The Line Between Author and Ink

[Cantabile]

We are what we eat, but are writers what they write? How easy is it to separate a novel from its novelist? I've always thought it was a commonly understood truth that there's a fine line between the two, but on this board I've often seen readers accuse the author R. Scott Bakker of being a sexist based upon the misogyny of his works, leading to endless pages of debates, which shows me it's not as distinct a line as I've always taken it for.

Certainly an author is influenced by his own beliefs, prejudices, and dogmas, and in turn his works may be to an extent, yet we've all read authors whose works are complete contrasts to their own character. Just as actors inhabit their roles, authors simply have to use imagination to craft characters and explore ideas that they do not themselves possess. For a very stark example: an author who is a self-proclaimed Neo-Nazi may write a novel about racial minorities saving the world!

But at what point do trends in an author's writing start indicating something about their own personality? To use Bakker as an example again, I've always argued, based on his fantasy series, that all the misogyny is simply a reflection of the society he's crafted. But his two fiction books are pretty filled to the brim with it as well:

In Neuropath we get five female characters in total: An ex-wife who is a pretty clear cut bitch, disloyal to her husband, makes every situation worse, irresponsible with her children; a sociopath who likes to rape while simultaneously shooting people in the head and going on lengthy monologues (quite the multitasker, that one); a racial minority in the FBI, who therefore has to be somewhat of a hard-ass bitch; a girl who drops out of college to become a porn star and prostitute; and the protagonist's daughter, who whines and is dependent upon males to rescue her :P (alright, I'm pushing it with that one)

Then in Disciple of the Dog we have a guy who, according to his ex, "treats women as accessories for his dick." Every female character in the novel is pretty much just a pair of breasts for him to bone.

Now, if every novel an author produces has misogyny, does that make the author a misogynist? At what point do we, as readers, start to see the content of a work as being a reflection of the author?

Note: I am just using Bakker as an example since I just read his works. This thread is not a discussion for whether or not Bakker is sexist. There are already threads for that.

[Old Nan]

to use imagination to craft characters and explore ideas that they do not themselves possess.

This is essentially a restatement of the oft-quoted bromide of Aristotle's that it is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it. Aristotle not being present, I suppose it falls upon you to defend the idea that this is possible. Perhaps it's just a sign of the limits of my education, but I don't see how it can be. To imagine is to become.

[Cantabile]

This is essentially a restatement of the oft-quoted bromide of Aristotle's that it is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it. Aristotle not being present, I suppose it falls upon you to defend the idea that this is possible. Perhaps it's just a sign of the limits of my education, but I don't see how it can be. To imagine is to become.

I'm not really worthy to fill Aristotle's boots sandals, but I'll try anyway. When you say "to imagine is to become" what scope do you assign to the 'becoming' part? To become temporarily in that moment, or to actually adapt the imaginations as a more permanent part one oneself?

To me it's simply a matter of holding oneself in one hand, and the imagined in the other. When an actor gets into character he may possess all the mannerisms, appearances, and beliefs of his character to increase the realism, but it's still merely a façade to be stripped away when finished with. Like wearing masks.

[Gabriele]

I think it depends on the author. Goodkind writes books where Richard and some others are clearly spokemsn/women for his 'philosophy' and it hurts the books because of the boring speeches, character incosistencies and such. I don't think I need to go into detail here. ;)

I have not read much Orson Scott Card so I can't say whether his homophobic rants elsewhere have found their way into his books. Maybe others can answer this.

In case of Bakker I think it's clearly a case of worldbuilding. Medieaval society was misogynist (as were many other societies, like the Roman one I write about) and Bakker decides to delve into that aspect fully. Martin, who also writes a misogynist society - and there is plenty of misogynism in ASOIAF if you look closely - is a bit more subtle about it, and allows for some exceptions (a female character like Brienne, or a man like Ned who respects his wife).

