In the opening weeks of class, we looked at Mary Leapor's "Epistle to Artemisia," examining how the relationship between the poem's characters "Mira" and "Artemisia" deliberately mirrored the real-life relationship between Leapor and her friend and benefactor Bridget Freemantle. Leapor was largely unknown until after her death, when Freemantle was able to get Leapor's works published. This week, we'll be looking at another of Leapor's poems, as well as other works from working-class writers Robert Dodsley and Anne Yearsley.
No writing exists in a vacuum; we care about the background of a writer, or any other artist. More than once, our class discussion has gravitated around the gender of the author of a given work. We use "working-class literature" as a category just like we use categories such as "women's literature" or "African-American literature," believing that a writer who belongs to a certain category can speak authoritatively about that category. The idea is that, much like we wouldn't lend much credence to a man writing about what it's like to be a woman because we presume that women are much more knowledgeable about that topic, we look to working-class writers to tell us something about what it's like to write and live as members of the working class.
Is this fair? Is it reasonable to want to be informed about writers' backgrounds and to use that information when analyzing a work, or do we run the risk of pigeon-holing authors into neat categories and not letting them speak about what they want to speak about? If we simply analyzed the readings for Wednesday as pieces of literature and ignored the lives of their authors (as we traditionally do when we read items from the Western canon), would we lose something, or would we just be treating these members of disenfranchised groups fairly?
Specifically, are your interpretations of any of the readings for Wednesday changed or affected by the fact that you know the backgrounds of the writers? If Dodsley's "The Miseries of Poverty" were written by Alexander Pope, would you read it differently?
13 comments:
Looking at your question about auathorship from a broad perspective, I think it is important to know the background of an author in relation to his/her text. An author's background plays heavily into the effectiveness of his/her's work. The history and happenstances of an author's backgrounds are reflected in thier work and makes it more authentic. I can research and interview all of the immigrants in Illinois to write a riveting piece about immigration, but it won't be authentic. A piece of writing loses a sense of realism and authenticity if the author is not writing about something he/she personally experienced. Don't confuse what I am saying by thinking that I don't believe an author cannot write a "good," or "convincing" piece of literature without experiencing the topic. That is not what I am trying to argue. I am merely expressing a belief that writers who write about something personally are more convincinga and captivating in a more dymentional sense than writers who approach a similar topic who have not first-handedly experienced the situation.
I would agree with PMV. If we look at our own experiences in writing through our chosen major/minor, I think it's fair to conclude that it is much easier to write a paper or creative work when you have some connection to it, be it emotional, gender relative, or intellectually. The opinion of an author is taken more seriously, and is henceforth much more convincing. For example, Louisa May Alcott's "Little Women" would almost seem farcical if readers found out Louisa was really a Louis. We as readers need to know an author's background in order to gain effective insight into the world they've created in their pages. I do not believe we pigeon-hole authors into categories through holding this information, for we are not requiring the author to have actually experienced the particular situation they are writing on, but rather look for some connection in any form.
In this same line of thought, ignoring the backgrounds of the authors we study would indeed be a loss to the readers. Without the background and analysis we indulge in when reading a text, we lack the opportunity to foster a relationship between reader-text-author. As all of the authors that we are reading this semester are deceased, that lack of information takes away any chance of creating this literary relationship.
Whenever I read, I am always interested in the author's background because an author's background has a great potential to influence the shaping of their text. By understanding an author's background, we can begin to see where they might have gotten inspiration for a certain piece, or why they were so motivated to write on a certain topic.
However, I do think that some people can over-analyze an author's background, or else believe that an author can only write about things that they have actually experienced, and herein runs the risk of pigeon-holing authors. Likewise, we limit other authors by negating what they write simply because they might not have experienced it. While going through a certain experience can validate an author, an author should not be negated simply because they have not been afforded that same experience.
Furthermore, I also think that when we know an author's background, we develop preconceived notions of what they should write about or how they should write. For example, knowing that the poems we read for this week were written by working-class authors, we immediately assume that they may be different from other things we've read so far in class, or else only talk about working-class issues. However, these poems work against these set standards, and fit in quite well with the rest of the works we've read so far. For example, Dodsley's "Upon the Death of Howe" doesn't focus on only working-class issues, but rather something that affects everyone, which is the death of a loved one.
I definitely agree with all the comments made by PMV and Molly—they make some pretty valid arguments. And just to build on that, I’ll address the question posed on whether or not we would lose something if we analyzed Wednesday’s readings as pieces of literature and ignored the authors’ backgrounds. Personally, I don’t think ignoring the lives of the authors is even possible when approaching these texts, or any, really. Sure, there are some people that read for mere entertainment, not necessarily giving their books/poems/etc. much more thought than what’s immediately on the surface, but then there are those people that will take the time to actually analyze a text (like us English majors for example), and those of us will just as quickly turn to what’s not written on the page for interpretation as what is.
