Sir Arthur Conan Doyle invented Sherlock Holmes, probably the most famous fictional detective of all time. The character used science, observation and logic to solve crimes that were beyond the powers of others.

But then Doyle became a spiritist. He went hook, line and sinker for charlatans using what were even at that time rather hackneyed tricks and illusions. He was convinced that spiritism was real, spoke on it in public, and became a supporter of some very dubious figures, a lot of whom bilked many folks at their most vulnerable (in mourning over the loss of a loved one) of a lot of money.

How much credibility, if any, do you think Doyle loses for this shift in his world view?

Does self-described "pornographer" Anne Rice lose credibility for her subsequent religious conversion and for leaving the city for which she professed so much love, New Orleans?

Would Stephen King lose credibility for saying he doesn't believe in ghosts?

Does Salman Rushdie lose credibility for writing The Satanic Verses, having his life threatened, claiming to have found religion and then losing it again?

Does Ray Bradbury lose credibility for arguing that he isn't a science fiction author at all?

No!


>^,,^<

---

The poor object to being governed badly, whilst the rich object to being governed at all. G.K. Chesterton

Having spent most of my life out of range of commercial media, I have never known too much about the private lives of current authors - or actors or singers for that matter - so I judge a book solely on its content. The private lives of its creator have never been of concern when it comes to fiction. I guess I agree with Dan.

However, author intrusion can get up one's nose at times: like those hundreds of male-authored books that describe what a woman thinks and feels about things, or presents legions of women who, while getting raped in the most gruesome of circumstances, supposedly "can't help themselves" from enjoying the experience.

In such circumstances I toss the book completely - if the writer knows so little about humanity, I don't feel he can be relied upon. However whether, in real life, such authors are nasty or nice has no effect at all.

Romany said: 'However, author intrusion can get up one's nose at times: like those hundreds of male-authored books that describe what a woman thinks and feels about things or...'

So men must not speak about women's feelings, and women must refrain from expressing opinions on men's feelings?

We are going to have some very strange books if that dictum is followed.


Have you never heard of fathers who bring up daughters and help them through their emotional and mental travails? Likewise mothers who are like rocks to their sons? I raised a daughter and it gave me insight as to how a woman thinks. I also had three sisters, and believe it or not a mother. My daughter still comes to me on matters to do with her feelings.

What about the experiences of husbands and wives who get to know each other well?



PS: I think Doyle lost all credibility.

---

It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it. Aristotle

Does it really matter to anyone else whether a fiction writer's personal beliefs and values reflect their story's characters, theme and plot? Do you expect an author of fiction to project themselves into their stories all of the time? Is their personal life anyone's business other than their own?

What about Voltaire, did he lose any credibility? Did James Joyce lose credibility for being a sot? Dylan Thomas as well, or Faulkner? Salinger for being a recluse? Lewis for being a Christian? Carroll for being a mathematician? Flannery O'Connor for being a Catholic? How about Byron, or Shelly and their personal lives? How about, *gasp* the notorious prat Oscar Wilde for being an hedonist? Granted Wilde truly did lose all credibility, but so did Marquis de Sade.

---

Forgiving is Love, Love is For Giving.

I always thought Stanley Kubrick was an invulnerable genius but

I was a little disappointed when I read what R. Lee Ermey and Malcolm John Taylor said about him.

IMHO - the key word is "fiction."

So, No don't think authors lose credibility.

I didn't really give my opinion on this matter, because I wanted to hear what some other folks might say first. Now that they have here's a few thoughts:

I'd argue that if the behavior doesn't actually contradict the themes they presented in their work then there's no relationship. Alcoholism isn't really a contradiction for most authors, unless they write a book about abstaining. Being a recluse rather makes sense given the themes of Salinger's work.... Lewis' work is very Christian in theme and purpose. Though many folks find his generosity of spirituality troubling, I don't think that's the case at all.

Similarly, the Marquis did, at least, get jailed for things that weren't wildy different from his writings. In that sense, he "walked it like he talked it" straight. I'd argue the same for Wilde. His "hedonism" was pretty mild all things considered, and not just using a modern standard. If one notes that in the British canon there are folks like Byron and Shelley running around, then Oscar's "hedonism" is dubious. Besides, Wilde didn't present his fiction as containing a particularly upright moral standard, so his personal life would not be at issue. In fact, in both those cases it could be argued that the subsequent social/legal problems were in character with their work. In Wilde's case, in particular, the situation points more to the injustice of the period in which he lived than his own character.

When it comes to Anne Rice, it's interesting but I don't know if it's particularly signficant. She seems to be a talented gal, but her work isn't really of such quality or social importance as to merit a critique of her inconsistency. In some ways, in fact, her being a flibbertigibbet makes a weird kind of sense with her work. It's got a weird, melodramatic, goofy-themed core that really gives her a kind of teflon to criticism. If one is to criticize her language, she might respond with the lightness of the material itself. If one points out the lightness of the material, she can point to her more elegant prose. In her own character, she can claim both a deep spirituality and pride in her pornography using a similar circular logic. In the final tally, they cancel each other out.

Rushdie and Doyle are more problematic. These guys both wrote about things they supposedly believed and then either (both?) backpedaled once things got personal or just went off the deep end completely. Everyone is allowed to change their minds, of course, but at a certain point such a shift starts to look more like betrayal than the result of a long and careful reflection. It's hard to imagine Doyle getting splattered with horse spit and calling it ectoplasm generated by spirits from beyond the grave and then read his Holmes fiction in which he extolls the value of observation and logic without becoming a little dubious. Were Lady Gaga to start quoting the Sermon on the Mount, I might have to take that with a grain of Lot's wife....

I think they should be judged in the light of the intellectual climate of their day. William James (philosopher) was a believer as were Alfred Russel Wallace (Natural selection)and William Crookes (pioneering work on spectroscopy). Other ideas floating about were phrenology and hypnotism. Do we discredit Sartre (philosopher) or Haldane (biologist) for their misguided communism or any number of deluded Freudians for what seemed like energetic new thinking at the time. Doesn't it all depend rather on the intellectual climate and technology of the era? We still cannot explain consciousness adequately although there are competing ideas. Do we destroy all the other work a thinker has done for one false shot? Einstein missed out with his cosmological constant but nobody would deign to call him a thicko. Sorry but I think some of you are being a bit harsh.

---

"Millions long for immortality who don't know what to do with themselves on a rainy Sunday afternoon" Suzanne Ertz