'Making his way home by an uncommon route gave him the feeling that he was a pilgrim, an explorer, a man with a destiny, and he knew that he would find firends all along the way; friends would line the banks of the Lucinda River.'
John Cheever, The Swimmer.
I find that, particularly in poetry, understanding why the writer has chosen their words is necessary in order to understand their 'meaning.' Poetry feels significantly more cryptic and therefore it seems impossible to understand it without knowing about the writer and their intentions. Their flaws and weaknesses are what creates the narrator or characters in the first place and so we should not disregard them. In terms of the poems of Emily Dickinson, I enjoy researching and understanding their background, and although my interpretation may be my own, and not necessarily what she 'intended', it allows me to feel as if I have understood the poem.
In terms of prose, I think it is less essential to know the life of the author, however in acknowledging John Cheever's alcoholism, I cannot help but take this personal conflict into account when reading his short stories. 'The Swimmer' is astounding, and without Cheever's alcoholic experiences infiltrated within the story, it wouldn't be half as effective for the reader. Most specifically, I think the section whereby Neddy swims through the public swimming pool is a suggestion of Cheever's disgust towards people trying to help him with his addiction, and not wanting to be cleansed or detoxed; he does not want to be separated from alcohol. It is nice to have an insight into the authors own life, particularly if the author has purposely centred a protagonist around himself.
Perhaps the solution to this is to read prose in a way that exemplifies 'new criticism', focusing simply on the text itself, and then in future interpret its meaning and discover an author's hidden weaknesses within the text.
It is not necessarily a distraction, merely something that the text and protagonist sometimes cannot be without.
In terms of prose, I think it is less essential to know the life of the author, however in acknowledging John Cheever's alcoholism, I cannot help but take this personal conflict into account when reading his short stories. 'The Swimmer' is astounding, and without Cheever's alcoholic experiences infiltrated within the story, it wouldn't be half as effective for the reader. Most specifically, I think the section whereby Neddy swims through the public swimming pool is a suggestion of Cheever's disgust towards people trying to help him with his addiction, and not wanting to be cleansed or detoxed; he does not want to be separated from alcohol. It is nice to have an insight into the authors own life, particularly if the author has purposely centred a protagonist around himself.
Perhaps the solution to this is to read prose in a way that exemplifies 'new criticism', focusing simply on the text itself, and then in future interpret its meaning and discover an author's hidden weaknesses within the text.
It is not necessarily a distraction, merely something that the text and protagonist sometimes cannot be without.
I agree that one sometimes cannot be without the other - I think that it certainly adds more depth to the reading of it and that is generally what interests people.
ReplyDeleteI agree completely regarding the distinction between poetry and prose. Knowing about the author when reading prose is useful and can help the reader to make a deeper connection with the work, but knowing the author's background when reading poetry is usually essential if you want to be able to make a serious attempt at understanding the poet's meaning.
ReplyDelete