PDA

View Full Version : Writers should be read but neither seen nor heard



HelloKiddo
01-07-2010, 01:51 AM
The title is a quote from Daphne du Maurier.

Do you agree? How much exposure do you think is good for writers?

Does knowing more about a writer typically help or hurt how much you enjoy their work? And if you think it helps, what type of exposure do you think is good for writers?

Cyia
01-07-2010, 01:56 AM
This isn't the world that du Maurier lived in. Being seen and heard is a given and sometimes a necessity.

Someone with that credo wouldn't last long today, nor would someone with people skills like some of the more famous "classic" authors. YouTube could have destroyed Hemingway, not to mention how dangerous Twitter would have been for him to shoot of opinions left and right at will.

gothicangel
01-07-2010, 02:03 AM
Last year I had the pleasure of going to book talks by Ian Rankin and Val McDermid. I particularly love hearing Ian Rankin, if he's doing a tv spot I'm there! :D

the addster
01-07-2010, 02:04 AM
I would be like so following Hemingway on twitter. He would at least be interesting.

I agree that it's unrealistic in today's world.

Personally I don't really care about what the writers I read do in their spare time, had for lunch, or what they think is funny on YouTube.

But, I know others do. If you aren't overexposed these days, you aren't exposed at all.

I think good exposure for writers, or anyone else, is carefully controlled exposure.

HelloKiddo
01-07-2010, 02:09 AM
This isn't the world that du Maurier lived in. Being seen and heard is a given and sometimes a necessity.

Someone with that credo wouldn't last long today, nor would someone with people skills like some of the more famous "classic" authors. YouTube could have destroyed Hemingway, not to mention how dangerous Twitter would have been for him to shoot of opinions left and right at will.

I understand that Cyia. I'm asking how you feel about it. Do you think this culture of too much exposure is hurting writers and taking something away from their work?

scarletpeaches
01-07-2010, 02:12 AM
I would like to see a world where all that mattered to readers was the book.

I sell my writing, not my soul and sorry, but if over-exposure is required - and I don't believe it is - then the agent or publisher who requires it won't get my signature.

Privacy is still possible and, in my "What, you're being serious today, Scarlett?" opinion, far, far more dignified than scattering crumbs of yourself before the public.

maxmordon
01-07-2010, 02:16 AM
Umberto Eco saids in the foreword of The Name of the Rose that a writer should die after finishing his or her work, since whatever the people want to see, whatever they want it to interpret it, it's there. While the writer, giving his opinions about it, kinda ruin it.

I was talking about this with my father, I had this idea, about how beautiful would be if works were all anonymous since you see a man, say, Stephen King, you already expect horror from Stephen King and he's limited to it, he can't write a teenage romance fiction for Harlequin since people would say that is so not-Stephen King and it's unfair for the writer.

Another example but on cinema, Stanley Kubrick, the Stanley Kubrick who made the newsreel The Flying Padre, a young New Yorkie photographer from Look magazine, it's not the same artiste lauraeate that made Wide Eyes Shut. It castrates the artist and don't allow them to evolve properly, perhaps.

Borges always talked about the two Borges: himself and the mystical writing persona. At the end of his life, he didn't know which one was the one writing.

Sophia
01-07-2010, 02:20 AM
Does knowing more about a writer typically help or hurt how much you enjoy their work? And if you think it helps, what type of exposure do you think is good for writers?

There is one case where it's made me enjoy a writer's work much more, and that is China Mieville. He doesn't have a blog or any kind of social networking web presence. What he does is detailed interviews where he talks about what inspires him, the particular things in speculative fiction that he loves and is passionate about, and what he tries to do in his writing for his readers. I found that very interesting, and now look at stories of his that initially didn't quite work for me in a different light. So I think that exposure that talks about writing is good - although that might only be to other writers!

icerose
01-07-2010, 02:34 AM
Umberto Eco saids in the foreword of The Name of the Rose that a writer should die after finishing his or her work, since whatever the people want to see, whatever they want it to interpret it, it's there. While the writer, giving his opinions about it, kinda ruin it.

