A couple of the responses to my Greg Egan post theorized, to my surprise, that Egan’s relative lack of commercial success is due largely to his reclusivity—“no book tours, no signings, even his website has no blog or reader feedback area, nor any email address.” This started me wondering: how much of a personal connection to authors do most readers nowadays want and/or expect?
I suppose I’m surprised because I’ve long been on the other extreme. I’ve never even considered sending fan mail to a writer whose books I like, much less searching online for a picture. Except for those years during which I accidentally stalked William Gibson1, and that time I was sternly scolded by Michael Ondaatje1, I don’t think I’ve ever attended a reading or signing2. I care about authors’ work—a lot—but I don’t really care about them.
I can understand the flip side, where you stumble across an interesting person who writes well, learn that they have published some books, and go on to read them; for instance, I discovered Elizabeth Bear and Charles Stross through their blogs. And it makes sense to want to know more about nonfiction writers. But for those of you who read new novels and then go on to investigate their authors: does knowing (or knowing about) writers as people often shed new light on their work? Or is it more instinctive curiosity about the man or woman behind the curtain?
SF has a long and proud history of authors and fans intermingling, at conventions and online, until the line between them blurs into nonexistence. From what I can tell, this is fairly unique to the genre: at the one mystery con I attended as an author3, the writers mostly just wanted to hang out with each other, and there was none of the we’re all-fans-together vibe I’ve gotten at SF cons. Do SF readers connect to their favourite authors in part to reinforce this collective sense of community? (In the same way that this very site does...) And does this in turn mean SF writers are expected, far more than authors in other genres, to reach out personally to fans in order to be successful?
It’s kind of a dangerous game to play, in both directions. As a fan, some of my favourite books have been stained by things I have inadvertently learned about their authors. Orson Scott Card’s political screeds, for instance, mean I will never again be able to look upon Ender’s Game or Speaker for the Dead with quite the same enthusiasm. As an author, there’s a certain pressure to be effervescent and fascinating about work that can often seem anything but. As George Orwell once said, “Writing a book is a horrible, exhaustive struggle, like a long bout of some painful illness.”
OK, so Asimov, who loved the act of writing, would have disagreed, and Orwell would probably have been no fun at all at a con. I wonder what use the two of them would have made of Twitter and LiveJournal. Tell you the truth, I think I’m mostly glad that I don’t know. It seems to me that delving into the personal life of a great writer, much less establishing any kind of personal relationship, is usually like unmasking the Wizard of Oz—you’re bound to be a bit disappointed.
1Yes, really. Don’t ask.
2OK, also excluding my own, obviously, but those have been very few in number.
3I don’t really write mysteries, but my books are often shelved in their midst. My slightly-tongue-in-cheek attempts to get them moved to SF racks on the grounds that they’re “present-day cyberpunk” have thus far been impressively unsuccessful.
VIEW ALL BY · Sunday January 04, 2009 02:21pm EST
Sunday January 04, 2009 02:42pm EST
But I love it when I get to know more. I've always enjoyed learning about the process behind any art--what goes into the art's creation. (Years ago, I collected stories of how TV shows dealt with an actress's pregnancy. My favorite remains Deep Space 9's Nana Visitor--some great episodes came out of that).
I don't *require* that I know. But it's nearly always more fun when I do. And I never could stand OSC's fiction, so finding out more about his life choices was kind of reassuring.
Sunday January 04, 2009 03:23pm EST
I am on a number of mailing lists with authors who talk to us, laugh with us, make us sigh, and commiserate with us when things go bad.
Does it help their sales? From me it does. The books aren't any different, but the fact I consider the author a friend makes me want to support them - buying and reading their books let me do that.
VIEW ALL BY · Sunday January 04, 2009 04:11pm EST
Though, in pondering on this, there are 1 or 2 authors who I actively try not to show any interest in their books due to their political views and/or the nature of their rants. But now that I have told the World (Tor version), and in the interest of keeping my new year's resolution of not being a hypocrite, I will go out and get those books right now.
In a related issue: I wonder if many authors have been asked (and publicly replied) what they feel about having fan contact. I don't hear as much about it as I would have thought.
Sunday January 04, 2009 05:38pm EST
It's interesting that this phenomenon seems to be cross-media - SF and "genre" TV stars seem to attend conventions and use social networking sites much more than mainstream stars.
