Divorcing an Author's Work from Their Views

[jacenskylo]

I have a question. I have a considerable problem divorcing the work of an author from their views. For example I'm curious about Christopher Hitchen's work even though he turned into a neocon, or if you read Richard Seymour's book on Hitchen's he was always one, or Robert Heinlan's Starship Troopers whic has a very pro military theme. I thought some of you would have some advice about this or some of you might have found yourselves in the same boat. Thank you

[Rafiq]

It is not possible. Don't ignore these works, but don't mindlessly romanticize them either, i.e. Recognize ideology that is transmitted through them.

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2

[Red Commissar]

No matter how hard people try to emphasize that "it's just art", everything you do shows your views.

That being said it is highly variable in my experience just how blunt a personal message is in the book. You can get in your face like Ayn Rand did with her books, or more subtle in the background. It can be an important part of the plot or just some flavoring on top of it.

From my experience as well as from others it really varies on the work. In some, maybe the message isn't too forceful and you can enjoy the book. I'm speaking strictly from my experience in fiction- I don't generally read serious books by people with bad politics. In your example I wouldn't be ignorant of what Hitchens did or wrote, but at the same time I wouldn't be able to go through a book by Ann Coulter, Glenn Beck, or Dinesh d'Souza without my brain exploding. But it's always useful to know how other people think and why they may be led to believe that.

Looking at some personal examples in the past regarding authors with shit politics:

-Terry Goodkind- I never read his books myself, but I hear enough of it from my friend who grew up liking his books. As far as I can gather the first three books or so that were published seemed enjoyable to his fans, but it started going downhill as he got more forceful with his objectivist views, which caused some of them to give up on him. Of course there is also the factor that the books may simply not be as good as they thought in retrospect, but it is important to see how this can rupture fan bases. Arguably objectivist themes were present in the first books that readers didn't find controversial, but they weren't as "in your face" before.

-And going from that we have the giant of fantasy, JRR Tolkien and The Lord of the Rings, as well as other books. Considering the nature of fantasy novels, it is not unexpected to get some rather conservative figures writing for it and Tolkein was not an exception. I liked his worldbuilding and his influence on fantasy is undeniable- but it's also useful to pick up on some of the subtle real world parallels Tolkien had in mind when he made his world, or the worldview he had that was influenced by his religion.

-John Dos Passos's "USA" trilogy is often held up as one of the giants of US literature, but the author himself made a significant shift from left to right when he got older, a process that started when he was working on the third novel. That doesn't mean the book should be ignored though, but should instead present an interesting opportunity to pick up on the author's own views changing overtime.

-With your example of Heinlein's Starship Troopers, it's useful to read for its own sake because it is an oft-recommended book. In cases like that, then it is useful after you have read the book to look at it more in-depth- why were those messages in there? Why did the author feel the need to do that? What was the context and times the book was written in? Does that factor into why the book is well received and/or often recommended by people? There's a reason why the Starship Troopers movie ended up being essentially a parody/dark humor of the book's original premise.

-Orson Scott Card is most well-known for Ender's Game. The book is very common school reading and reading that book, you would not guess that Card is an angry homophobic nut who rants about socialists wrecking America. Again, like with Goodkind above, you can pick up on some themes in Ender's Game but they are not very obvious. Like Goodkind, as his career went on Card began to put more and more of his views into his books, leading to many of his fans to give up on him.

-Frank Miller wrote Dark Knight Returns in the 1980s which is held up as a turning point for comics. It's an enjoyable read, but as with Batman in general you can see the elitist and individual streak even this early on in Miller's works. It's not forceful though, but it becomes annoying pretty much from DKR2 and onwards, which is why Miller really hasn't done much of anything worth mentioning in the 2000s onwards because he insists on putting his shit views in everything.

It's a plus for me if a writer (or artist, musician, what ever) or what ever has similar politics but I don't go out of my way to find them. Just because they have a similar world view doesn't mean that they are skilled writers- I could pump out some crappy books that you would not read, nor would you force yourself too, just because I hold similar views. It's possible to be a left-wing author but have a crappy book in much the same way anyone else could.

Ultimately I think there's a sliding scale of tolerance for these things. Some books the writing and premise is interesting enough that it's not an issue. In others it becomes so forceful that you are turned off to it. If you get to the point where a book just becomes unbearable to read there's nothing to gain from forcing yourself to finish it, just drop it and move onto another one.

