A Writer's Online Presence

Not an agent or an editor, but I'm a reader. And when I find a good writer I like, I want to know more about them. I always google for a website or blog. It helps keep me updated about when the author is releasing something new and I feel like I can read up on the author.

I don't think people need to go overboard, ya know? But, I think it's nice to be able to find something about an author online.

A good online presence isn't required, but it is appreciated.

If you're not very good at that sort of thing, though, you're probably better off without it. A bad website or dull twitter-feed can do more harm than good.

You know you could always have someone else you trust or pay someone to make you a website and get it recognized. But if you don't want to get caught up with that you don't have too, but I always think it is good to make one.

Seconding Old Hack. Not required, but appreciated and often to your benefit.

If you're not interested in the interactive applications, just do a website. You don't have to include tons of - or any - personal information if you don't want to. But it will create a landing place for readers, and provide a launchpad back to buy links, reviews, mentions of upcoming books, et cetera. And, to repeat Old Hack again, if you're going to do it, make sure it's done well.

FWIW, plain & simple, I grok your position - and I completely agree that your (or anyone's) privacy is sacred. I, too, shun social networking and have no interest or intention of compromising. There will be no web presence, no blog, etc... Admittedly, it's been problematic for some folks more concerned with the marketing end of things, but I personally don't care. Sales figures don't motivate me; the creative aspect of writing does.

Do what you feel is right for you - you're the one who'll have to live with it. Best of Luck!

Just a thought, but I'm someone else who is opposed to Facebook, Twitter, and the like. However, I've always thought it would be fun to do a fake Facebook page for a character. If you were required, you could probably get around having to make it about you with something of that nature. You wouldn't have to reveal anything private you didn't want to.

I suspect it's not all that important to normal, average readers who aren't also writers, but I can't speak for publishers or agents. I hardly ever look at an author's website, though I might check wikipedia or goodreads for a list of works and the order of them. I don't really care if they collect marbles or have cockatiels or are lapsed Methodists or what their favorite recipes are. I'd rather have them writing another good book than tweeting and blogging.

I tell you what, next time I'm at the library, I'll ask every friendly person there if they've ever looked at any author's website and report back to you if even one says "yes." I'm betting they'll all say "no."

plain and simple said:

I have absolutely no interest in online social networking.

Click to expand...

Except you're posting on a social network. Not only that, but you've managed to find the AW website, register (which means you have an email account), and you've figured out how to post. That's more than my grandmother can do. So... why do you think you have no interest in it?

Sorry it just really surprises me when people say things like this. The internet and online communication isn't going anywhere, so why would you want to stay in the dark, behind the times?

CrystalCierlak said:

Sorry it just really surprises me when people say things like this. The internet and online communication isn't going anywhere, so why would you want to stay in the dark, behind the times?

Click to expand...

He might want to spend his time writing his next book, which is a viable methodology.

There are a lot of authors who don't interact with the public.

If you sell a novel, you'll get all the online presence you need at that point. Readers read books, not online presence, and while any fan likes reading more about his favorite writer, no one stops reading books they love because you are all over the Internet.

It's just not something to worry about, if you're going with traditional publishing.

... some publishing houses demand it. And if you're not willing to comply you'll get kicked to the curb or put out with the rubbish. These houses explicitly state the requirement right on their webpage or in their guidelines. Some agents do this too. If you're sub'ing to them expect to follow suit and fall in line -- or else. With other pubs it's up in the air. Maybe they'll want you to and maybe they won't, but I'm guessing that they won't be insistent and if you're really not into it they'll let you slide, while rolling their eyes about your not owning a tv and whatnot. (Very cool in my own opinion, btw.) Good luck. And the bottomline is to sign with a publishing house that is on the same page as you. There are ones that embrace the new technology whole heartedly and others that grudgingly accept it at best. You'll probably want to be hooking up with the later.

lorna_w said:

I tell you what, next time I'm at the library, I'll ask every friendly person there if they've ever looked at any author's website and report back to you if even one says "yes." I'm betting they'll all say "no."

Click to expand...

Want to include authors' Facebook pages in your survey? It seems FB has now become a critical part of online marketing.

kaitie said:

Just a thought, but I'm someone else who is opposed to Facebook, Twitter, and the like. However, I've always thought it would be fun to do a fake Facebook page for a character. If you were required, you could probably get around having to make it about you with something of that nature. You wouldn't have to reveal anything private you didn't want to.

Click to expand...

I'm also personally wary of using FB for socializing. (I do have a page with fake identity to play games or check pages when it demands an account. I hate those bots wanting to befriend me.) However, I think a "professional" Facebook page is advantageous to marketing you (as an author) and your works.

I know of several really good publishers which do not require a website, Facebook pages, or any other sort of online presence.

I know of several really good publishers which build and maintain websites for many of their writers, because their writers choose not to.

Writing good books is our first, and main, priority.

plain and simple said:

To answer CrystialCierlak's question, yes, I have an e-mail account. However, it's a junk account, created with false information, that I only use to register with sites I'm interested in. It's not that I don't know how to use social networking. I'm not "behind the times" or "in the dark" at all. Quite the contrary. I'm fully aware and capable of using every resource the internet has to offer. If needed, I have no doubt I could use these tools very successfully. I just choose not to. As I said, it's more a matter of trust than anything. I'm grateful for your post because I get asked similar questions often. My answer is one many people who do use social networking haven't considered.

Click to expand...

I ask because I happen to study social media. It's pretty rare that I meet someone who is so distrustful of it. I'm just going to keep my opinions to myself on this one.

