The position of authors of fiction in relation to critical discussion of their work is an unsettled one. While recognized as having knowledge and expertise regarding their texts, they are typically regarded as unreliable sources when it comes to critical analysis, and as partial witnesses whose personal association with the text is liable to influence their judgement. This article reconsiders that position, not by arguing that authors lack bias but by showing that bias is the normal condition of all critical reading and writing, whether by authors of fiction or by academic critics. I take as a case study my novel Calypso Dreaming (2002), comparing my own understanding of the text with a recent discussion by four influential critics. I argue that the rhetorical and methodological framing of critical discussion is a necessarily procrustean exercise, that may yield insights into texts but is also characterized by distortion and selectivity. Moreover, the conventional positioning of critics as “disinterested,” in contrast to “biased” authors, disguises the extent to which academic discussions are subject to the same personal and professional influences as those of other writers.
Calypso Dreaming“Holiday Work”New World OrdersCritical-creative divideBias in readingEcofeminist criticism