I was talking about this with my father, I had this idea, about how beautiful would be if works were all anonymous since you see a man, say, Stephen King, you already expect horror from Stephen King and he's limited to it, he can't write a teenage romance fiction for Harlequin since people would say that is so not-Stephen King and it's unfair for the writer.



It's called a pen name.

Stephan King writes under three I believe. (I could be wrong but I know he uses more than one writer name). He has also written dramas (green mile) and fantasy (Talisman/dark tower) as well as western (gunslinger). And yeah, I realize Stephan King is a pen name too.

All of which were madly successful.

Nora Roberts is another example who writes under at least two different names and has been successful at both.

There are so many others. But no, it doesn't pigeon hole a writer into being forced to write a certain thing. Now that doesn't guarantee they'll be successful in other arenas (Dr. Seuss was a good example) but it certainly won't stop them from writing in other genres unless they let it.

icerose
01-07-2010, 02:37 AM
As for the OP I say it depends on the exposure. If they're dissing fans, throwing hissy fits, and making themselves out to be jack asses then yeah it can definitely hurt, just like it hurts every other person on this planet who make their career off public opinions.

Other things that can hurt are strong political/religious/whatever agendas can turn off a portion of readers too.

Kitty Pryde
01-07-2010, 02:40 AM
I would disagree. If I read a really awesome author's blog, I'm more inclined to go read/buy their stuff. When I go to an author signing event, I fall madly in love with them and they have a fan for life!

The exception, I guess, would be authors who make asses of themselves. I won't buy Orson Scott Card or John C. Wright books anymore, because they are publicly anti-gay and anti-MY civil rights. Before I read the crap they wrote on the subject, I liked them and would often recommend their books to others. So they lost loyal fans. I'll never pick up a Brandon Sanderson novel either, for the same reason (though he stated his opinion in a gentler and slightly less hurtful way), so he lost a potential reader who is a big nerd and reads lots of fantasy novels. I can't give my hard earned money to someone who would vote against my civil rights.

ETA: Making me a great example of what Icerose was talking about.


There is one case where it's made me enjoy a writer's work much more, and that is China Mieville. He doesn't have a blog or any kind of social networking web presence. What he does is detailed interviews where he talks about what inspires him, the particular things in speculative fiction that he loves and is passionate about, and what he tries to do in his writing for his readers. I found that very interesting, and now look at stories of his that initially didn't quite work for me in a different light. So I think that exposure that talks about writing is good - although that might only be to other writers!

ROFL! I was just this morning investigating a link, and China Mieville apparently has a new blog. It's entirely nonsensical to me, but it's Mieville and so it works. http://chinamieville.net/

Polenth
01-07-2010, 02:45 AM
I buy books based on internet contact with authors. Usually it's because they wrote an interesting blog post and I read some writing samples afterwards. This doesn't make me more or less likely to enjoy their work... it's more that I didn't know their work existed before seeing them online.

I don't like over-sharing though. Some life details can be interesting, but I don't want to know the graphic details of every argument they've ever had. It's like some authors think their readers are their therapists.

eyeblink
01-07-2010, 02:54 AM
Thomas Harris is fairly reclusive, and that's nothing compared to Thomas Pynchon. I could add J.D. Salinger, but he's over ninety now and hasn't published anything in decades. There are only three known photographs of Pynchon, none of them recent. Hasn't done his career any harm, if anything it's added to his mystique.

Hardly anyone in the SF world has met Greg Egan. Thomas Ligotti is another writer who doesn't go round pressing the flesh, though a friend of mine is an email correspondent of his. That said, Ligotti writes short fiction rather than novels, which is a working definition of "not famous" except to aficionados of dark fantasy and horror.

