In appreciating a poem, does it matter if one is aware of the downside of a poet's character?

In 'Proust Can Change Your Life', the author, Alain de Botton describes the views of Sainte-Beuve, a respected 19th century critic. He thought that the beliefs, lifestyle and character of an author mattered in looking at their work.

Proust disagreed. 'Balzac may have been ill-mannered, Stendhal conversationally dull and Baudelaire obsessive, but why should this colour approach to their works, which suffer from none of the faults of their creators?'

Proust is talking sense, but surely it's a counsel of perfection. It's human nature to have our reactions to poems coloured by what we know about the poet.

Isn't it?

This is a question that goes beyond poetry. In my quest for understanding, or trying to understand, how to live a happy and contented life, I have become a devotee of Schopenhauer, one of the most miserable gits that ever drew breath.

Schopenhauer talked a great deal of sense, but it didn't seem to help him live a good life.

Go figure!

: )

TBx

I've always been drawn towards Philip Larkin, perhaps more than any other poet. True, he admired Margaret Thatcher, thought Britain was going to the dogs, had no time for that modern jazz, didn't venture abroad, and generally lived a rather buttoned-up, misanthropic sort of life. His father admired Hitler, although I suppose you can't blame him for that. But on the other hand there are The Whitsun Weddings; I Remember, I Remember; Trees ("afresh, afresh, afresh"); and An Arundel Tomb ("Our almost-instinct almost true: / What will survive of us is love"). What survives of Larkin are these poems, rather than his life. He also had no great fondness for the poetry world: I suspect the great British public appreciates him all the more for that.

I'm with Greg on this one.

It's a strange one. You'd imagine that if you didn't like the poet, you wouldn't like their work either - but it doesn't always follow does it? I think at the end of the day if you are reading a piece of work, you are appreciating the thought and the crafting that's gone into it, not how nice the poet is, though it helps if you can agree with the message, if there is one there.

I've heard that some of the live and successful poets today are proper divas - insisting on horrendous fees and being chauffeur driven to events and such like...

For me, that shows a shallowness and an ego that seems totally at odds with a poetic mind. It's what you'd expect in Hollywood, not the world of poetry. I don't suppose that's what they'll be remembered for though.

I agree with Isobel.

I can never listen to Wagner without remembering that he was Hitler's favourite. Doesn't make the music any less sublime tho.

Hmmm... not so easy really. Not a fan of Larkin, but not because of his views. I like a lot of the poetry of Pound despite his fascist views; because I'm drawn I guess to that kind I like many of those who drew on his rules for writing more (WC Williams is an example of a poet I prefer to Pound, and much more democratically minded.)

It does affect your views of a writer though. I like Eliot less knowing he was an anti-semite at least in his youth, though I still like the great poems. But not as much as I did.

It doesn't stop a poet being a great poet, but it does alter the way you read a poet's work, consciously or unconsciously. You see the elitism in Eliot and Pound's version of modernism, for instant, which was always there. Or the democratic ideals of Williams, the gay undercurrent in O'Hara, when you know where they stand. It doesn't stop you from enjoying a poet to know that they're not nice people but does bring a frisson of discomfort to your reading of it.

Since I found out she was a drunk I stopped liking Janis Joplin immediately; and when I read the wife-beating stories about Gazza I straight-away realised he was a bad footballer.

I guess I ought to stop liking Dylan Thomas now - but I can't! How far should I read between the lines of poems by Sylvia Plath? Does the Life one experiences always colour one's writing? And what of the reader's own experiences of life?All will influence our perceptions to some degree. I'm sure that greater knowledge of a poet's background will enable a different interpretation to be put on his work - whether negatively or positively is up to each individual.

I have often been jolted by certain biographical knowledge about writers, composers, painters, etc., but this information in no way alters my appreciation of a work. If something is clearly 'art' to me, then the creator's life-style or personal philosophy is not an issue. People are complex, and attitudes are always in flux. Who wants an artist skewered to a soft board? The work is the work is the work...the thing in itself....(Aristotelian idea maybe?)

Mr Coopey :)

Simple thought experiment;

Think of your favourite novelist, poet, singer painter etc.

Now, just imagine that each one has an unspeakable character flaw - worse than being a Tory even :)

How do you feel about each in turn?

For me, if I found out that Ray Charles used to eat a child for breakfast, burn poor people's homes for lunch and sell souls to the devil by night...I would still listen to Ray Charles and think he was a brilliant singer and musician.

The person is not the work. You can morally censure one and not the other.

If the terrible thoughts or deeds exist in the art, that is of course very different. Then again who would like such a thing if that were the case?