A deep analysis of a text often includes an exploration of the author’s life, which consists of studying their background and what personally influenced them to create the text. When we research the author’s background, it helps the reader strengthen their knowledge on the text, subsequently making it an essential factor to consider when the reader moulds their own thoughts and interpretations on the themes which the text conveys. The ideas proposed by New Criticism offer a strong argument for severing the link between the author and their work, and instead solely focus on the style, content and structure of the piece to determine its meaning. However, it can be agreed that studying the writer helps to strengthen the relationship between the reader and the literary text. When we read the works of E.M. Forster and Sylvia Plath, we can clearly see that the content they produce is a form of expressing their own personal thoughts and secrets. This validates the need to include the author’s life into a study of the text.
Considering the author’s background in relation to the text they produced is essential, as it allows the reader to understand the social, historical or political context surrounding the author at the time of the publication. When we look at the later works produced by E.M Forster, we can see he is challenging the social conventions and ideals of his time. His taboo short story, ‘Arthur Snatchfold’, focuses on the homosexual experience between a young man and an elderly, rich industrialist, and was written to criticise society’s abhorrence towards same sex intimacy. It can be argued that Forster’s own sexuality is explored through the elderly Conway in the story, as the narrator explains ‘The female sex was all very well and he was addicted to it, but permitted himself an occasional deviation’ This ‘deviation’ towards the same-sex can be linked to Forster’s hidden homosexuality. Furthermore, his focus on the themes of homosexuality in his texts allows Forster to subtly express his sexuality to the public without the fear of being condemned by his contemporaries. Literary Historian, Christopher Lane, references critic, George Steiner’s comment on Forster’s intentions when writing ‘Arthur Snatchfold’, stating that the short story was an attempt to remove the sense of ‘self condemnation… as if [Forster] could not shake off the secrecies, the aura of shame that a prudish, vengeful society had sought to instil in him’ (175). Steiner sees Forster’s gay fiction as a form of escape from the judgements of his society. The short story was published posthumously, with only Forster’s close friend aware of his sexuality. Not only can we read ‘Arthur Snatchfold’ as a critique of an intolerant society, but also as a metaphor for Forster’s struggle to reveal his true self to the world.
The reason for the tone, style, and emotions expressed in a text can easily be traced to the background and lifestyle of the author. Forster’s anguish is shown through the content and characterisation in ‘Arthur Snatchfold’, for example. However, we are able to trace deep psychoanalytical thoughts and feelings through the work of the tragic Sylvia Plath. Her controversial poem ‘Daddy’ highlights deep psychological issues she suffered at the hands of losing her father at the age of ten. The poem uses obscure metaphors, as the speaker compares her father to ‘A man in black with a Meinkampf look’, which invokes a sense of hostility against him. Plath has written the poem as if the speaker was a child, which enhances the dark tone of the piece when she exclaims: “Daddy, I have had to kill you”. Plath herself has said the poem is ‘Spoken by a girl with an Electra Complex. Her father died while she thought he was a God… she has to act out the awful little allegory before she is free of it.’ (Brennan. 1999. p.69) This ‘allegory’ is continued in the piece through comparing the little girl’s mourning to images of the Holocaust, comparing herself to a Jewish person: ‘A Jew to Dachau, Auschwitz, Belsen… I think I may well be a Jew.’ The Holocaust imagery created by Plath was met with a severe backlash by most critics, however, some did understand why she used this sensitive analogy. Professor Jon Rosenblatt states ‘these allusions to historical events form part of the speaker’s fragmented identity and allow Plath to Portray a kind of eternal victim.’ (42). This shows that the reader must consider Plath’s background and suffering in order to understand and appreciate the metaphors used in her text. If the reader were to blindly read the poem without any context, most of the passion and purpose would be lost.
Forster is also no stranger to controversy within his work, as evident by the content in ‘Arthur Snatchfold’. The short story not only focuses on the taboo subject of 20th Century homoeroticism, but also on social class. The wealthy Conway encounters the ‘coarse, very much of the people and of the thick-fingered earth” Snatchfold. These two characters are of different classes, but their sexual connection is explored by Forster when the narrator exclaims ‘They understood one another with a precision impossible for lovers.’. Forster creates a binary opposition between a working class and upper class character, and allows them to connect through one factor they have in common – same sex desire. Gregory W. Bredbeck comments on this relationships, noting that ‘it suggests desire motivated by an ideal of equality between classes and based on male homoeroticism.’ (51). As a result, Forster is expressing the act of homoeroticism as a universal desire, therefore creating a bond between lower and upper class individuals. On the contrary, it can also be argued that Forster fetishizes working class men in the short story to express his preferences. The description of Snatchfold’s ‘heavy body’ and ‘thrusting thrashing strength’ invokes that the author is fascinated by this robust physique.
