BITCH RANT.

[pink_siamese]

Let it be known that I HATE HATE HATE HATE HATE having to use author biography in fictional literary analysis. IT IS NOT RELEVANT.
That is all.

(Goddamn Ozymandias paper. Grrrr.)

Comments

[dougiebear]

I think it's relevant the majority of the time. Camus said something to to the effect that all characters we create are representations of ourselves. I think an author has no choice but to extract from his own life, evne if its not as blatantly as works by Kerouac, Henry Miller, etc.

I think the biographical element provokes interesting discussion and interpretation.

[pink_siamese]

I disagree. I think it's relevant some of the time, particularly if the author intentionally (by his or her own admission) used parts of his or her life in the crafting of a fictitious work. Otherwise, it should be treated as the product of imagination. While imagination takes nourishment out of life, it is not the same as actual life. Kind of like the difference between a chicken and a chicken dinner.

The text should be able to stand alone. If the interpretation of a text relies on an author's background to find its meaning, it's not a very well written text.