So it can be done. In all these cases enormous talent helps.

ChaosTitan
01-07-2010, 03:10 AM
Unless you're one of the few authors lucky enough to get a contract that includes a huge publicity push from your publisher, then you need to be both seen and heard. Otherwise, how will the buying public have ever heard of you? For every person who prefers to browse a store and make their selection based on the cover and blurb, there's another reader who buys based on recommendations or because they've heard about a book in advance.

The few weeks before my novel was released, I did a bunch of different guest blogs and interviews on various book review sites, book blogs, etc... And I bet every third or fourth comment on those posts went something along the lines of "I haven't heard of this one before, but it sounds interesting, I may check it out!" That's one more person who may remember my name/book cover the next time they see it in a store.

If authors don't care if they sell, by all means, don't be seen or heard. There's a balance to be had, of course. We've all heard the Ann Rice meltdown stories. No one should ever aspire to that level of nuttiness in public.

eyeblink
01-07-2010, 03:25 AM
I'm not disagreeing, by the way, just playing Devil's Advocate a little. I'll certainly be trying to be seen and heard if I get a novel published, as I did when I had a short-fiction collection published.

Pynchon and Salinger made their names in the Fifties, and things were different then. Egan has a website and has an online presence - but you could argue that his reclusiveness is something that makes him interesting, more than someone who goes to every convention and book launch going. And as I said above, Egan can back this up with his considerable talent.

While the idealistic part of me would like to think that a novel should speak for itself, I realise that that's not realistic these days. It's even less realistic when you're starting out.

Phaeal
01-07-2010, 03:47 AM
It depends on the writer. Those who do the equivalent of a Tom Cruise couch dance or who spout irrelevant political venom do themselves no favors. (Well, unless they're writing their wacky celeb memoir or political venom for the true believers.)

On the other hand, if you can be as simultaneously hilarious and menschish as Neil Gaiman, get out there!

Me, I don't go out of the way to read about writers, unless they're writing about writing, which can be illuminating.

kaitie
01-07-2010, 03:49 AM
It's called a pen name.

Stephan King writes under three I believe. (I could be wrong but I know he uses more than one writer name). He has also written dramas (green mile) and fantasy (Talisman/dark tower) as well as western (gunslinger). And yeah, I realize Stephan King is a pen name too.

All of which were madly successful.

Nora Roberts is another example who writes under at least two different names and has been successful at both.

There are so many others. But no, it doesn't pigeon hole a writer into being forced to write a certain thing. Now that doesn't guarantee they'll be successful in other arenas (Dr. Seuss was a good example) but it certainly won't stop them from writing in other genres unless they let it.

Stephen King isn't a pen name, it's real name. And the problem with this example is that his pen name, Richard Bachman, is also one that everyone knows. In fact, whenever a Bachman book comes out now, it's a bit fun to read because you know it's going to be an artistic journey into the same writer writing the story from a different perspective, so to speak. It's a bit like Joe Hill (his son). Yes Joe Hill is his pen name, and I call him Joe Hill, but it doesn't mean people don't know who he is.

I wish this was true, btw. One of the things I've always liked about writers is that even famous ones, unlike other celebrities, aren't necessarily out there. I'm a private person. I don't like random people knowing things about my life or my opinions or anything that isn't relevant to my writing. I actually think of the current situations in terms of, "Oh great. I guess I'll have to actually have a blog one day. No idea how that'll work because my life is boring and I'm certainly not going to be telling strangers about it anyway." (Have I ever mentioned I'm not a fan of blogs in general, either? I kinda hate the things...well 99% of them). I will never tweet, period. I've managed to get this far without a Facebook page and would love it if I could manage to never have one.