[Yuppie Grinder]

I don't look for art to reaffirm my world view. I love some music with really reactionary politics and most of my favorite writers were Stalinists at some point.

[zoot_allures]

I've never had any trouble with this. I couldn't care less whether or not I agree with the politics of writers, musicians, filmmakers, etc. All I care about is what I think of the particular work in question.

What sort of "advice" about it are you looking for?

[jacenskylo]

I've never had any trouble with this. I couldn't care less whether or not I agree with the politics of writers, musicians, filmmakers, etc. All I care about is what I think of the particular work in question.

What sort of "advice" about it are you looking for?

I suppose I'm trying to to focus on the work in question as you say and not let my opinions of the artist cloud my perceptions. Hope that helps Zoot

[jacenskylo]

No matter how hard people try to emphasize that "it's just art", everything you do shows your views.

That being said it is highly variable in my experience just how blunt a personal message is in the book. You can get in your face like Ayn Rand did with her books, or more subtle in the background. It can be an important part of the plot or just some flavoring on top of it.

From my experience as well as from others it really varies on the work. In some, maybe the message isn't too forceful and you can enjoy the book. I'm speaking strictly from my experience in fiction- I don't generally read serious books by people with bad politics. In your example I wouldn't be ignorant of what Hitchens did or wrote, but at the same time I wouldn't be able to go through a book by Ann Coulter, Glenn Beck, or Dinesh d'Souza without my brain exploding. But it's always useful to know how other people think and why they may be led to believe that.

Looking at some personal examples in the past regarding authors with shit politics:

-Terry Goodkind- I never read his books myself, but I hear enough of it from my friend who grew up liking his books. As far as I can gather the first three books or so that were published seemed enjoyable to his fans, but it started going downhill as he got more forceful with his objectivist views, which caused some of them to give up on him. Of course there is also the factor that the books may simply not be as good as they thought in retrospect, but it is important to see how this can rupture fan bases. Arguably objectivist themes were present in the first books that readers didn't find controversial, but they weren't as "in your face" before.

-And going from that we have the giant of fantasy, JRR Tolkien and The Lord of the Rings, as well as other books. Considering the nature of fantasy novels, it is not unexpected to get some rather conservative figures writing for it and Tolkein was not an exception. I liked his worldbuilding and his influence on fantasy is undeniable- but it's also useful to pick up on some of the subtle real world parallels Tolkien had in mind when he made his world, or the worldview he had that was influenced by his religion.

-John Dos Passos's "USA" trilogy is often held up as one of the giants of US literature, but the author himself made a significant shift from left to right when he got older, a process that started when he was working on the third novel. That doesn't mean the book should be ignored though, but should instead present an interesting opportunity to pick up on the author's own views changing overtime.

-With your example of Heinlein's Starship Troopers, it's useful to read for its own sake because it is an oft-recommended book. In cases like that, then it is useful after you have read the book to look at it more in-depth- why were those messages in there? Why did the author feel the need to do that? What was the context and times the book was written in? Does that factor into why the book is well received and/or often recommended by people? There's a reason why the Starship Troopers movie ended up being essentially a parody/dark humor of the book's original premise.

-Orson Scott Card is most well-known for Ender's Game. The book is very common school reading and reading that book, you would not guess that Card is an angry homophobic nut who rants about socialists wrecking America. Again, like with Goodkind above, you can pick up on some themes in Ender's Game but they are not very obvious. Like Goodkind, as his career went on Card began to put more and more of his views into his books, leading to many of his fans to give up on him.

-Frank Miller wrote Dark Knight Returns in the 1980s which is held up as a turning point for comics. It's an enjoyable read, but as with Batman in general you can see the elitist and individual streak even this early on in Miller's works. It's not forceful though, but it becomes annoying pretty much from DKR2 and onwards, which is why Miller really hasn't done much of anything worth mentioning in the 1990s because he insists on putting his shit views in everything.

It's a plus for me if a writer (or artist, musician, what ever) or what ever has similar politics but I don't go out of my way to find them. Just because they have a similar world view doesn't mean that they are skilled writers- I could pump out some crappy books that you would not read, nor would you force yourself too, just because I hold similar views. It's possible to be a left-wing author but have a crappy book in much the same way anyone else could.

