The Intersect

[sartorias]

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

Comments

[asakiyume]

Lightning in sunny light seems quite supernatural. I hope you do get rain.

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.

[sartorias]

The storm moved off (of course) but the lightning was very weird.

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).

[asakiyume]

I've never had that experience, I guess. I mean, in some of my dad's non-genre stuff, I've seen details of our family life, but transmuted and put into different circumstances, etc.--and that's not what you're talking about, I know. You're talking about the internal truths.

... 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?

[sartorias]

That is exactly the question I am asking. Exactly.

[coneycat]

Anyway, here's the questions. At some point (before, after, during) your reading of the book you learn something about the author that makes you think that they lived a lot of the book. In other words, there might be a lot of autobiographical stuff in it. Does this knowledge make the book seem more real in a significant way?

No. If it's written in a lively and engaging style, I tend to do the opposite: I think of the author as a favourite character. I know Michael Palin is a real person, but when I read his diaries I relate to him, his likable wife, and his nice small children, as if they were engaging characters. I know in my mind that he's now an old man and his children are about my age, but when I read the diary I don't believe it.

I don't know if this answers your question or simply raises a few about my mental stability...

[sartorias]

Makes sense to me! :-)

[anderyn]

I remember seeing that (but don't recall where either -- old brain is old

[sartorias]

I was thinking about stories where you happen to know beforehand that there is an element of autobiography.

[romsfuulynn]

Well, sort of. I google the author in order to get more context on the book at hand. Is it part of a set of connected books? Have I read anything else by the author that I liked or disliked?

I don't object to spoilers so I also look for reviews and descriptions. I also will check out what else the recommending party likes and dislikes and why. For example, Mrs. Giggles can be a stinging reviewer but I generally like stuff she recommends. On the other hand, she doesn't care for Jo Beverley, whom I adore.

[sartorias]

I like to google about the author after I've read and enjoyed something, but so far, at least, I've not done it before reading a book.

[steepholm]

It certainly changes the way I read the book - especially if the information is in the physical book itself (author bio, blurb, etc). Then it seems to be part of the package, and there's no point in pretending not to know things or putting up bulkheads between different bits of one's brain. That seems dishonest and dogmatic.

On the other hand, it's certainly hard to know what to do with such information. No, I don't think it makes the book more "real", but it does change the mode in which I read it. Perhaps I trust it more. But the same kind of trust could have been gained by knowing that (for example) an historical author is a meticulous researcher, and therefore if she says that a groat could by that much bread in 1540, why then yes sure I'll believe her. Is that so different, in terms of the way I read it, from an author saying "I was there!"? Not sure.

[sartorias]

What if you read something you know is autobiographical, and you wonder if the profoundly effective sense you have is because so many elements seem based on truth?

[steepholm]

Well, I don't know. I think I just have to live with that.