A writer should be invisible. Agree or disagree?

Should a writer be invisible? This is a question I thought about for a decent amount of time before attempting to answer, and to cut a lengthily personal debate short this is a topic I am still conflicted about.

Knowing details about an author can be of great benefit to the reader and wider audience on how they read a specific text and interpret the meaning behind it. Looking at Emily Dickinson for example, knowledge that she lived a secluded life during the American civil war at a time when religious ideology was still prevalent and women had strict expectations placed on them helps to give context to many of her poems and greatly benefits the reading of her work. It is clear to the influences of the civil war in poems such as 409 which opens with “They dropped like flakes, they dropped like stars, Like petals from a rose.” The interpretation behind this is that she is talking about soldiers dying in battle.

However it is known that Dickinson wrote many poems for her sister in law Susan (it is implied that Emily held great affection for) and wanted her work destroyed after her death. Does this mean that we should look at every poem she wrote with the preconception that it is written about the war or with Susan in mind? This knowledge can greatly alter the interpretation of a text and can often lead to reading more into a text than what was intended.

To wrap up my view is that a reader must be vigilant when interpreting a text with knowledge about the author in mind, sometimes things are meant to be taken at face value.