The Catcher in the Rye question

I'd say that depends on whether you're reading the author's work, or studying the author. For me the reading experience is what counts, because I'm not a literary academic.

It's not necessary but there are many books where an understanding of the author puts a lot of their work into better context. Especially if the plan is to go on and read several of their works. I can't imagine reading anything by Austen or Fitzgerald or Hemingway without knowing anything about the author. I feel like you would miss so much by reading it blindly and in isolation like that.

Demetrius wrote: "Sallinger wrote that he wanted people to get to know him through his writings (not interviews and so on) Unlikely he would use social media today. So how important is an author's background to you?..."

It depends on personal preference and how rich you want your reading experience to be.

Salinger preached that all that mattered was the text. I leaned that direction for most of my adult life. Then I got more interested in the bigger picture.

I usually read a book twice. Once for pleasure and a second time, months later, for the bigger picture. This varies in an academic setting.

I don't think the author matters until you have read through his entire collection so if you were talking of a modern day author, it wouldn't matter at all.

My favorite is Steinbeck and there is plenty of study material available on him and his works but I don't want to cross that line until there is no material that he has actually written himself available to me.

If an author wants to be known, he can write something like "travels with charley".

Sorry for referring to authors as "him"!

These thoughts only apply to fictional writers.

The work succeeds or fails on its own merit. I think the rest is pointless distraction.

Some authors go to great lengths to cultivate a public persona (Tom Wolfe, Truman Capote), in some cases that persona is inseparable from the work (Hunter S. Thompson). In those cases I'm willing to make an exception.

That's just for me, though. If you like reading author biographies and hunting down obscure interviews, knock yourself out.

(The one exception I'll make for -that- rule is the kind of unauthorized bio that purports to uncover that some writer was actually a closeted pervert/wife beater/alcoholic/drug addict/whatever. How could that sort of thing possibly matter?)

I think Salinger said that because he preferred a private life and felt that was the only way he wanted to communicate.

To me an author's background is not important. I feel all writers, the good ones anyway, will tell their story through their writing whether it be fiction or not. Whether they do it consciously a writer can be biographical without being flat out about their life. I think that is the best way.

And I think social media should be purely for advertising their work. I don't think writers should tell about their personal lives on that media. I don't know why, thinking about it I think that they should only tell about themselves through their works (or in professional interviews).

I think it depends on the work. Sometimes knowing the author's background will help you understand his work better.

Demetrius wrote: "So how important is an author's background to you? Must authors tweet and have Facebook page? Or is the writing the best form of communication?"

It works both ways. I don't think a writer needs to use social media, but the art and the artist are inextricably linked, and the more one knows about the artist the better one understands the art--for better or for worse. Further, the art gives insights into the artist in a way that things like social media, interviews or biographies completely fail to do. Art is revelatory of the artist's character in a way that is personal and private, where things like the media persona are, by default, more public and less personal.

Being a good reader means putting what you know of the art and the artist together as a whole, and recognizing that even in amalgamation, it's not the complete picture.

I think the author's character comes through in his work, so we don't need to know him in other to understand it.

I find it helpful to know what influences the work of fiction suffers though. For example, after reading A Passage to India, I was very glad to have read an essay about Forster's travels in India. It helped put the work in context.

With some works, this might not be necessary. Teenage angst lacks context, so for Catcher in the Rye, knowing about Salinger seems pointless.

Actually according to the principles of hermeneutics, the author's life and what he meant by his writing don't really matter, given that each person should be allowed their own interpretation. For one to really experience art, one should take it as their own. It's a two-way street. Suppose you're reading about a character that was inspired by someone the author knew, but that reminds you of someone else; in your own life. You'll be using the same reference, but giving it a different meaning.

I don't feel a need to know anything about the authors I read. I find it bizarre that so many authors today (mostly self-published ones, granted) are so obsessed with "connecting" with their "fans." I have no interest whatsoever. The text is all that matters.

For me knowing something about Salinger helped me put his book The Catcher in the Rye in context. I started a discussion group called Breaking the Code to the Catcher in the Rye:
https://www.goodreads.com/topic/group...

It looks at The Catcher In the Rye from the point of view of war. I think that War was a huge experience of Salinger. His experience at Valley Forge Academy also provided context for his book as well. But I think what drove him to write the book was to talk about the history of war.

Some may not get that out of it, I agree. But I think I present a compelling argument that is worth looking at.

Wow this is a fucking good question. SERIOUSLY! Personally, if I were a writer myself I wouldn't like people to know me better. I only want them to be interested in the stories I make not my life, and most importantly I'd hate it if they start analyzing my work to my life (which unfortunately many of us make a career on in literature and history). It feels to much of an invasion of privacy.

So answering the question, I don't like to know much about the authors themselves. My favorite writer at the moment is Fyodor Dostoevsky but I've learned that the time he was born in vs. the ideas he made are two contrasting points. I'm not saying Dostoevsky was lousy as a person but that as much as his works will stand the test of time---he is still the product of his time. He wrote some stuffs which were very...unclassic? hahaha so I guess that's that for me.

I think knowing more about the author gives much greater insight into the book and makes it more interesting, too. There's a new biography out about Salinger which certainly added richness to my understanding of Catcher in the Rye, but I wouldn't recommend the bio until you've read all the Glass family stories, ie Franny and Zooey and Raise High the Roofbeams, Carpenter. THEN read the bio:

by David Shields

Another good cluster:

by Harper Lee

by Truman Capote

by Charles J. Shields