I do somewhat, yes. I think I came up in an era where the publishing world was a bit insular. [that's one way of looking at it; an alternative way would be to say in the old days you had to be able to write to get something published.] there was more print and radio media and less tv, much less internet, too.

the upshot of that is that my conditioning had me seeing book world of the 60s and 70s as a sort of community. I know quite a bit of background on many of the people who were big names. in addition to that, many of them wrote, at some point, about their own lives. or someone else wrote their biographies.

I find all of it interesting. it doesn't necessarily illuminate or ruin whatever they wrote, for me. it's simply interesting.

when it comes to sci-fi and fantasy: I've been a side eyed skeptic from those days too. I just read too much of it not to infer that for many of them, it was alluring more because of the "freedom" to step beyond current social constraints. that's great when it's experimenting with concepts like hey, maybe race shouldn't matter. but far too much sci Fi/fantasy just used the genre to handwave far more real emotional truths - such as, for instance, real live 10 year-olds don't necessarily want to be some adult's sexbot.

I didn't conclude anything about the individual authors -that seems to be a more latter-day hobby. but nothing much that I've learned was much of a surprise.