Do you prefer to know about an author and the context of a book before you read?

[Heidi @ Mt Hope]

My husband and I were having a lively discussion this morning. He's reading Atlas Shrugged (which I haven't read), and I was following the Ayn Rand discussion/debate on the Afterschooling board (it caught my eye since dh was reading AS).

 

The question is: Do you want to know something of the author and the context of a book (reviews, debate, controversy, 'worldview') *before* you read it, or do you prefer to read the story and either simply enjoy it (or not) or interact with it on a personal level according to your own knowledge and experiences without knowing anything about the author or what has been said about the book?

 

One more question:

 

Is the way you read a book the same or different from your approach to teaching classics in your homeschool?

[Parrothead]

For the most part I do not really care. Maybe if it was someone who was a very outspoken advocate for ___ cause which I'm personally against I might give the work a pass.

[Alte Veste Academy]

For fictional works, I prefer to know nothing about the author at the first reading. I want to be ignorant and unbiased as to assumptions about POV. Reading about the author afterward, however, is fascinating. Then I might reread a book with a new, different perspective. But I want my thoughts and only my thoughts going through my head the first time. For non-fiction, yes, POV is helpful to know beforehand.

Edited December 17, 2011 by Alte Veste Academy

[5 Hikers]

I need to know about the author and context only if the book is non-fiction. I want to know the credentials.

 

If it is fiction I do not need to know.

 

As to approaching it like teaching Classicalstudies , some books do need background info. If you try to read Percy Jackson without knowing Greek Mythology, it might be too confusing to make it a good book. Same with Narnia, I think knowing all the Biblical references makes it a better series.

[Kathleen in VA]

Non-fiction - absolutely need to know.

 

Fiction - sometimes. If it's just for fun reading, no. If it's a classic, I really like knowing anything and everything I can because I feel like I may miss something important as I'm reading if I start reading it cold and I'm not likely to go back and reread it. I feel extremely accomplished if I get through a book once.:D

[Ester Maria]

Non-fiction, I often want to be knowledgeable of some context, in general terms.

 

Fiction, absolutely irrelevant.

[Tutor]

I need to know about the author and context only if the book is non-fiction. I want to know the credentials.

 

If it is fiction I do not need to know.

 

As to approaching it like teaching Classicalstudies , some books do need background info. If you try to read Percy Jackson without knowing Greek Mythology, it might be too confusing to make it a good book. Same with Narnia, I think knowing all the Biblical references makes it a better series.

 

Ditto here.

[Night Elf]

I've only developed an interest in an author after I've enjoyed a novel, and even that isn't much more than where they live and are they still writing. I've never looked at authors of school books. Now, I have been victim of hearing people on this board dismiss a curriculum based on the author's background and then steered clear just because I didn't want my money to support someone that had ideas that made me uncomfortable. But I doubt that my reading or the kids education suffered from those decisions.

[-M-]

Is "A little of both" an acceptable reply?

 

How many of us were very nearly turned off so-called "serious literature," or even reading itself, by the soul-deadening "This-author-was-born-in-England-in-yadda-yadda" approach Mrs. Grimm the English teacher employed when introducing us to "the important works" of fiction, poetry, drama?

 

I tend to lead young and/or inexperienced readers in some way, any way other than Mrs. Grimm's:

 

Listen to this…

 

Or,

 

When I first read this, I thought…

 

Or,

 

What use is this book to me? you might wonder. Well, I don't know, but maybe you'll connect with…

 

Or,

 

How differently we use language now, yet how similar some of our experiences are to those of the characters in…

 

You get the idea.

 

Once the students have reached a level of reading sophistication / maturity / experience, though, we begin with more information about both the author and the work's context, and the ongoing discussion appropriately blends reader response with works of literary criticism. Note, though, that I tend to be wary of lit-crit that looks at or through the author — his struggles, personality, life, etc. — as a sole means to the work. While there is value in knowing about the author, to be sure, it's a bit like building a house on a sand dune to examine a piece of literature primarily through its author's biography.