Sunday January 04, 2009 06:08pm EST
A perfect example: there was a nice review of Gregory Frost's SHADOWBRIDGE in LOCUS, which I read and noted as something--in case I ever found a used copy for a couple bucks--that I'd be interested in reading. A few weeks later, by chance, I was in a store that had hosted a signing by Mr. Frost, and there was a signed copy of SHADOWBRIDGE on the shelf. I bought it (at full retail price), read it, and loved it--and have since bought the sequel and will continue to buy books from this author.
Brick and mortar bookshops have an opportunity that's hard to duplicate in any meaningful way online. Even if I can't attend a signing, I can and have called a shop that's hosting it, and ordered signed a copy or two. To be honest, there's not much else these days that would get me into a Barnes & Noble, or get me to pay full price for a book-- but if Dan Simmons or Connie Willis or Neil Gaiman, to name but a few, decided to tour in the central North Carolina area . . . .
VIEW ALL BY · Sunday January 04, 2009 06:14pm EST
You can't let it drop like this and pretend nothing happened.Michael Ondaatje is one of my favourite writers.
Not sure what you said about crime fiction is true-I've read reports from the last Bouchercon which seem to indicate quite a bit of intermingling,and I've befriended a couple of authors I initially got to know only through their blogs.
Btw,crime fiction is much broader than mystery (just like sf/f is much broader than what the general public considers sci-fi) and from what I've read of your books you seem perfectly placed to me.
I don't expect a personal relation,but I may discover an author through blog entries,intelligent opinion pieces,book tours and the like.If all I have are reviews,even very positive ones,I may be less motivated to try a new author (though for me this is not Egan's case).
VIEW ALL BY · Sunday January 04, 2009 07:32pm EST
I don't think it's a bad thing - the idea of writers - or any artists - as a Thoreau recluse, wandering in the forest with only their notions for a guide, or beating their breast on a cliff top; alone, unknown and unknowable is an ideal which was never really true of the vast majority of artists. They engage - how could they not?
Also, as horrific as some writers/artists find it: harden up dudes, it's part of the job. If you want to be good at the job - which for better or for worse is not writing, but is selling books - you should do it. I do tonnes of stuff in my job that I don't particularly enjoy. But I do enjoy being good at my job, and if I didn't do those unenjoyable things every now and then I would probably be flipping burgers somewhere; a fate all too real for a lot of writers, and one I certainly faced as a freelancer in days of yore.
"Only connect!" wasn't just an empty catch-cry; it's the whole of the sermon! Engaging with readers and writers can yes, be banal, trite, insulting or confusing, but human love can also be seen at its height. So I say do it.
VIEW ALL BY · Sunday January 04, 2009 08:24pm EST
Speaking strictly as a reader, I'm pretty much just interested in the story (barring the occasional once in a lifetime event such as being able to listen to George R.R. Martin do a reading at Comic-Con).
But as a genre fan and blogger, I enjoy the luxury of learning more about the professional side of authors--ditto what Serendi wrote about the process behind the art. I find that stuff fascinating. Although the line between what is professional and what is personal can occasionally blur.
When authors have Web sites, blogs, groups, and participate in forums, it makes sharing their work with others so much more fun--and easier. When fans can build buzz using resources above and beyond the books, it helps keep the stories we want to read alive and well.
VIEW ALL BY · Sunday January 04, 2009 10:41pm EST
NF or literary writers typically don't have that history of interaction with their fans, and their readers don't seem to want it -- except the stalkers, but that's a different issue;-)
Sunday January 04, 2009 11:34pm EST
VIEW ALL BY · Monday January 05, 2009 12:19am EST
Which is another way of saying that SF readers tend to get invested in not just the story, but the argument.
And once you care about the argument, you care about the people pursuing it.
There are dozens of ways to make this dynamic seem trivial or pathetic, but really, it's just people caring about what's real.
Speaking just as a reader, forget about as a professional, the plain fact is that in a world of limited time and options-that-exclude, given the choice between a new Charles Stross novel and a new Greg Egan novel, I'm going to read the Stross, because I know that if I want to talk about it afterwards, Stross is available for conversation and Egan isn't.
There are dozens of ways to frame this as evidence of Egan being a hero of artistic independence, but you know something, I don't care. I'm just a reader trying to have an non-boring life. Stross goes out of his way, via extra levels of interaction and availability, to make the whole business of novels and art non-boring. Egan doesn't. Life is short.