The more I’ve studied literature, the more I’ve come to understand it as a portrait of a time; a reflection of certain groups throughout various periods. Without context—dates, names/professions/classes/etc. of authors, a bit of back story, so to speak—what we get out a variety of texts loses meaning; our experiences of them become less fulfilling and less worthwhile. I think Sara makes a good point when she says that there exists the tendency of over-analyzing an author’s background, which could potentially hinder our interpretation, but I think knowing certain facts surrounding an authors’ life (race, gender, historical background, and in the case of our readings for this week, class) gives us a necessary reference point that allows us to approach a text with a particular mindset. When we know background, we immediately have an idea of how we think a piece of literature should be read, and that certainly opens up a larger number of possibilities in terms of interpretation and exploration. For example, we would know whether a text should be read keeping in mind a serious tone vs. a comical one; whether we’re meant to read something as satire, farce, etc.; and all of that, of course, will color our interpretation of a particular piece, what we “make of it” as a whole overall. That also allows us to more fully grasp the varying accounts and opinions that exist within a certain period so that we can better piece together a specific society in a specific time.
Dodsley’s “The Miseries of Poverty” serves as a good example of why knowing background and context is not only a good and easier way of approaching a text, but also a necessary one. Going along with another question posed above, if someone like Alexander Pope were to have written this piece, I think it would be easy to argue that it could then potentially be read as satire, something Pope was known for. But knowing Dodsley was a working-class author writing in the C18, I think it’s fairly safe (at least I hope I didn’t misinterpret this, ha) to assume that he’s being quite serious in regards to the information he presents; we may even be inclined to guess he knows from firsthand experience that which he’s describing, something that also, like PMV mentioned, gives him more credibility and allows us readers to connect with him on a more personal level.
Your question about the background of writers and how knowledge of them affect our readings reminded me of our much earlier conversation about Gray's "Elegy Written in a Country Churchyard." What I remember most is how we discussed our thoughts on whether or not his viewpoint of the dead and buried poor was from an elevated and critical stance or if he was being respectful, effectively skewing class boundaries and assumptions. I know I was leaning more toward him being harsher on the poor, and if I were to have read the poem without any knowledge about the author I probably would have believed it more strongly. A lot of time in English classrooms seems to be devoted to finding an answer to the question asking whether or not historical backgrounds of writers is important, but I think for certain that good readers can receive that information while not fully relying on it when forming ideas and analyses.
Regarding the Mary Leapor poem, I was excited to read it, given that we have already read her and learned about her backround, so I had an interesting time puzzling over what the circle of friends of Bridget Freemantle would have found enjoyable about a sad and aging woman. For what it's worth, I appreciate what I know about Leapor's history, and I think I have only benefitted from it.
A writer's personal history or background informs his or her writing. When dealing with highly specialized subject matter, such as in post colonial literature for example, a writer can draw on his or her personal history to give the work a certain authenticity which can be hard for writers who do not share that first hand experience to replicate, assuming it is not wholly unavailable to them. While a writer's background can aid his or her writing, it does not necessarily inhibit it. That is, a writer can effectively write about issues or write from certain points of view which he or she has not directly encountered or experienced. Ultimately, a writer's background should not factor too heavily into the reading and analysis of a text. Rather, the reader should focus on the merits of the work itself. Personal background serves primarily as a tool for the writer, not a lense for the reader, as writers can create powerful works on subjects with which they have little direct experience. Therefore, it is dangerous to discount their work on the basis of their personal histories. By doing so, readers risk "pigeon holing" certain writers or discounting the works of others.
My initial reaction to the question as to whether readers should consider an author’s background when reading a text was to immediately say no. I don’t think it’s fair to the author or the reader to determine the author’s worth depending on the experiences that may or may not have contributed to their work. If an author can depict a realistic scenario or genre, e.g. working class literature, without being a member of said group, I feel their work shouldn’t be less validated or more scrutinized because of the fact. I believe doing so creates a narrow view on the subject and may leave ideas or opinions that perhaps someone who is well experienced may have missed themselves. Literature is a form of art just like paintings or music. I’m not quite sure why their needs to be guidelines or specific criteria authors must meet in order for their work to be authentic. Such is not the case with works of art. A painter from the upper class with art depicting the poor would not have their work deemed “inauthentic” or “invalid” (I’ll assume). On that note, I am a little surprised to see so many people deeming it necessary for an author’s background to be revealed in order to give their work some substance.
That argument aside, I do think in some cases an author’s background can be a positive addition to a work. Mary Leapor’s poetry on its own is great, but knowing her story makes it more interesting; not necessarily better. It opens you to a new perspective and allows readers to give some additional thought to the piece. Author backgrounds definitely give texts more context, but becoming bogged down by who the author is or attempting to derive a message out of their work that fits into their appointed cannon creates a narrow scope.
In regards to Wednesdays readings, knowing that these pieces are “working class literature” I tend to look for components of the text that reflect that. Perhaps if I wasn’t aware of this, I could find this voice of the working class or another message.