I've seen several editors/agents tweet that if they can't find you online (even a basic website will do) then they'll consider it odd, or not harmful exactly, but they wonder if you know about that kind of stuff. I don't know that any have said it would lead them to reject a great story. Maybe a matter of showing willing?

But a basic website is easy to do (you can do something simple in wordpress, and it's free!), and you don't have to put up any info you don't want.

Ken said:

... some publishing houses demand it. And if you're not willing to comply you'll get kicked to the curb or put out with the rubbish. These houses explicitly state the requirement right on their webpage or in their guidelines. Some agents do this too.

Click to expand...

Do you have any examples of these that you can think of offhand? I'm curious, and would like to read how they word their requirements...

I feel you. I so feel you.

And these threads always make me self-conscious.

I am a boring person by nature. There are simply not enough interesting things that happen (that I most likely am not willing to share) to me. So, we are kindasorta expected to have a web presence but don't be boring.

Fine. So to be non-boring, I have to spend time --time I could spend writing-- trying to come up with a non-boring blog post. Which, since I am so dreadfully boring, is a lot of time trying to be non-boring. Then do this 2-3 times a week?

Already I need to reach for the paper bag to breathe....

Then there's the site itself. I have a wordpress blog-thing. As I mentioned above, I'm boring. Not only am I boring now, so is my layout. I see slick customized blogs all the time and I just get so very tired when thinking about how I'll need to figure out how wordpress works to have a customized blog that has mastheads and all the bells and whistles....

Now, I need to go lie down because I'm exhausted and I haven't written yet!

twitter? Don't get me started on twitter. I think my cluelessness is showing because I use it more to respond to people than to come up with clever tweets.

Let's face it. I'm boring. :/

I saw an agent on Twitter saying something about this just yesterday. If you follow me on Twitter, you can check my tweets from yesterday...I retweeted said agent. It was a string of about 4-5 tweets. It looks like said agent liked what they read and then looked for an online presence of some kind and found absolutely NOTHING. Said agent's tweets were about this topic. Said agent said that they would like to know that there is a commitment that the writer takes it seriously, etc. In short, with no bio included with the submission and no online presence...the writer could be a one off with no interest of pursuing writing as a full time commitment.

Then again...I immediately thought of my own online presence and pondered how detrimental it probably really is. There is a middle ground. I don't know how to act professional most of the time. In person...this sometimes works and sometimes doesn't...in the internetz, there is a trail. You have to be more careful and pointed than I have been.

CrystalCierlak said:

I ask because I happen to study social media. It's pretty rare that I meet someone who is so distrustful of it. I'm just going to keep my opinions to myself on this one.

Click to expand...

I just wanted to say that I'm in the same boat as the OP, and it has nothing to do with wanting to remain behind the times. Facebook in particular has had numerous privacy issues, and now that they've become an IPO, I trust them even less. The two times I've seriously considered it, I was hit both times with news stories the same day about huge breaches showing private information to the public. There are advertisers buying information, likely more of that to come, and so on.

But just to provide you with another viewpoint, it's more than that. I dislike how impersonal it is. I hate how people can't even think to send an email or call to invite you to a party anymore (I've been told so many times "Well, we wanted to invite you, but you weren't on Facebook. *facepalm*).

I think they feed an egocentric side of the world and reinforce the idea of casual relationships with little depth over strong ones. I'm also not interested in having another time sink when there are only so many hours in the day. So many people I know can't go five minutes without checking their status. I think people are less productive (think of how much work people would get done without Facebook and twitter to check).

I have bigger issues with twitter, aside from just not getting it and finding it annoying/stupid. No offense to those who like it. Everyone has their own opinions and all. I've tried, dislike it, and it's just not my kind of thing. Aside from that, though, I also have very serious concerns about how it has basically become a global rumor mill. There have been stories of very serious consequences coming out of it. Someone in Mexico said gunmen were shooting up a school, and when parents rushed to find out there were accidents, etc. People in China spread rumors that you had to eat tons of salt to avoid radiation poisoning from Japan. Misinformation is constantly listed and spread and a lot of people just take it at face value and spread it more. I can think of another case recently where agents spread a story that decimated an agency for a rejection, but the true story turned out to be more complicated, but now those original stories are out there and the agency has had to face consequences for it.

In other words, I have serious questions as to whether or not the negatives might outweigh the positives. I have to get ready for work now, but there. Another perspective. Maybe I'm just mistrustful, but that's me. I could give you more reasons, but I'm out of time.

kaitie said:

But just to provide you with another viewpoint, it's more than that. I dislike how impersonal it is. I hate how people can't even think to send an email or call to invite you to a party anymore (I've been told so many times "Well, we wanted to invite you, but you weren't on Facebook. *facepalm*).

Click to expand...

I recall a new feature for facebook that lists where you are. The reason they touted this was such a useful feature was when you were like, say, going to a party and were lost, you'd update facebook, the others at the party could see where you are and then give you directions to get there.

...because calling was clearly not an option. Even though they were most likely posting their status of being lost on their cellphone and the rest were probably checking facebook on their cellphone.

I think with social media/blogs etc, the thing is you don't have to do all of them.

I rarely go to FB, but I make sure my twitter feed posts to it, as does my blog (which, along with any additions to my website, also posts to twitter and goodreads) so I only need to do one thing and it goes to more than one place.

So if you prefer to blog rather than twitter, do that. If you prefer to tweet, do that (I can never think of anything to blog about so....). Pick one you're comfortable with - you're more likely to make an effective use of it then. But also think about linking that one thing to other platforms. Time management, baby!

IdiotsRUs said:

Time management, baby!

Click to expand...

You're so organized!