Writers should be read but neither seen nor heard

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.

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!

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.

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.

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.

maxmordon said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

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.

ElaraSophia said:

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!

Click to expand...

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/

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

icerose said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

kaitie said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

HelloKiddo said:

Do you think this culture of too much exposure is hurting writers and taking something away from their work?

Click to expand...

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.

I have a face for the internet and a body made for radio.

Kitty Pryde said:

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.

Click to expand...

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..."

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.

Kitty Pryde said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

... 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.

maxmordon said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.