I think even if you do have a pen name, though, you're still expected to be "out there" so to speak. The only decent thing about the whole situation is that I really don't think people go into a bookstore and say, "Oh I'm not going to buy this book because the author doesn't have a blog." At best, it might give some people a personal sense of knowing you (am I the only person in the world who doesn't necessarily want to "know" some of my idols? I sorta like idolizing them, honestly) and encourage them to buy more of your books in the future or build up a fan base. At worst, you might act like Anne Rice and have a bunch of people turned off by the crazy stuff you say online and lose all desire to ready anything you write.

I also think there's a tendency to overpersonalize and reveal too much information in blogs, though, and that always makes me nervous to see. Partly it's usually boring, but you never know who's out there reading. Going back to Stephen King, I remember a few years back when he had a crazy guy show up in his kitchen with a "bomb" (luckily it wasn't a real one, he just thought it was). And Stephen King isn't exactly the most exposed person out there. There are some really crazy people out there, and if I don't have control over who sees the things I write, I want to darn sure have control over what information they see.

I'm half asleep and rambly, so pardon any lack of coherence that may be present.

Kitty Pryde
01-07-2010, 03:56 AM
Stephen King isn't a pen name, it's real name. And the problem with this example is that his pen name, Richard Bachman, is also one that everyone knows. In fact, whenever a Bachman book comes out now, it's a bit fun to read because you know it's going to be an artistic journey into the same writer writing the story from a different perspective, so to speak. It's a bit like Joe Hill (his son). Yes Joe Hill is his pen name, and I call him Joe Hill, but it doesn't mean people don't know who he is.


But Joe Hill toiled away in obscurity for a decade, writing and trying to become successful on his own merit, without anyone knowing he was SK's son. And it's easy to see why he would want to have a pen name back then. It's only in the last few years that his secret is out...and it's not like he's going to change his name now that he has gained a decent amount of publicity.

JMBlackman
01-07-2010, 04:04 AM
Do you think this culture of too much exposure is hurting writers and taking something away from their work?

I think there is such thing as too much exposure and depending on the information, and how it's presented, it could take away from one's work. If people are more concerned about the author and what they're up to than they are where the book is concerned, I think it could become harmful.

That being said, I often wonder about how authors get to where they are, what they were thinking at certain points in the book; sometimes, I want more, miscellaneous details about characters or a book--so, that type of information seems useful and helpful to me.

I think it just depends on what and how and how much.

bettielee
01-07-2010, 04:08 AM
I have a face for the internet and a body made for radio.

:)

eyeblink
01-07-2010, 04:09 AM
But Joe Hill toiled away in obscurity for a decade, writing and trying to become successful on his own merit, without anyone knowing he was SK's son. And it's easy to see why he would want to have a pen name back then. It's only in the last few years that his secret is out...and it's not like he's going to change his name now that he has gained a decent amount of publicity.

Agreed - I read my first Joe Hill story in 1997 in a small-press anthology called Palace Corbie 7, an excellent (and very harrowing) story called "The Lady Rests". Ellen Datlow gave it an honourable mention in that year's Year's Best Fantasy & Horror.

Joe Hill attended the (British) Fantasycon in 2004, as he was up twice for a BFS Award for two stories published in The Third Alternative. Also, his collection from PS Publishing (Twentieth Century Ghosts) was being launched at the convention. The editors of TTA and PS both swore blind they didn't know that Joe Hill was Stephen King's son (Hill was "outed" shortly afterwards) and that they had accepted the stories/collection purely on merit, and I have no reason to doubt them. Mind you, there were whisperings going around that convention as people said, "Doesn't he look like..."

icerose
01-07-2010, 04:18 AM
Wow, I did not know Stephan King was his real name. I learned something new today. That's awesome. Anyway, back to the scheduled thread.

kaitie
01-07-2010, 04:20 AM
But Joe Hill toiled away in obscurity for a decade, writing and trying to become successful on his own merit, without anyone knowing he was SK's son. And it's easy to see why he would want to have a pen name back then. It's only in the last few years that his secret is out...and it's not like he's going to change his name now that he has gained a decent amount of publicity.