Monday January 05, 2009 01:06am EST
First, I only want to read books that are worthwhile in and of themselves. What happens if Charles Stross (may he live a thousand years) suddenly drops dead, or just decides he doesn't like you anymore and refuses to talk to you? Do his books suddenly become worthless? If yes, they are worthless to me already, because I never plan to argue with him.
As to investing in the argument, I personally read non-fiction books for the argument, and fiction for entertainment. Snow Crash and The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind each make satisfying reading. Robert J. Sawyer's Calculating God was an unsatisfying mixture of an ill-defined argument and a deus-ex-machina plot.
Second, concentrating on argument-seeking, autograph-seeking, attention-seeking, or otherwise interacting audiences can compromise the quality of fiction. A private author like Greg Egan needs to continue writing quality fiction; one lousy published novel could substantially reduce his readership (cf. Rainbows End), so I trust—correctly, thus far—that each new novel of his is worth reading.
A fandom-popular author like Charles Stross might as well start throwing together modern-sounding technobabble with disjointed plots; as long as he attends conventions and answers blog comments, someone will publish his books, and readers like pnh will continue reading them.
This probably still makes economic sense, but it divides readership from fandom. Fifteen years ago, I never thought I would browse the SF section of a bookstore and actively avoid the recent Hugo-winning crap.
VIEW ALL BY · Monday January 05, 2009 05:53am EST
Prefer pretty much everyone over Gene Wolfe, on the no-blog theory then?
VIEW ALL BY · Monday January 05, 2009 06:35am EST
Furthermore, there are writers who are jerks and whose books I'll never read, or never read more of, because they have proved themselves to be jerks online. They're entitled to be writers too, but they'd do more good for their careers if they were reclusive.
Beyond that, there are writers who are so thin skinned or easily distracted or any of a multitude of things that if they spend time online, or marketing or whatever then the writing won't ever get done. No use getting out there and selling selling selling if there isn't any product.
As far as caring about the argument goes, I certainly do, but I don't especially need to talk to the writer about it, as long as I can talk to my friends about it. The thread we had on rasfw about Permutation City when it had just come out, and the thread we had here about it a couple of months ago, and the conversations I've had with my friends about it in my living room and in cons are good enough for me.
(Now that I say that, I remember that Egan actually did email me after the rasfw thread, at a time when I wasn't anybody, and answered two of my questions. So he's not a total recluse anyway.)
VIEW ALL BY · Monday January 05, 2009 07:37am EST
http://whatever.scalzi.com/2008/07/22/the-big-idea-greg-egan/
Plus, of course he manages an up to date bibliography.
Plenty of the garden variety dime a dozen writer chattering class fail that one.
Even one for Interzone, too. Fair bit more public than a Biddleonian hermit.
Monday January 05, 2009 05:09pm EST
The fact that someone is incredibly good doesn't mean that a huge number of people will appreciate his stuff. He's the SF literature equavalent of a master of ambient music. No matter how good he may be there's only a small audience for what he's doing.
If he dumbed down his books he probably would achieve big sales (at least big for an SF author). Personally, though, I love the challenge reading his books presents.
One a separate note, I totally agree with you on Card. After reading some of his nonfiction articles on political and social issues I'll also probably never be able to have quite the same enjoyment of his books.
Monday January 05, 2009 08:03pm EST
Hear, hear! So many writers today see themselves as part-time marketers (I know, there is a lot of pressure to become one, and the good ones undoubtably sell more books than they otherwise would), and to me, at least, it often SHOWS.
They are two entirely different skill-sets, and while some may be lucky enough to have both, I suspect that most don't. Let the writer focus on his/her writing.
VIEW ALL BY · Monday January 05, 2009 09:47pm EST
Respectfully, I disagree Jo. Whether we like it or not is another question, but the entire edifice of publishing is built on selling books. Publishers are not interested in a great book first and and foremost; they are interested in a book that sells.
If that's because the writer is brilliant or because they're a one-armed dwarf who climbed Everest, slept with tom cruise and went on sixty minutes is by-the-by for them.
If you want to be a writer, that's fine: it's easy to join the ranks of manuscripts slumbering in drawers, personal websites and limited circles. But to participate in the hurdy-gurdy of actually being read by readers, and in stores etc. you have to sell, and with all the great writing in the world, great writing alone is no guarantee.