Ultimately I think there's a sliding scale of tolerance for these things. Some books the writing and premise is interesting enough that it's not an issue. In others it becomes so forceful that you are turned off to it. If you get to the point where a book just becomes unbearable to read there's nothing to gain from forcing yourself to finish it, just drop it and move onto another one.
I have to say Red that this was extremely elequoent statement. I think this is more or less what I needed to read to make me think. What I found most interesting is that the words that you used to describe the various author's are more or less the same that I've used to describe them to my friends.

[KurtFF8]

It's a plus for me if a writer (or artist, musician, what ever) or what ever has similar politics but I don't go out of my way to find them. Just because they have a similar world view doesn't mean that they are skilled writers- I could pump out some crappy books that you would not read, nor would you force yourself too, just because I hold similar views. It's possible to be a left-wing author but have a crappy book in much the same way anyone else could.

Ultimately I think there's a sliding scale of tolerance for these things. Some books the writing and premise is interesting enough that it's not an issue. In others it becomes so forceful that you are turned off to it. If you get to the point where a book just becomes unbearable to read there's nothing to gain from forcing yourself to finish it, just drop it and move onto another one.

Exactly. This is very well said. I often try to explain this to folks who wonder why I spend so much time politically analyzing films. My point isn't to just "take films too seriously," since I love plenty of politically problematic mindless films. It would be absurd to argue that Leftists should only like or engage with progressive art.

That said, I do believe that the current state of art criticism is a bit sad. There aren't very many Leftist thinkers (at least important ones) spending time analyzing the state of contemporary art forms which is more important than is given credit for in my opinion.

[ed miliband]

Nothing, of course, could be more erroneous than to picture Russian literature as a tendentious art in a crude sense, nor to think of all Russian poets as revolutionists, or at least as progressives. Patterns such as “revolutionary’ or “progressive” in themselves mean very little in art.

Dostoevsky, especially in his later writings, is an outspoken reactionary, a religious mystic and hater of socialists. His depictions of Russian revolutionaries are malicious caricatures. Tolstoy’s mystic doctrines reflect reactionary tendencies, if not more. But the writings of both have, nevertheless, an inspiring, arousing, and liberating effect upon us. And this is because their starting points are not reactionary, their thoughts and emotions are not governed by the desire to hold on to the status quo, nor are they motivated by social hatred, narrow-mindedness, or caste egotism. On the contrary, theirs is the warmest love for mankind and the deepest response to social injustice. And thus the reactionary Dostoevsky becomes the artistic agent of the “insulted and injured,” as one of his works is called. Only the conclusions drawn by him and Tolstoy, each in his own way, only the way out of the social labyrinth which they believe they have found, leads them into the bypaths of mysticism and asceticism. But with the true artist, the social formula that he recommends is a matter of secondary importance; the source of his art, its animating spirit, is decisive.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/luxemburg/1918/06/korolenko.htm

[Goblin]

Knut Hamsun, my all time favorite writer was a nazi supporting facist. He was an anarchist in his younger days though, which really shows in his early works like Hunger (very critical of capitalism) and Victoria (critical of the elite).

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-xHCQpHM92LA/TkFlwpvzt6I/AAAAAAAAfOk/S4QISnacMIE/s1600/Knut%2BHamsun%2Bwith%2Bswastika.jpg

[RadioRaheem84]

The worst is when libertarians take clearly left wing, progressive or socialist work and turn it on it's head making them "libertarian". I remember reading how a lot of libertarians thought The Wire was actually a libertarian masterpiece showcasing the failings of government (socialism).

Then this loon I knew really thought that Moon with Sam Rockwell was about government tyranny. Yes, he thought an anti-corporate movie is really a hidden message againt government oppression.

But then again I probably do this too. I mean I saw Schindlers List as a very Marxist film and I found RoboCop to be one of the most blatantly anti-capitalist movies ever.

[LOLseph Stalin]

This has never really been a problem for me tbh. If I like something I just pick it up and read it, watch it, whatever. The author's actual views mean very little to me. Even Hitler made some nice paintings that I can enjoy looking at.

[ed miliband]

The worst is when libertarians take clearly left wing, progressive or socialist work and turn it on it's head making them "libertarian". I remember reading how a lot of libertarians thought The Wire was actually a libertarian masterpiece showcasing the failings of government (socialism).