I know, I was just pointing out that having a pen name doesn't necessarily guarantee obscurity or that people won't know who you really are. I always think of Joe Hill, particularly considering he was "outted" and didn't reveal his name willingly. That was the only real point I was trying to make. ;)

Ken
01-07-2010, 04:45 AM
... if the author is dull and boring then it is probably best they are neither seen nor heard. But if they are halfway interesting I couldn't see how it would hurt them to step out into the limelight on occasion and let their hair down. Getting to know some authors here, on AW, has made me interested in reading their works, even in genres I'd otherwise be uninterested in. In short, it puts a face on a name.

kuwisdelu
01-07-2010, 04:58 AM
Umberto Eco saids in the foreword of The Name of the Rose that a writer should die after finishing his or her work, since whatever the people want to see, whatever they want it to interpret it, it's there. While the writer, giving his opinions about it, kinda ruin it.

I was going to post this, but it seems -- for possibly the first time in the history of AW -- someone beat me to bringing up Eco. :eek:

Anyway, I agree. A great writer ought to have the common decency to die upon completion of his greatest work.

Don't take this post too seriously.

William Haskins
01-07-2010, 05:04 AM
i would never say or do anything that might encourage anyone to talk any more than they already do.

maxmordon
01-07-2010, 05:13 AM
I was going to post this, but it seems -- for possibly the first time in the history of AW -- someone beat me to bringing up Eco. :eek:

Anyway, I agree. A great writer ought to have the common decency to die upon completion of his greatest work.

Don't take this post too seriously.

Strange minds think alike :D

Matera the Mad
01-07-2010, 05:20 AM
I suppose it depends on the author. I didn't care for Anne Rice with her mouth closed. And I haunt some authors' blogs and fansites.

AuburnAssassin
01-07-2010, 05:31 AM
In my more grandiose dreams of being a renowned author, it was always under a veil of secrecy to protect my privacy and that of my family.

CaroGirl
01-07-2010, 06:59 PM
Can I argue that Daphne Dumaurier didn't mean doing publicity interviews when she coined that quote? I believe she was talking about authorial intrusion in the work itself. She meant write the story but leave yourself (and your politics, religion, and so on) out of it.

Shadow_Ferret
01-07-2010, 07:02 PM
The title is a quote from Daphne du Maurier.

Do you agree? How much exposure do you think is good for writers?

Does knowing more about a writer typically help or hurt how much you enjoy their work? And if you think it helps, what type of exposure do you think is good for writers?

You know what? Write your books and shut up. I don't care about a writer's opinions. I don't care what their favorite food is. I don't give a shit about their politics or personal lives.

Just write another book already and shut up.

willietheshakes
01-07-2010, 07:14 PM
You know what? Write your books and shut up. I don't care about a writer's opinions. I don't care what their favorite food is. I don't give a shit about their politics or personal lives.

Just write another book already and shut up.

Some people, on the other hand, DO care. They're interested in the opinions, the work habits, the quirkiness, behind the words.

Do feel free to change the channel, though.

ETA: There is something a little, I don't know, ironic, about a member with over 15,000 posts on a writers' board urging writers to shut up and not share their opinions...

DeleyanLee
01-07-2010, 07:16 PM
I might be weird, but I've never gone looking for an author's website or blog just 'cause I liked one of their books. It's probably my age showing, since I'm older than the internet, but it just never occurs to me that such a thing might exist. But, then, I don't care about them as people, I care about them for the job they do. As long as they continue to do their job--writing story I want to read, then I'm happy.

But, then, I feel that way about actors, politicians and anyone else "in the public eye". Don't care what they eat, who they're sleeping with, where they live, anything that doesn't affect whether or not they can do the job I'm "hiring" them for.