I haven't read Bakker's other books (they're not a genre I care about) but I have read the threads about the books here, I've read interviews with Bakker and other material. I think the misogynist portrayal of women in a modern setting may stem from his cynical and pessimistic philosohpy - he perhaps sees the problems women still have in our society as stronger than the gains emancipation gave us and uses that as subtext in his novels. Much subtler than Goodkind, of course. ;) And you have to admit, women who become prostitutes because it's easy money, women who are bitchy exes, who neglect their children and whatnot, do exist, as well as men who would like to see women back in the kitchen. After all, Bakker's male characters are not very nice, either. He seems to perceive the negative aspects of society, of human behaviour, more strongly than the positive ones and thus protrays them in his novels. That brings him closer to fe. Dostojevsky than to the genres he writes in and maybe that's part of the problems he has with sales. But it doesn't make him a misogynist person to notice the existence of misogynism in reality (and history) and to write about it.

[sologdin]

At what point do we, as readers, start to see the content of a work as being a reflection of the author?

wreckless readers do this automatically, and with a certain smug satisfaction that they've made an important determination. anyone current on literary theory through 1950 attempts to avoid it.

[Myrddin]

I haven't read enough of Bakker to comment on him specifically, but if one theme pervades multiple works, it seems like it's coming from the author more than from an idea the author is exploring. Otherwise, other works would contradict or debunk a theme in a previous work.

For example, in my philosophy class in college, I wrote a paper supporting the position that there is a God and then took the opposite position for the matching oral presentation (or vice versa. Can't remember). Is that Aristole enough for you? :)

Martin seems to punish all honorable characters in ASOIAF. It's become an Achilles Heel that usually results in honorable characters being swept away by those less scrupulous. Does that say something about his personal view of honor? Does this same theme run in his other works too?

[Lummel]

wreckless readers do this automatically, and with a certain smug satisfaction that they've made an important determination. anyone current on literary theory through 1950 attempts to avoid it.

Comrade, wreckless readers are favourites with insurance companies in capitalist societies while reckless readers suprise sober readers at every turn.

[Galactus]

I think it really depends, but yes, I think you can often see an author's views shine through his work. It's not *entirely* clear, but there's usually a trend. Of course an author can be satirical, or take up a position just for the sake of taking a position, but usually that shines through as a bit phoney.

[Old Nan]

When you say "to imagine is to become" what scope do you assign to the 'becoming' part? To become temporarily in that moment, or to actually adapt the imaginations as a more permanent part one oneself?

I don't see a distinction to be drawn here, either psychologically or ethically. Every desire, every belief, every aspect of the soul is ephemeral. The Bakker who rapes as Cnaiur is as real a Bakker-self as the Bakker who defends sexual egalitarianism as as a blogger.

When an actor gets into character he may possess all the mannerisms, appearances, and beliefs of his character to increase the realism, but it's still merely a façade to be stripped away when finished with. Like wearing masks.

Why is the truth of the after-finishing more important than the truth of the mask?

[Liadin]

I think it really depends, but yes, I think you can often see an author's views shine through his work. It's not *entirely* clear, but there's usually a trend. Of course an author can be satirical, or take up a position just for the sake of taking a position, but usually that shines through as a bit phoney.

Agreed. People certainly can take positions they don't believe in, but that in itself doesn't prove that any particular author has done so in their work. I haven't read Bakker either, but from the OP it sounds like he's gone beyond creating a misogynistic society and made every single female character unpleasant or pathetic in a different way, which would certainly seem to indicate that he has personal issues with women (although if he does the same thing with men too, it may be more of a general misanthropy). Often an author's unconscious biases will crop up in their works and they'll insist that it's just the plot/society/whatever, but they did choose to write that particular story and so I tend to be a bit skeptical about that excuse.

Of course, common sense applies. When I was in high school, some parents would complain about books like To Kill a Mockingbird because they had racists in them. You have to look at the overall message of the work. When all the racists are bad guys or are treated poorly by the narrative, it's pretty clear what the author thinks about their ideas. OTOH, it would be hard for someone to argue that Margaret Mitchell didn't hold racist views; sure, it makes perfect sense for the leads in Gone With the Wind to be racist, but when those views are never challenged and the all the black characters in the story live up to the racists' views of them (not being very smart, being happy to serve their masters, etc.), it's a safe bet that the author agrees.

