There is something i really want to talk about, but the last time i made this thread, it received three replies. So, if you participate in discussion, i will give you an an invite to Aaaaarg.fail.
Who here has read the literary essay The Death of the Author by Roland Barthes? He lays down the argument that it is beneficial for an author (or artist) to not include any information about his/her life to the general public. This is because these works then exist in a vacuum. We cannot attach anything from it to a concrete event in the artist's life because we know nothing about the artist's life. Therefore, we are then able to more openly and honestly interpret the work.
Now i'm going to talk Shakespeare of whom we know nearly nothing (assuming he was not Marlowe in a wig or Adrian IV's great grandson). He is considered, by most, subjectivity, i know, to be the most skilled writer in the English Language. I do not attest that claim. However, he is also renowned as a great writer because of his existential themes and characterization. And, as i said, we know little of Shakespeare besides where and when his life existed. Imagine if we could discern his political, religious, and moral views all from his wikipedia page before we ever read a word of him. At the very least we could say that the spectrum of interpretation and by extension inspiration would be moderately, if not significantly, reduced. Imagine if we could trace the inspiration for King Lear back to personal story of his elderly father (or perhaps just a personal acquaintance) who was betrayed by their son or daughter. His works would lose their sublime, almost ethereal quality they carry today. It's not that people are simply placing Shakespeare at the top of pyramid without any thought. It's the fact that his works stand alone, not supported by a biography, a personality, or even an trustworthy image that allows us the freedom of interpretation to place him there.
Consider Hemingway. Academics and skeptics have a tendency to study his biography and character more than his works. His mother dressed him up as a child, and he compensated by being overly masculine in nearly all parts of his life. But imagine if he was as mysterious to us as Shakespeare is today. He still wouldn't be on Shakespeare's level, of course, but perhaps people would interpret what he wrote a little more creatively, a little more openly because they have no idea what kind of person the author was.
We can trace Bloomsday back to when Nora Barnacle gave Joyce a handjob for the first time. Edward Munch's the Scream is traced back to the eruption of Krakatoa. All these people simplified, their life's work, their hours of study and practice and struggle, dumbed down to a few notable life events. Should we know an author's life story before we read a word from them? Are we losing something in our search to uncover the individual?