Then this loon I knew really thought that Moon with Sam Rockwell was about government tyranny. Yes, he thought an anti-corporate movie is really a hidden message againt government oppression.

But then again I probably do this too. I mean I saw Schindlers List as a very Marxist film and I found RoboCop to be one of the most blatantly anti-capitalist movies ever.

really? i completely agree with imre keretesz when he criticised schindlers list / speilberg for being "incapable of understanding or unwilling to understand the organic connection between our own deformed mode of life and the very possibility of the holocaust"

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

For me avoiding perspectives that were too different from my own seemed to always have more to do with a fear of confronting my own positions than with a fear of not being able to properly engage with the work because I couldn't get over how much I hate the author. It's a really great way of screwing yourself out of some great books and movies. Your thoughts and opinions will change no matter how closely you stick to your comfort zone. Just relax and read the book, words on a page are not enough to brainwash you. But if you're not enjoying the book, definitly drop the fucking thing. There are way too many great books to read and nowhere near enough time for them all.

[Invader Zim]

http://evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com/barthes06.htm

[Mass Grave Aesthetics]

tbh; I don´t think there is a single straight answer to the OP´s question. With some works and authors it is possible and with some it isn´t. What I don´t understand is why anyone thinks this is necessary? A work can have it´s merits and even be useful to you from a political standpoint even if you disagree with it´s political message or implications.

[Zukunftsmusik]

Knut Hamsun, my all time favorite writer was a nazi supporting facist. He was an anarchist in his younger days though, which really shows in his early works like Hunger (very critical of capitalism) and Victoria (critical of the elite).

which is what makes him interesting, he's full of contradictions. Have you read his books about August (Landstrykere, August, Men livet lever)? I have read no norwegian author who can celebrate and violently oppose modernity/capitalism at the same time, and so brilliantly. He's really hit the pulse of the time he writes about, I think.

[KurtFF8]

The worst is when libertarians take clearly left wing, progressive or socialist work and turn it on it's head making them "libertarian". I remember reading how a lot of libertarians thought The Wire was actually a libertarian masterpiece showcasing the failings of government (socialism).

Then this loon I knew really thought that Moon with Sam Rockwell was about government tyranny. Yes, he thought an anti-corporate movie is really a hidden message againt government oppression.

But then again I probably do this too. I mean I saw Schindlers List as a very Marxist film and I found RoboCop to be one of the most blatantly anti-capitalist movies ever.

It's funny that libertarians try to co-opt the message of The Wire in that way considering that David Simon said the show was critical of capitalism, and you can quite clearly see this through a "pure analysis" of the show itself.

[Red Commissar]

It's funny that libertarians try to co-opt the message of The Wire in that way considering that David Simon said the show was critical of capitalism, and you can quite clearly see this through a "pure analysis" of the show itself.

That reminds me of a problem I remember seeing with one of Kurt Vonnegut's short stories, Harrison Bergeron. That is probably the most problematic of his works in the way its been appropriated by right wingers to rail against equality in any of its forms. The short story is basically a dystopian one where absolute equality is legislated out to ensure all are of equal capabilities- through weird ways like masks to cover up beauty, weights to hold down strong, implants to reduce intelligence, etc. The short story focuses on the eponymous character taking a stand against that at the cost of his life.

The theme right off the bat is obviously gold to those types who want to have their knee-jerk reactions to proposals for equal opportunity, and even Vonnegut himself was rather displeased with the way his story was invoked in a Kansas case arguing against accessible and equal education (http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2005/may/05/vonnegut_lawyers_could/). Still it's become one of those works that lolbertarians invoke about the slippery slope of equality, more recently with the movie being produced by a Venezuelan "emigre" from Chavez- so you can just see the way the movie was being pushed as and the context it was made in.

All the more odd because Vonnegut was, as far as I know, a pretty progressive fellow as far as his politics is concerned. I've read that his story was more a satire of the way Americans thought what equality would entail, especially under the current way the country is structured- the outlandish handicaps put in place are a part of that. Still for years afterwards the association that this is the danger of equal opportunity if we are talking about red-baiting or just the logical conclusion of socialism is an interpretation that lolbertarian types have been pushing and for some reason has become the dominant one. I know that's the way I was taught it when we read it for an English class when I was in Middle-School maybe 12 years ago.

I guess something similar could be said with the way Orwell's works have been co-opted by anti-Communist types too.