Yes, I do realize that should I sell something and get popular there is that expectation that suddenly my life should be open to my fans and they'll demand varying degrees of access to it. If that's a requirement, I'm going to have an extremely short career and I'm good with that. There's enough if me in my work, I'm not putting any more out for public consumption and judgment.

ChaosTitan
01-07-2010, 07:27 PM
ETA: There is something a little, I don't know, ironic, about a member with over 15,000 posts on a writers' board urging writers to shut up and not share their opinions...

I was thinking the same thing.

*putters off to write something*

C.M.C.
01-07-2010, 07:29 PM
They should only be seen/heard if they have something to say.

Cav Guy
01-07-2010, 07:37 PM
You know what? Write your books and shut up. I don't care about a writer's opinions. I don't care what their favorite food is. I don't give a shit about their politics or personal lives.

Just write another book already and shut up.

Gotta agree. If they want to share their opinions and such, fine, but I really don't care what my favorite authors think about the price of nutmeg in Sumatra or what their favorite latte flavor happens to be.

Should such sharing be a requirement? No, I don't think so. Some people are hooked on social networking and the like, while other aren't. And IMO it should stay that way.

lucidzfl
01-07-2010, 08:10 PM
But, but, I'm so good looking, and so personable and funny.... To hide me from the general public would be a sin!

lucidzfl
01-07-2010, 08:11 PM
ETA: There is something a little, I don't know, ironic, about a member with over 15,000 posts on a writers' board urging writers to shut up and not share their opinions...

Allow me to simply reply to this with a well thought out, properly formed.

LOL

Jamesaritchie
01-07-2010, 09:30 PM
I suspect the world would be better off if 99.9% of all the people in it were neither seen nor heard. I could sure as hell do without seeing and hearing any more politicians, Hollywood actors, talking heads babbling about Tiger Woods, etc.

Writers do not need to be seen or heard to be huge successes. But writers are just poeple, and darned few people can resist the urge to spout of on any given subject, if given the opportunity.

NeuroFizz
01-07-2010, 10:07 PM
A writer should seek a level of exposure that suits his/her personality, and if thrust upon him/her, should neither sidestep queries on his/her artistic approaches nor expound on them to the point that his/her intellectual flanks are exposed.

kuwisdelu
01-07-2010, 11:32 PM
I'd give my real opinion but it won't let me because I'm a writer.

Damn.

Shadow_Ferret
01-07-2010, 11:39 PM
Some people, on the other hand, DO care. They're interested in the opinions, the work habits, the quirkiness, behind the words.

Do feel free to change the channel, though.

ETA: There is something a little, I don't know, ironic, about a member with over 15,000 posts on a writers' board urging writers to shut up and not share their opinions...

I think there's a difference between this, a forum of ideas where we can all talk and disagree, and a writer using his status as celebrity to further his own political and social agendas. And I'm not singling out just writers, but all celebrities. Actors, for instance, who play a role in one movie then begin to speak as experts on the tribulations of Tibet or something.

Jamesaritchie
01-07-2010, 11:40 PM
Can I argue that Daphne Dumaurier didn't mean doing publicity interviews when she coined that quote? I believe she was talking about authorial intrusion in the work itself. She meant write the story but leave yourself (and your politics, religion, and so on) out of it.

Then she's a complete idiot.

willietheshakes
01-07-2010, 11:51 PM
I think there's a difference between this, a forum of ideas where we can all talk and disagree, and a writer using his status as celebrity to further his own political and social agendas. And I'm not singling out just writers, but all celebrities. Actors, for instance, who play a role in one movie then begin to speak as experts on the tribulations of Tibet or something.

I go back to my original point (though I note that you've shifted the parameters of your argument): some people ARE interested.

They can tune in, and you can tune out. Telling a whole group of people (well, groups, now, apparently) to shut up, though, is a little heavy-handed...

HelloKiddo
01-07-2010, 11:52 PM
Can I argue that Daphne Dumaurier didn't mean doing publicity interviews when she coined that quote? I believe she was talking about authorial intrusion in the work itself. She meant write the story but leave yourself (and your politics, religion, and so on) out of it.