I like all the discussion that has spun fromt his central idea of authorship and an authentic voice. I like how Sarah differentiated that an author's background should be just one piece of the puzzle when analyzing a text. SMR also had great ideas that flushed out the arguments I made about the convincing qualities and the "truthiness" of an author's story. Other important factors to take note of while reading a text is the author's gender (how a male author influences our critique of a femail protagonist); how far removed from the event is the writing taking place (would you believe a story written about the civil war more-so written now or back then?); location (can a Texian write effectively about New York without having been there?). These are all equally important themes to think about when attributing effectiveness and authoritative voice to an author and his work.
One other interesting angle to consider is if you research the author and background information before or after you read the primary text. If I did not know the topic for this week was working-class literature I might not have realized that that was the over-arching theme of the Dodsley, Yearsley and Leapor pieces.
I believe that the debate about including an author's background is a stepping stone to more important questions concerning literature and the purposes we give it in our everyday lives. One of the themes I'm picking up from some of the other posts is that an author's own experiences, once translated into literature, create a sense of authenticity or even originality in some cases. But is this what we're striving for?
I do not believe that a piece of literature needs to be wholly authentic to garner specific feelings within the reader. The more important question I was alluding to in my previous paragraph has to do with readers expectations of text. I get the feeling that a lot of people enjoy identifying with characters in a story where the author has based it on actual events. This is because the story seems more "real" but in reality, this is the main challenge of becoming an author in the first place. Writing is all about creating illusions of originality and if all we do is read texts so that we can relate to them based on information from the author's background, I believe we're missing other possible modes of analysis.
In his post on this topic, Ryan mentioned how people are more receptive to a woman writing about female topics because she is presumed to be much more knowledgeable on the subject. Although I see the logic of this notion, I think that this allows readers to be less critical of an author's work. If all we do is sit around and mention the fact that the author had specific personal experiences thrown into her or his work, it makes it difficult to challenge certain aspects of the text if we are giving the author too much credit before we even read the piece.
I think in general it’s interesting to look at a writer’s background, but that his/her background is not necessary in order for a text to be effective. I agree with what Jeff said about it being the writer’s job to create a reality. I think if a writer creates a believable experience for the reader then it doesn’t necessarily matter whether the experience reflects the experience of the writer. However, I also think that it would be harder to achieve some writing (such as the working class pieces for today) if an author is writing from a place too far outside their own experience. To me, writing is about empathy. I think readers know, at least eventually, when a dishonest writer is trying to fool them. I think a writer’s background is interesting because it allows the reader to understand why exactly an author chose to write a specific text. For example, if a writer from the upper class chooses to write from the perspective of a poor worker, looking at the author’s history might help explain why they made that choice. In other situations I think we’re interested in an author’s biography simply because it appeals to our curiosity as readers; we want to know what was going on in the life of a writer we admire. But again, I think ultimately a writer’s work should be evaluated on its content.
I think that as modern-day readers we are interested in an author's background. I think in some cases it does help us determine more about what he/she is writing on, in the sense that if something being written is slightly autobiographical we understand where the theme is coming from.
At the same time, I believe there is a great chance of pigeon holing authors into a specific writing genre if we know about their background. Since writers do not live forever, their works fall into a specific era in time, and with this idea alone we pigeon hole the authors into a specific style of writing. I also believe that in any period of time, not just later 18th century, gender is important when one specific sex is being written about. Generally, men know more about males and women know more about females, or that is at least how many readers are brought up understanding, so the sex of the author does seem to be important in determining the extent we can believe the author in what (s)he has written. I do not believe that this idea is fair, but fair or not, it is imbedded in the way we read.
I do not believe the lives of the authors can ever be completely ignored because their lives are always of some interest, and in one way or another influences the way they write. I think we, as readers, would lose something by ignoring the author's background because the writing from this period in time is different from the writings of out time, making the author's background even more important for us.
Many more factors contribute to the "authenticity" of a text than just the conditions of the authors life. Intelligence is one factor. The more intelligent an author is, the more perceptive she is of others' lives and more capable of producing an authentic work not based on her own experiences. Empathy is an ability not many people have and varies in efficacy in different authors. The authors who are able to empathize better are able to imagine themselves in a completely different context than that of their own lives. So it could be argued that an author who hasn't experienced anything close to the situation of his or her characters', but has much empathetic capacity, can construct a more authentic piece than someone writing personally on a story of similar events, but who has less skill.
Therefore, we shouldn't put too much emphasis on the author's biography when analyzing their text.
I do think it is important to have an idea of the background of the authour. It helps to put not only the individual piece in context but to help contextualize the literary period. What I have found in my study of literature is that history and literature go hand in hand. My understanding of a work is often heightened by a knowlege of the historical aspects of the time period but what influenced the author. This includes their social and economic standing.I am not really sure how we could separate the two in the later 18c, or even now for that matter. With that said, I in no way am saying that literture cand not trenscend those very boundries. I believe it can because regardless of our differences we still are a uniqely human experience that binds us together.
to the second question, sure it would read differently if it were written by Pope. However I am sure it would have been written differently also. In class it seemed to me that we as readers saw quite easily through Dodsley's desire to social climb through his literature. I believe that what we are exposed to seeps into every aspect of our lives and while it may not defne who we are it does influence it in an udeniable way.
Post a Comment