to continue our norwegian theme...

i would like to talk about the author Knut Hamsun and at the same time pose a philosophical question that has moral implications (thank you, issac).

Knut Hamsun was a Norwegian author. A nobel prize winner for literature, at that. He was also a Nazi.

about his work- it is said by some that his first novel, Hunger, presaged the writings of Kafka with its internal monologue and bizarre logic.

his most common theme is that of the wanderer (who is often the narrator in his novels), a man who shows up and insinuates himself into the life of small rural communities. this theme shows itself in at least four of his novels.

He was a naturalist, and often wrote huge passages about the wonders of nature and the beauty of the Norwegian woodlands. for this he is associated with the spiritual movement pantheism. He saw mankind and nature united in a strong, sometimes mystical bond.

He won the nobel prize in 1920.

POLITICS- for this i am going to quote straight from another source as it's just to much to paraphrase and i can't even bring myself to write about these horrible things--

Hamsun was a prominent advocate of Germany and German culture, as well as a rhetorical opponent of British imperialism and the Soviet Union, and he supported Germany both during First and the Second World War. Following a meeting with Joseph Goebbels in 1943, he sent Goebbels his Nobel Prize medal as a gift.
While in his 80s, and largely deaf, Hamsun met with Adlof Hitler.

this is my own now-- as the story goes, after Hitler's meeting with Hamsun, Hitler was so disgusted by how despicable Hamsun was that he told his assistant that he never again wanted to meet the man, and that he was the most horrible person he had ever met in his life. that's saying a lot coming from fing Hitler!

Hamsun wrote Nazi propaganda and after Hilter's death called him, "a warrior for mankind".

Here's my philosophical question: Hamsun is unarguably one of the greatest writers of all time. His works are genius and his portrayal of the human condition is astounding. Should we ignore the fact that he was such a horrid person and take his art at face value, respecting it as we would had he been a great man, or should we boycott him? should we refuse to read the works of a man that was obviously such a horrible human being?

in short- can you separate the art from the artist?