[Gabriele]

(although if he does the same thing with men too, it may be more of a general misanthropy)

Well, I wouldn't want to date any of his male characters. :D

Seriously, there are no truly sympathetic characters in his books. A lot of interesting ones and some that are not complete jerks, but overall his male characters don't get any better portrayal than the female ones. Which, in a way, adds to the overall feel of a misogynist society, because putting women down or (ab)using women is part of the game.

[aimlessgun]

I don't see a distinction to be drawn here, either psychologically or ethically. Every desire, every belief, every aspect of the soul is ephemeral. The Bakker who rapes as Cnaiur is as real a Bakker-self as the Bakker who defends sexual egalitarianism as as a blogger.

Without being inside an authors head I'm not sure if this comparison makes sense. If you know for sure that when they write a character they attempt to become them without reservation, maybe.

But a novel is like a gigantic, deliberate lie. A blog, generally, is intended to convey the truth as the author sees it. There can be a big separation between personal values and your character's values when writing a novel. The same is true for a blog, of course, but without persuasive evidence either way, I will assume characters in a novel are a step detached from his views, and the blog is not.

[Old Nan]

If a novel is like a lie, then a good novel must be like a good lie, and the best lies are all truthful. Momentarily, at least.

[Nerdanel]

I have this hypothesis about the author's sexual orientation showing in their handling of same-sex relationships in their works. The more prominent and more positive the examples belonging to one gender are in comparison to the other, the more likely is that the author is attracted to that gender.

For example, Steven Erikson, a male author, has prominent good-guy lesbian relationships in his Malazan books, while male homosexuality is mostly a villain thing and good-guy occurrences of such are barely more than hinted at. This means Erikson is likely straight. Lynn Flewelling is a female author whose Nightrunner series is about heroic gay male lovers with lesbianism only mentioned to exist and be accepted too. Flewelling is thus also likely straight.

Interestingly, Bakker with his phalluses and gay romance (in addition to the gay rape) combined with the absence of lesbian anything gives me the gay male feel...

[Cantabile]

Interestingly, Bakker with his phalluses and gay romance (in addition to the gay rape) combined with the absence of lesbian anything gives me the gay male feel...

I, for one, am glad Bakker sticks with the male-on-male relationships rather than the girl-on-girl ones, simply because there's so much more stigma in western society for gay men than there is for "lipstick lesbians." so I'm always happy when authors add homosexuality to their works, to penetrate society more (no pun intended)

I've always had a theory that with a married author you can tell whether or not he's getting any from his wife by how many zesty sex scenes that don't contribute to the plot there are. To take Martin as an example, I definitely was questioning his sex life while reading all the lesbian scenes. Though arguably those contribute to characterization, especially Cersei's.

[Wras]

I'd be more interested, not in how much we learn from the author through their works, but how aware they are of it. John C Wright comes to mind for some reason...

[The Evil Hat]

I think it depends on the genre, really.

In cosmic horror, for instance, I don't think it's possible to really distance yourself from the ideas. Both Ligotti and Lovecraft ultimately believed in the pointlessness of man, and that's painfully evident from reading any of their stories. Ligotti has said that he, personally, only enjoys reading fiction where the strong biases of the narrator shape the story, and he's talked about the themes of cosmic horror (Ligotti, Lovecraft, etc) as compared to other varieties of both horror and general fiction. To illustrate his point, he looked at The Exorcist (there are fundamentally good people who are threatened by a great evil. They struggle with it and, in the end, prevail. Cue happy ever after.) with Charles Dexter Ward (the world begins with unknowable evil and ends with it; all of man's actions are, in the end, irrelevant).

