A Writer Should be Invisible. Agree or Disagree?

No writer should be invisible. Every accessible detail about them is relevant to readings; whether that’s concerning their ideologies, where in the world they live, or simply how many cats they own. All of these details potentially can shape and even birth new ways to read a text. That’s not to say that I would advocate a New Critical approach and favour the author’s intended meaning above any others, but it is as relevant to readings as any other, and details of their lives are inevitably going to be useful when interpreting their work. Take Dickinson for example, the knowledge that she was often absent from society and spent a lot of her time alone has had an extraordinary effect on the way her work is now read. ‘Observational’ is a word that often turns up when Dickinson is discussed and it’s worth thinking about to what degree that word choice is influenced by the knowledge of her reclusive nature. 

No text suffers from knowledge about the author, time period, social/political situation etc. Every piece of information that is brought to bear on a text helps explore new avenues of investigation, or perhaps challenges existing ones. If a writer is invisible both within the words on the page and in the public/critical eye, then the result is always going to be a poorer understanding of the text.