of bug me), but it's more that I'm offended that she seems to be telling her fans how they should be interpreting the books--she keeps emphasizing that we shouldn't like Snape and Draco too much, and if we do, it's because we're blinded by the fact that the actors who portray them in the movies are hot, which I find rather condescending. I feel that a work of literature has to be able to stand on its own; you can't go around after the fact telling people that they're interpreting it wrong. And if a majority of readers are getting it "wrong," well then, maybe that's a flaw in the writing, that the author wasn't able to convey the message that they intended.

I liked the way that Tamora Pierce handled fans' dissenting opinions regarding the romance in her Alanna series. The main character is in sort of a triangle with two male friends, and ends up marrying one of them in the end; naturally fans of the other guy feel that she made the wrong choice. On her website, Pierce explains why she had Alanna make the choice she did, and closed with a statement along the lines of, "Well, you may not agree with me, but at least now, hopefully you can understand why I wrote the story this way." I just wish that JKR could have been as respectful to the fans who believe that Snape was a hero.

Well, I guess I didn't really answer the question, did I? ;) I believe that a book should be judged on itself alone, but realistically, it doesn't always work out that way. And I do like hearing about the personal experiences of some writers, but not others. Oh, and I agree with your comment that while I find supplemental material interesting, I always read/watch/listen to it after I've finished the book/movie, not before.

(Reply to this)