That's possible. I don't know where the quote is from, I just found it on another website. Certainly she did interviews and allowed herself to be filmed and recorded, so she wasn't bring literal when she said it (that or she changed her mind later).


You know what? Write your books and shut up. I don't care about a writer's opinions. I don't care what their favorite food is. I don't give a shit about their politics or personal lives.

Just write another book already and shut up.

Because you quoted my post directly above you when you said this, it read like you were telling me to shut up. That was unnerving...

Shadow_Ferret
01-08-2010, 12:05 AM
That's possible. I don't know where the quote is from, I just found it on anoth


Because you quoted my post directly above you when you said this, it read like you were telling me to shut up. That was unnerving...

Yes. I thought about that after I had posted it, if you'd think I was talking to you. I wasn't. Sorry. It was the royal You. :D


I go back to my original point (though I note that you've shifted the parameters of your argument): some people ARE interested.

They can tune in, and you can tune out. Telling a whole group of people (well, groups, now, apparently) to shut up, though, is a little heavy-handed...
You're right. Some people are interested. It's created a whole industry of paparazzi and TMZ snoops.

And I wasn't clear in my first post. I can turn the channel, except when it becomes news and the news starts quoting "So and so, leading a rally against such and such." I'm sorry. People are free to pursue their interests in celebrities, but when those celebrities start forcing their views on me, that's something else again.

willietheshakes
01-08-2010, 12:15 AM
Yes. I thought about that after I had posted it, if you'd think I was talking to you. I wasn't. Sorry. It was the royal You. :D


You're right. Some people are interested. It's created a whole industry of paparazzi and TMZ snoops.

People in the public eye have an appreciably bigger megaphone than those who aren't. Some misuse it (if I could make Paris Hilton disappear, I would), and some use it to the detriment of themselves (though Alec Baldwin seems to be doing all right, despite not moving to Canada), and others wear their heart on their sleeves for good or ill (your "shut up and write" trod awfully closely to the response to the Dixie Chicks a few years ago). Others, though, make good use of it that megaphone. Would the world really be a better place if Tori Amos had just shut up about rape, and not advocated on behalf of its victims? How many North Americans would have been unaware of Sun City, and apartheid, without the massive music industry effort in the mid 80s?

HelloKiddo
01-08-2010, 12:16 AM
Yes. I thought about that after I had posted it, if you'd think I was talking to you. I wasn't. Sorry. It was the royal You. :D

LOL. That's OK. I took the liberty of assuming the slight was unintended, although it did cause a moment of awkwardness on my end ;)

willietheshakes
01-08-2010, 12:17 AM
And I wasn't clear in my first post. I can turn the channel, except when it becomes news and the news starts quoting "So and so, leading a rally against such and such." I'm sorry. People are free to pursue their interests in celebrities, but when those celebrities start forcing their views on me, that's something else again.

Wait - your remote control won't let you turn off a news broadcast? Weird. You should have that looked at.

No one is "forcing" their views on you -- don't read the articles. Change the channel.

Shadow_Ferret
01-08-2010, 12:20 AM
*sigh*

Nevermind, willie.

I apologize all around if I offended anyone here.

I didn't mean to make anyone here upset. I keep forgetting that we're all writers and my making a blanket statement about writers might be taken the wrong way. I think of everyone here as friends.

I apologize.

HelloKiddo
01-08-2010, 12:24 AM
*sigh*

Nevermind, willie.

I apologize all around if I offended anyone here.

I didn't mean to make anyone here upset. I keep forgetting that we're all writers and my making a blanket statement about writers might be taken the wrong way. I think of everyone here as friends.

I apologize.

Sorry SF (if I was included in the group that upset you) :(

I wasn't actually offended, I know it was just an accident. It happens.

