On Monday this week, we considered the possibility of improving accuracy of interpretations of a work of literature by learning about the work's author. By knowing the context in which the author lived, one might be able to discover additional or alternate meanings in a work besides those immediately apparent. However, I think that this might not hold true for all works of literature and all authors.
In fact, in certain circumstances it might lead to a severe misinterpretation of a work. This is because not all authors write books which actually reflect their viewpoints. I am not referring to satire, in which the author may parody a viewpoint they dislike by pretending to support it with faulty reasoning. For satire, knowing the author's context might help a reader identify the satirical nature of the work. The works I am referring to, however, are those written by authors who simply find it amusing or helpful to write from points of view quite different from their own, but not necessarily in direct opposition. The divergence in views might not be immediately apparent to readers, and so they might interpret the work wrongly, acting on the assumption that the author was seriously advocating the point of view showcased in the work.
This does not invalidate the initial theory, as such authors are quite rare, and often upon further investigation a reader may realise their error. However, it is an interesting possibility to keep in mind if attempting to incorporate authorial context into one's interpretation of a work of literature.
