I was talking about The Great Gatsby with a friend and she said the author, Scott Fitzgerald, is so naive. I said why? She replied that he is so in love with Gatsby that he can’t see Gatsby’s flaws.
I realized that she believed Nick Carraway, the narrator, was the voice of Fitzgerald. Of course, this is not really wrong. He likely is, in some ways, such as when philosophizing about the American dream. And there was a real person, Max Gerlach, who is the real life version of Gatsby. But Gatsby is not Gerlach and Fitzgerald is not Nick. Or, rather, we just don’t know how much these real life characters are in the story. It is fun to speculate. But for me it confuses things more than explain them, in terms of understanding the book. Yet it has made me think. Perhaps Nick is more like Scott when he was younger or had just met Gerlach…Who knows?
There are other examples, of course, which are much more controversial. Like when a person writes so well and sympathetically about the feelings of someone who behaves in socially or morally unacceptable ways (e.g., a pedophile, thief, murderer). Does that mean they approve of these things or people? Or want the readers to do so?
So that is my question to you: Do you ever struggle with separating the person of the writer from the voice in the book or particular characters? Do you ever feel differently about the writer after reading a book that has some unconventional ideas or characters you find very unlikable or behaviors that shock you?
It really depends. I can do that with some authors, but anyone who’s read Lovecraft knows that sometimes that just isn’t possible.
Some authors are just constructing a narrator, and some actually use the characters or overall story as a lens. If it’s the former, then you should be able to separate them.