And I thought your post about exposure was interesting. I'm enjoying the discussion.

RainyDayNinja
01-08-2010, 12:51 AM
I know of one author who has a blog, which almost certainly has boosted his sales. Unfortunately, the only 1-star review on Amazon for his debut novel criticized the political opinions on his blog, rather than the book itself.

sohalt
01-08-2010, 12:59 AM
I don't think it's a completly modern phenomenon...

Byron's habit of allowing himself to be seen and heard quite a bit probably benefitted the reception of his work. (He basically embodied his own type of hero; he had the most exciting reputation of being "mad, bad, and dangerous to know")

J.D. Salinger's reclusiveness however does not seem to do a lot of harm either...

kuwisdelu
01-08-2010, 01:15 AM
I don't think it's a completly modern phenomenon...

Byron's habit of allowing himself to be seen and heard quite a bit probably benefitted the reception of his work. (He basically embodied his own type of hero; he had the most exciting reputation of being "mad, bad, and dangerous to know")

Byron was one of the first celebrities, really. At least as far as celebrity culture as we know it today.

The way he manipulated his public image through both his actions and his writing is quite interesting, really. His embodiment of a classic Byronic hero during the early portion of his life is quite well-known. More fascinating, in my opinion, is his later life after his split with Lady Byron and the scandal that ensued. He faced accusations of sodomy and other horrors (or so they were perceived at the time). Certainly whatever he wrote or did would have a direct impact on the way he was received both as a celebrity and in the readers of his poetry. What did he do? He outright rejected his readers and scorned the idea of others reading his poetry in the first place in Childe Harold Canto III before completely changing face and "selling out" (in the opinion of his old upper-class readership) by writing the commercial filth that was his magnum opus, Don Juan.

/rambling

kellion92
01-08-2010, 02:02 AM
I like to read about deceased literary figures, but not living authors. I suppose I'm too jealous.

I will certainly try to do publicity if I am fortunate enough to be required to do so. But having a blog for my readers would open me up to the derision and mockery of my friends and family, unfortunately.

gabbleandhiss
01-08-2010, 03:16 AM
There are only three known photographs of Pynchon, none of them recent.

I count six (old) Pynchon pics:

1. high school
2. best male student
3. yearbook staff
4. newspaper staff
5. Navy
6. UPI

Kitty27
01-08-2010, 04:10 AM
In today's world,I believe an author has to really grind for their book. That means getting out there and being seen. Publicity tours,web presence,etc,it's all necessary. BUT-

There are some people who should NEVER be visible. Either they are insane divas,have no control over their mouths or are just plain off-putting. Their writing should be enough to represent them. Unfortunately,they tend to be the ones who are publicity mad. But they do give massive lulz.

scarletpeaches
01-08-2010, 04:15 AM
I still fully intend to go batshit online after I have my vampire novella published.

FOR TEH LULZ!

James D. Macdonald
01-08-2010, 04:55 AM
There are some authors who are good at interacting with people and enjoy doing so. They should be seen and heard.

There are some authors who are bad at interacting with people, but want to do so anyway. They shouldn't be seen or heard.

There are some authors who are good at interacting with people but don't enjoy doing so. They shouldn't be seen or heard.

There are some authors who are bad at interacting with people and don't enjoy doing so. They definitely shouldn't be seen or heard.

ChaosTitan
01-08-2010, 08:14 AM
I apologize all around if I offended anyone here.

I didn't mean to make anyone here upset. I keep forgetting that we're all writers and my making a blanket statement about writers might be taken the wrong way. I think of everyone here as friends.

I apologize.

I've been having an awful week, so I may have taken it more personally than you intended. C'mere you. :Hug2:

Kitty27
01-08-2010, 09:17 AM
I still fully intend to go batshit online after I have my vampire novella published.

FOR TEH LULZ!


You will NOT outdo me!

I will be infamous one day for total batshit LULZ.