 

___________________

 

On the subject of my personal reading habits, I also tend to disregard notes and introductory essays, if not altogether, then certainly until after I've finished reading. And since you began with Rand, I will mention that I read both Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead without knowing much at all about the author and her philosophy. If I remember correctly, I learned more about both when my oldest read We the Living and Anthem.

 

I tend to want the text first ("Was there anything so real as words?") and the rest later, an approach that has, quite obviously, informed my teaching.*

 

If we were chatting over coffee, I think right about now I'd digress. You see, I began thinking about book club discussions and how these can devolve -- And how quickly! -- when personal response to a work supplants a true discussion of the text. There are, after all, some who see the book discussion as free group therapy with better drinks and dessert!

 

A worthwhile discussion of a book, even one attended by less sophisticated readers, needs to do more than focus on it made you feel or what it reminded you of. Do you know what I mean?

 

Anyway, not sure if any of this is what you were seeking, but, well, there you go.

 

 

 

 

* My teaching experience includes classroom experience, as well as the family-centered learning project.

 

 

 

________________________

 

Clarification: I guess my response deals primarily with your final question: "Is the way you read a book the same or different from your approach to teaching classics [...]?"

 

And since I'm editing this reply, I'll make these additions: I'd echo what someone else wrote about non-fiction -- I, too, tend to look at the author's experience, education, "credentials," etc. before investing my time in a non-fiction work. (Because I read non-fiction *much* more slowly than fiction.) As for an author's bio on fiction read for pleasure (i.e., not to be "taught")? I agree with a previous poster: irrelevant. (Although sometimes fun.)

Edited December 17, 2011 by Mental multivitamin
Clarification

[Kathleen in VA]

After reading some replies, I've reconsidered my first statement. I think it is helpful to know some basic background, espeically if the book is from a different time period. It was helpful for me to know that Dickens, for example, lived a life very much like David Copperfield and that his writing reflected his own personal experience of having a father in debtor's prison. While watching Bleak House (no, I've not read it) I looked it up on Wikipedia and found it fascinating that Dickens had also experienced a long protracted legal fight and that he was making a statement that, among other things, the legal system in England was in much need of reform. Knowing that added so much more to the story for me. I feel the same way about Lucy Maud Montgomery's personal life being reflected in Anne of Green Gables and the list goes on and on. Having the knowledge before I read adds much depth and understanding, imo.

 

But I would not be interested in reading about other's personal takes or any controversial debates about a book before reading it. Third party stuff would be irrelevant to me.

[Robin M]

I'd rather not know anything personal about an author when it comes to fiction. Now if they are blatant and loud about their personal politics or agendas and it happens to be something I whole heartedly disagree with, then I probably wouldn't read their books. I don't like books that really press their personal agendas. I took several literature classes in college and they were eyeopeners. Made for some interesting discussions but also made me not want to read some of the author's books. Generally I read to be entertained, not to be preached too. Take things at face value. But then again, how do you learn if you aren't exposed to new or differing opinions. And sometimes it is fun to pick apart a story, see where the author was coming from. Kind of a catch 22 really. I guess I agree with MM - a bit of both.

[Heidi @ Mt Hope]

Is "A little of both" an acceptable reply?

 

How many of us were very nearly turned off so-called "serious literature," or even reading itself, by the soul-deadening "This-author-was-born-in-England-in-yadda-yadda" approach Mrs. Grimm the English teacher employed when introducing us to "the important works" of fiction, poetry, drama?

 

I tend to lead young and/or inexperienced readers in some way, any way other than Mrs. Grimm's:

 

Listen to this…

 

Or,

 

When I first read this, I thought…

 

Or,

 

What use is this book to me? you might wonder. Well, I don't know, but maybe you'll connect with…

 

Or,

 

How differently we use language now, yet how similar some of our experiences are to those of the characters in…

 

You get the idea.