For epic fantasy, however, I think a large number of outlooks is essential, if you're going to have a large cast. One of the more obvious benefits of a large cast is the ability to examine an issue from multiple sides, and that's undermined, for obvious reasons, if every character is a puppet of the authors (or a shallow strawman set up to be destroyed). I think that an author like Martin in large part kicks the you-are-what-you-write idea to pieces, as he's able to convincingly display both sides, a mixture of Theon's casual misogyny with, say, Cat's perspective. In an interview, Erikson said on the subject:

In learning to get inside the heads of characters, no matter who they are or what they do, one ends up walking in a lot of shoes, some of them decidedly uncomfortable, and yet, with enough diligence and ruthlessness at work, the most powerful message that hits me as a writer (and, one hopes, the reader, too) is that there is more than one side to things -- to anything, in fact -- and moral judgment can only be reached (if one chooses to do so) once some kind of understanding is achieved of as many sides as possible. Now, that being said, I am no fan of 'moral relativity' wherein one shrugs off, say, female circumcision, simply because it's some culture's tradition to conduct such butchery. Screw that. But the mindset behind such an activity (to extend the example) is always contextual, and it's that context that I find intrinsically interesting.

Of course, there's the question of issues that permeate multiple viewpoints seemingly unconsciously, or that are in multiple unrelated works. The wide array of sexism in Bakker's work could lead someone to a sexist conclusion, and that might not be wholly unsupportable.

[Spastic Plastic]

I've always had a theory that with a married author you can tell whether or not he's getting any from his wife by how many zesty sex scenes that don't contribute to the plot there are. To take Martin as an example, I definitely was questioning his sex life while reading all the lesbian scenes. Though arguably those contribute to characterization, especially Cersei's.

Agree. Dany's lesbian scene was very gratuitous and sounded more like the masturbation-inspired fantasy of a teenager than anything else. I don't buy it, all those excuses that "it's there to show her frustration!" and all that (okay, it showed George's sexual frustration). The Tyrion/Shae scenes, on the other hand, were there for a plot-relevant reason.

I can't really put my finger on Bakker. He doesn't write sex scenes that are meant to be exciting, in any way. On the other hand, violent misogyny is there in every single Bakker book, and Old Nan definitely has a point when he asked "At which point do you become your 'mask'?"

Bakker doesn't go for realistic medieval societies. He goes out of his way to make them as misogynist as possible.

[Cantabile]

Agree. Dany's lesbian scene was very gratuitous and sounded more like the masturbation-inspired fantasy of a teenager than anything else. I don't buy it, all those excuses that "it's there to show her frustration!" and all that (okay, it showed George's sexual frustration). The Tyrion/Shae scenes, on the other hand, were there for a plot-relevant reason.

Expresses my sentiments exactly. The Tyrion/Shae scenes advanced the plot as well as characterization, while I couldn't shake the feeling that Martin had a hard-on the entire time he was writing that Dany scene.

I often wonder how the spouses of authors feel about them writing out sexual fantasies involving fictional women.

Bakker doesn't go for realistic medieval societies. He goes out of his way to make them as misogynist as possible.

Having heard Bakker's reasons for making it so misogynist I don't really have a problem with that portrayal. Neuropath and Disciple of the Dog are worth discussing, though, since the misogyny is occurring in our own world, so setting doesn't have much of an excuse. As another poster pointed out though, Men get painted pretty terribly too, so for me it's more of a general cynicism towards humanity itself rather than women getting picked on.

[Liadin]

I think that an author like Martin in large part kicks the you-are-what-you-right idea to pieces, as he's able to convincingly display both sides, a mixture of Theon's casual misogyny with, say, Cat's perspective.

Right, but as you point out later in your post, the most interesting issue isn't when an author has one character who holds a particular view, but more to do with the message/themes of the work as a whole. People on here are an intelligent bunch and I doubt anyone thinks Martin is a misogynist because he included Theon. But if all the male characters thought like Theon and the only female POV was Cersei, that would be different; he chose to include a variety of interesting, plot-relevant and sometimes admirable female characters because he's not a misogynist. (We've discussed a lot of gender-related issues in Martin's work before but that much is pretty clear.) This doesn't mean that other biases of Martin's don't show up in his work, though. The religion thing for instance--he's said himself that he can't convincingly write a religious POV, and there's evidence in ASOIAF (despite the medieval thing, he doesn't try). So Martin including characters with a variety of opinions on gender issues doesn't prove that an author can write a work with no biases so much as that he's not sexist despite writing a sexist society. Other beliefs are certainly present. You can't really prevent that as an author and I don't know that you should, so long as the biases you show don't have unfortunate implications.