Remember that this is what we "SHOULD" know about authors.
That is where the offense comes in.
The idea that we should color books intentionally.
If it isn't with the intent to color our view of the book then the statement of "Should" has no place within the discussion and Novel has no arguement whatsoever.
What if you've already read the books but still didn't know? What if you don't intend to read the books? Should a book be given a fair chance
before it's read? Of course, but biographical information about the author is useful, interesting, and worthwhile if you've already read the books. It
is important to know about the author after the fact because that has a great deal of weight on any possible interpretations thereof. It can also be useful before the fact. I'm a strong follower of the death of the author theory, but that doesn't meant that the author's beliefs, history, and intent aren't worthwhile information to know when thinking about a book. The only kind of coloring that is a problem is the propagandistic kind which tries only to get you to interpret it their way or which tries to poison you against the book without your knowledge.
If you would like to have a good picture of a book you need a lot of context, most of that context is historical and has nothing to do with the author, but the context of the author is also quite important to any interpretation of a book. You can take the book on its own value, and there are plenty of things to be said for that, but that's not the only way to interpret something, and personally, I believe that when reflecting on a book in its intentions you need to consider
all possible interpretations.