I dunno. I find fiction writers kinda precious about this kind of stuff. When I was a practising journalist; I kind of lumped these activities together as a part of the trade. Writing to a brief, pitching, letting people know about my work and where to buy it was part of the job, and there's no shame in it.
Am I less of a writer for that? I hope not! After all, you blog here; I certainly don't think it reduces your abilities as a fine writer.
Freelancers and/or contractors of every hue and shade promote themselves to prospective clients. I honestly don't see how writers make a special case.
Monday January 05, 2009 10:06pm EST
I have seen Ray Bradbury speak several times, and I think I loved reading him more after that. I met Anne Rice and found her quite charming. I saw Harlan Ellison, hung out with the worshippers afterward, thought him a bit of a jerk, and didn't read him for a while. I was very young then and had an enormous crush on him at the time but I got over that and don't really care anymore - I enjoy his work. To me it is like people who won't see Tom Cruise movies because they think he is a weirdo. It is too bad that we are allowed such access into the lives of artists. If you are an uber-fan, can they ever really live up to your expectations as humans? The creation of art is intensely personal - if you have to think about what people are going to think of you as a person it could be crippling.
I commented on an author's blog for the first time ever yesterday (A.J. Jacobs). It was basically a fan letter, I guess, but it felt a little weird. I have always felt weird about fan stuff, ever since I was a kid - like why would these people want to have anything to do with me? They're busy! lol
VIEW ALL BY · Tuesday January 06, 2009 08:49am EST
I think there's a difference between being somebody's friend because you like them and pretending to be their friend because you want something, and this is like that.
VIEW ALL BY · Tuesday January 06, 2009 01:26pm EST
For instance, couldn't the problem with Greg Egan be not that he has a poor online presence, but that he has a dry and pedantic writing style, wherein he is far more concerned with describing a neat (to him) concept, rather than telling a story?
If an author stops the action in a book to inflict on the reader 15-20 pages of a highly technical and dry description of the birth of an AI who was one of the main characters, that's going to leave more of a negative impression than the author's internet presence.
VIEW ALL BY · Tuesday January 06, 2009 05:41pm EST
You blog cause it's fun, but it does - intentionally or not - function as a great marketing for your writing. I don't think the motivation really matters so much, or that it can only be one or the other.
As I say, I don't think it's expected for writers to promote themselves, but it's an undeniably crowded market, and anything that sets you apart will help.
I guess I'm saying we shouldn't look down on anyone who promotes themselves, or look down on the writers who don't. However, from a publisher's perspective - a perspective I have some sympathy with - I can understand why they would want a writer of the former rather than latter variety.
Tuesday January 06, 2009 09:59pm EST
If an author stops the action in a book to inflict on the reader 15-20 pages of a highly technical and dry description of the birth of an AI who was one of the main characters, that's going to leave more of a negative impression than the author's internet presence.
For what it's worth, I think of that Orphanogenesis bit of Diaspora as one of the most impressive pieces of writing in all of SF; one person's dry and pedantic is the next person's pure-from-the-source sense of wonder.
VIEW ALL BY · Wednesday January 07, 2009 01:31pm EST · amended on Wednesday January 07, 2009 02:35pm EST
In a two-week period years ago, I met William Gibson and Haruki Murakami, the two gods of my mid-twenties imagination. I was absolutely heartbroken both times. William Gibson answered a question I asked him about the future of SF in a rather hopeless, soft-spoken way. And Haruki Murakami was just some pleasant Japanese tourist and his conservatively dressed wife. A nice guy, but that's it.
It was then that I realized that the author who manifests on the page is NOT the person who walks around and lives their lives. Even if, and here is where I disagree with pnh, their novels are mostly about ideas. That is, in fact, the WHOLE POINT of fiction. That there is this arificial distillation of wit & vivid storytelling, consciousness with all the mundane and boring parts taken out. If it were just a transcript of an author's normal stream of consciousness there would be no art to it, no craftsmanship that they would need to develop.
Now, sometimes the author also turns out to be a neat person, one who is a great conversationalist, like Coleridge was. But this has a more or less random correlation with their talent as a writer. If your accountant is also an amazing conversationalist (some are) that's great. It might help him promote his accounting business, but it has nothing to do with how well he does your taxes. Same deal with a writer. This doesn't mean I have an unromantic view of writing -- I think it is one of the best things humans can do with their lives. But writing is as necessarily removed from personality as any other art.
