Robert Aickman

[Odalisque]

I find rather trivial opposite sex disagreeably misogynistic.

[Jezetha]

Quote Originally Posted by Odalisque

I find rather trivial opposite sex disagreeably misogynistic.

Of course it's mysogynistic. But it's the rather blatant obverse of a fascination with the female of the species which is clearly visible in the three stories I have read. Methinks Aickman protesteth too much... IF you equate the narrator with Aickman, that is.

[Odalisque]

The question of the relationship between writer and (fictional) narrator is an interesting one. Sometimes the narrator is a thinly disguised author. I suspect that there is always something significant of the writer in the narrator.

[Jezetha]

Quote

I suspect that there is always something significant of the writer in the narrator.

I agree. Most authors have obsessions which you learn to recognise and which shine through every disguise. Only the greatest writers are as wide and 'neutral' as the world itself.

[Nemonymous]

I suspect that there is always something significant of the writer in the narrator.

A debatable point, but one that may not need to be debated if the reader simply treats fiction as fiction to be enjoyed.

[Jezetha]

Quote Originally Posted by Nemonymous

I suspect that there is always something significant of the writer in the narrator. A debatable point, but one that may not need to be debated if the reader simply treats fiction as fiction to be enjoyed.

If, indeed. But then, when you are so fascinated by the fiction, it's quite natural to get interested in the man or woman who created it. I don't think enjoying an author and then debating (or even researching) him are mutually exclusive. I, for one, have always seen the riddle of creativity deepened, when studying a favourite artist. It didn't impair my enjoyment.

Re Aickman - I have read too little of him at the moment to debate him at all. I'm now 'simply' enjoying him for the first time!

[Nemonymous]

But then, when you are so fascinated by the fiction, it's quite natural to get interested in the man or woman who created it.

Well, I suppose I would like to keep these things at least 'separate' as I publish something called 'Nemonymous' -- inspired by an admittedly questionable aesthetic loosely based on the 'Intentional Fallacy'. :-)
des

Ps: Being intrested in an author as a person is also not necessarily the same thing as believing some sort of equivalence between author and author's narrator.

[Jezetha]

Quote Originally Posted by Nemonymous

Ps: Being interested in an author as a person is also not necessarily the same thing as believing some sort of equivalence between author and author's narrator.

Author and author's narrator are two distinct entities, certainly. How big the distinction is differs from writer to writer, and from work to work. It depends also, perhaps, on how much of his life and thoughts a writer has cared to reveal in a more or less factual way (diaries, letters et cetera) instead of fictionally . If he hasn't done this at all, we have no real way of knowing the distance between him and his authorial persona/narrator, and have to rely on 'witnesses'.

[Nemonymous]

Neutrally, I'd say 'The Intentional Fallacy' findings find that that sort of information is unknowable, even by the author himself, and if unknowable, best ignored in any description/interpretation/evaluation of a discrete work of fiction.

Biographical and sociological matters are, however, interesting in themselves, I suppose.

[Jezetha]

Quote Originally Posted by Nemonymous

Neutrally, I'd say 'The Intentional Fallacy' findings find that that sort of information is unknowable, even by the author himself, and if unknowable, best ignored in any description/interpretation/evaluation of a discrete work of fiction.

"unknowable, even by the author himself" - it all depends on how self-aware he is.

"If unknowable, best ignored" - agreed.