When we study the language Forster and Plath use in their respective texts, it becomes clear they are expressing a deep internal message to the reader. Forster’s guilt is expressed through Conway at the concluding part of his story, as the character feels a sense of shame and responsibility for Arthur’s confinement. The deterioration of Conway’s confident lifestyle and attitude is apparent throughout. Forster first describes him as a man who ‘had a free mind and an active body’, which is juxtaposed in the final paragraph, when he begins to feel ‘waves of shame’ for narrowly avoiding prosecution. Not only is ‘Arthur Snatchfold’ an insight into 20th Century homosexuality, it also shows how Forster’s society is not progressing with the acceptance of same sex relationships. On her Queer Theory essay, Heather Love analyses how 20th Century characters who desire the same sex are often punished in the narrative, with critics arguing ‘that the depiction of same-sex love as impossible… and doomed to failure is purely ideological.’(1) In this instance, Arthur is punished for his sexual deviance, Conway (who has higher authority and power) manages to get away without prosecution. He does, however, suffer from internal guilt: “For a moment he considered giving himself up and standing his trial; however, what possible good would that do?” This quotation not only highlights the struggle of both Conway and the author, but Forster also implies that there isn’t any hope in relation to the progression of homosexual acceptance.
Plath’s ‘Daddy’ encapsulates a sense of animosity against the absent father, yet the message of the text becomes ambiguous when to the reader when we examine it through a structuralist point of view. Plath’s lack of a relationship with the deceased has left her bitter, which is clear based on her use of binary oppositions between the innocent speaker and the father. The speaker proclaims herself as the ‘Jew’ against her ‘Nazi’ parent, implying the binary opposition of innocent against pure evil. The ‘pretty red heart’ of the child speaker invokes images of innocence, as opposed to the ‘fat black heart’ of her antagonist. The binary opposition of a girl against ‘the man’ depicts a feminist theory. The connotations of an ‘evil man’ is shown through the speaker calling him a ‘vampire’ and a ‘swastika’. When we attempt to relate the poem to Plath’s own life, the text becomes ambiguous. The reader may interpret Plath’s use of her father as a metaphor for her own life, highlighting the struggles she’s faced. The line ‘Daddy, I have had to kill you’, may have been an early sign that would lead to her eventual suicide. The internal suffering that both Plath and Forster have faced and attempted to express in their work demonstrates how essential it is to consider the author’s backgrounds in relation to the information given in their texts.
The structuralist analysis of Plath’s Poetry can also be used to support the counter argument for considering the author’s lives. Studying these texts with a New Criticism mind allows the reader to neglect the author entirely, focusing entirely on the words of the text. New Critic Roland Barthes’ influential essay ‘Death of the Author’ offers support in this type of reader, proclaiming that ‘it is the language which speaks, not the author’ (143) and that ‘the text is a tissue of quotations drawn from the innumerable centres of culture.’ (146). Barthes’ argument essentially states that by removing the author, you allow the text to be free for interpretation, and not restricted by trying to relate the language and content to what the author initially intended. This relates to the structuralist approach to Plath’s poem, as the use of binary oppositions of ‘good and evil’ allows the reader to freely interpret the poem in various ways, and not relying on Plath’s ambiguous intentions. The same can be said for Forster’s text as well, as analysing his work with a New Critical mind removes link between his content and life.
Feminist Critic Nancy K. Miller, however disagrees with the notion of ‘killing’ the author, stating that the removal of the author ‘has not so much made room for a revision of the concept of authorship as it has… repressed and inhibited discussion of any writing identity’ (104). The message Miller is explaining is that removing the author from the study of literature hinders feministic progression for female authors. Therefore, if we are not to consider Sylvia Plath whilst analysing her work, we are rejecting the evolution of female authorship. Whilst Plath is considered an icon for female writers, Forster Is seen as influential for the publication of Arthur Snatchfold and, most famously, ‘Maurice’, which both feature themes of homosexuality. In relation to Miller’s comments, both Forster and Plath deserve to be identified and praised for their progressive work within feminist and gay literature.
The consideration of an author’s background is essential when we explore the meaning of the text, along with the social and historical context it comes with. ‘Arthur Snatchfold’ and ‘Daddy’ are texts which both deal with heavy, controversial topics, and understanding the message of the text requires a detailed examination in the author’s lives. If we are only to evaluate the meaning of a text by solely looking at the ‘language which speaks’ (Barthes, 143), we are ignoring an entire portion of crucial detail based on a lifetime of influence and experience. Considering the author’s history shows that the text has purpose, and that they are expressing their feelings on social or personal matters through the art of literature. By disregarding authors such as Plath and Forster, you are essentially overlooking the motives of an individual who is addressing a problem in society. Without these authors, feminist and gay literature may not be as widely accepted as it is today.