 

Once the students have reached a level of reading sophistication / maturity / experience, though, we begin with more information about both the author and the work's context, and the ongoing discussion appropriately blends reader response with works of literary criticism. Note, though, that I tend to be wary of lit-crit that looks at or through the author — his struggles, personality, life, etc. — as a sole means to the work. While there is value in knowing about the author, to be sure, it's a bit like building a house on a sand dune to examine a piece of literature primarily through its author's biography.

 

___________________

 

On the subject of my personal reading habits, I also tend to disregard notes and introductory essays, if not altogether, then certainly until after I've finished reading. And since you began with Rand, I will mention that I read both Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead without knowing much at all about the author and her philosophy. If I remember correctly, I learned more about both when my oldest read We the Living and Anthem.

 

I tend to want the text first ("Was there anything so real as words?") and the rest later, an approach that has, quite obviously, informed my teaching.*

 

If we were chatting over coffee, I think right about now I'd digress. You see, I began thinking about book club discussions and how these can devolve -- And how quickly! -- when personal response to a work supplants a true discussion of the text. There are, after all, some who see the book discussion as free group therapy with better drinks and dessert!

 

A worthwhile discussion of a book, even one attended by less sophisticated readers, needs to do more than focus on it made you feel or what it reminded you of. Do you know what I mean?

 

Anyway, not sure if any of this is what you were seeking, but, well, there you go.

 

 

 

 

* My teaching experience includes classroom experience, as well as the family-centered learning project.

 

 

 

________________________

 

Clarification: I guess my response deals primarily with your final question: "Is the way you read a book the same or different from your approach to teaching classics [...]?"

 

And since I'm editing this reply, I'll make these additions: I'd echo what someone else wrote about non-fiction -- I, too, tend to look at the author's experience, education, "credentials," etc. before investing my time in a non-fiction work. (Because I read non-fiction *much* more slowly than fiction.) As for an author's bio on fiction read for pleasure (i.e., not to be "taught")? I agree with a previous poster: irrelevant. (Although sometimes fun.)

 

I have appreciated all the responses, but this is exactly what I was looking for. Thank you!!

 

Your book club example made me laugh, though, as I attend a book club similar to what you described. It was never intended to be a time of deep literary analysis, though, but a time for book-loving women to get together and enjoy each other's company with really great desserts (not so much the group therapy). It is my only social outing, so I don't mind.

 

I have very little experience with literary analysis, so I have been practicing on picture books. I'm going to have to step up my game very quickly...

[SKL]

It depends on why I'm reading it. If it's purely for pleasure, I do not need to know (though I might look it up if something strikes me as odd during my reading). If it's to expand my knowledge or suggest new ways of thinking, then I'll usually just read the introductions in the book and such. Maybe more. I'm not at a stage in my life where I do in-depth study of writers. There have been a few exceptions, though.

[oldskool]

I like to know just a little bit. One thing I do avoid is reading Amazon reviews before finishing a book. Not because of spoilers, but they may say something about the author that then prejudices me against the book. After finishing a book and deciding if I liked it, I find it easier to take in reviews.

[Mrs Mungo]

Writings of fiction are often camouflaged (or not) political and/or social commentary. That is certainly the case with Atlas Shrugged, Animal Farm, Gulliver's Travels, some Shakespearean plays, The Aeneid and many other works. Can you get pleasure from reading something that you don't fully understand? Sure. Will you understand the politics without context? Probably not. Can you be misled about the intentions of the author? Absolutely.

[Scarlett]

For the most part I do not really care. Maybe if it was someone who was a very outspoken advocate for ___ cause which I'm personally against I might give the work a pass.

 

This for me too. I pass on Steven King. Except for Shawshank Redemption....I had watched that movie about 10 times on tv before I realize he wrote it. :001_huh: So ya never know.

[TravelingChris]

I do find out for most non fiction but don't for most fiction. Almost all the fiction I read is mysteries and they are not political or philosophical usually. Now I have found out about some fiction writers that I read but that is actually more the exception.