bump for one of the most interesting questions in the theory of literature

i don't think it's better or worse, it's just a different angle

>>7823077
I think it's better for political works, and worse for aesthetic ones, since in that case the only purpose it serves is to tie the work to the world of gossip, slander, and other social power plays.

>inb4 all works are political

droning politicians who can't abide something existing without using it for power, plz go

bumpaps

>>7823589
but all works are political whether you want it or not. It's not about engaged literature. Every work is politica.

>>7823077
I don't think it makes it "better". Most good authors are not egotists who simply write transparently about their own feelings and lives in their novels. So even their lives would simply contextualize the work, but not give anything near a full interpretation of it. At most you can grasp what event or timeframe inspired its creation, or little tidbits about its composition.

I agree with >>7823589 in that political works are an exception to this, as a proper biographic placement greatly explains most if not all political allegories within a work. I would argue that poetry perhaps benefits from this too, but only slightly.

For all other matters I think death of the author is the best way to go. Art is anonymous and should not hinge on a single person to be interpreted, and I can't think of a single writer that doesn't know this. For most, biographies provide interesting tidbits but never a full, "legit" interpretation.