Here's a question, based on my reading somewhere on my flist that someone or other (how's that for pegging sources?) insists that readers today google authors before they buy a book. (I'm not sure that's true, but that might be because everybody does it but me.) If I hear about a book, I google the book, not the author, but maybe that's my age
(
Read more... )
To the topic:For me, if I know the author before having read the books, then the books seem part of the overall personality of the author, another facet of a person I like. If I come to the books first, though, I often don't want to know too too much about the author. It's kind of cool to talk to authors, but if I have a deep and personal relationship with the work and the world, I'm not sure I want the author telling me things about what he or she intended. It also makes me more aware of the work as fiction, a created thing, which I don't always want, when I really love a book.
Reply
Usually I don't care if I know something about the author or not (though I admit I've never read anything by the mystery writer who murdered her mother, nor do I intend to), but I will look things up if I liked a book.
However, in this instance it's knowing things beforehand and then seeing truth in fiction that somehow seems to be enhancing the effect of the story. I think. Trying to get my head around it (as much as anyone can think in this punishing heat).
Reply
... at an extreme, could what you describe cause a reader who knew the author's life to read the novel as better written than it really was, because precisely of the additional knowledge enhancing the effect?
Reply
Reply
And yes, I think it's a risk.
Reply
Leave a comment