Henry James has a ghost story called "The Private Life," in which a society woman meets her favorite author at an exclusive spa. She finds he is a boring person, but is horrified and mystified when she sees his ghostly doppleganger, sitting in the dark, busily scribbling his stories, while the author's public persona mopes around the hotel. James was making the point that the author is somebody you can only meet on the page, and in your own head. The person is necessarilly just a person.
I don't go to book signings any more. I do enjoy hearing writers lecture or seeing them read or be interviewed, but not as much as I enjoy reading their work. I discovered Jeff Vandemeer at a KGB Fantastic Fiction reading in New York, and I have been reading him ever since. I liked him not because he had this great personality--I didn't even meet him--but because the stories he read were hilarious and brilliant. The stories sold me, he didn't, even if he was the one there reading them in person.
The more time my favorite writers have to write, the better, and revealing myself to them as a fan just seems embarrassing, for both me and the writer. And pretending that they are my friend and having them sign a book is cringe-inducing. I won't give up my signed Murakamis and Gibsons, but I will never seek out another, either.
The ideal SF convention seems to function not as a forum for author worship, or for some other kind of sanctioned activity between writers and their readers, but rather as a kind of salon, a place where people of a similar sensibility can get together, exchange ideas, celebrate the kind of thinking and storytelling they love, and enjoy one another's company outside the boring boundries of normal society.
VIEW ALL BY · Wednesday January 07, 2009 02:41pm EST · amended on Thursday January 08, 2009 08:13am EST
That's precisely how I feel.
Finding out more about authors almost invariably has made me like them better. Novels I found uninspiring can come from really brilliant bloggers. Sometimes novels I found dreadful come from otherwise intelligent, wholly personable individuals, who share a number of interests that I think he or she writes about a lot more effectively. And every once in a while a brilliant book comes from an insipid or even personally offensive person--but they're just people, and if the book was really that good then the work will often overshadow the person anyway.
But usually the author is just a person and I can have a totally friendly conversation with him or her (in person or online) that starts and ends there. Are we going to be best friends? No. But it's always nice to be able to express my admiration, and I don't expect much more than that from an interaction.
@ 25 ELeatherwood
And this of course introduces the whole problem of expectation. Are you meeting authors to be impressed by them, or just to meet them?
VIEW ALL BY · Thursday January 08, 2009 12:24am EST
It was only in sifting through my disappointment that I figured out what my expectations had been: to experience something like reading their work, to have a little of their aura rub off on me, to get the high of meeting a celebrity, and to satisfy simple curiosity.
The problem was that, as I said, meeting them in person can NEVER be like reading their books. And when I examined the other reasons, they seemed a little creepy.
Since meeting William Gibson, I have developed a simple formula for meeting any artist/celebrity I admire. I just say "Thanks for your work." It's what I really want to express; it doesn't assume any intimacy or weird hopes thereof, and it's not embarrassing for them or me.
VIEW ALL BY · Thursday January 08, 2009 04:04am EST
VIEW ALL BY · Thursday January 08, 2009 01:58pm EST · amended on Thursday January 08, 2009 01:59pm EST
One of the reasons I love SF/Fantasy is that the author creates a whole other world for me to play in (in my imagination.) I don't see how knowing personal details about the author, other than that on the book flap, adds to my enjoyment of their work, but there are some cases where knowing certain things about an author (like their political views) can be a distraction and detract from my enjoyment of their work.
Having said that, I do enjoy participating in forums online and if an author is posting there, I enjoy their comments just as much as the next person's. I don't necessarily *know* that they are an author (I had to go look up bluejo's profile to see who she is), and I don't particularly care.
As bluejo said, I don't need to discuss a book with it's author, because I like to discuss them with friends and in online forums with other bibliophiles (like on www.goodreads.com and www.paperbackswap.com).
But then again, I'm just not much of a 'fan' person - I respect (or don't) the person for the work they do, but don't really care about the details of their daily lives. (This applies to authors, celebrities, politicians [except as applies to their jobs], etc.)
VIEW ALL BY · Saturday January 10, 2009 05:17pm EST
The story doesn't reflect particularly well on either me or M.O., so I think I'll refrain from telling it in public. Ask me if/when we ever meet...
I was kidding about the reshelving, although "Mystery" does seem a little imprecise. Happy to have 'em in "Thriller", "Crime" or even "Suspense" though. (Nowadays they seem to be mostly found in "Fiction/Literature", anyways, about which I have different reservations.)