I think it may work the other way, to some extent; being a nasty person makes you a worse writer. For really extreme cases see Slacktivist on the Left Behind series, probably the best (and certainly the longest) critique I've encountered of really bad books; the plot is an irrational failure and the good guys are routinely sociopathic because the authors insist on following intellectually defunct theology to the letter. He has a refrain that how intelligent you end up being is often a moral choice: stupidity is mostly made up of comfortable delusions, and the self-doubt needed to overcome those delusions takes a moral effort.
These days I increasingly think about the critical relation of literature as being the respect that the author-in-work earns, and what they do with it. (If your respect for the author doesn't matter for your appreciation of a work, you're no longer dealing with literature.) One of the things the author can spend respect on is to get away with disrespecting the reader; this can do important things, but if it's attempted before the author's earned any respect themselves then failure abounds. Getting the whole enterprise to work is very similar to negotiating relationships without being an asshole. A lot of parallel skills, at least.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2010-12-10 02:46 pm (UTC)These days I increasingly think about the critical relation of literature as being the respect that the author-in-work earns, and what they do with it. (If your respect for the author doesn't matter for your appreciation of a work, you're no longer dealing with literature.) One of the things the author can spend respect on is to get away with disrespecting the reader; this can do important things, but if it's attempted before the author's earned any respect themselves then failure abounds. Getting the whole enterprise to work is very similar to negotiating relationships without being an asshole. A lot of parallel skills, at least.