Have you ever been put off an author by their online interactions?

[Mark_Lawrence]

I've only Tweeted a couple of authors a few times, and none ever replied to the Tweets.

I presume it's because they only encourage responses from people they know personally, and/or feel socially awkward online/all the time.

Everyone gets to choose who they interact with online, so I figure if they don't want to with me, so be it - I won't take it personally. It's too easy to read too much into online posting.

Twitter is very bad at delivering tweets - I've found lots of tweets aimed (correctly) at me that never showed in my 'connections'/'mentions' feed.

 

[Brian G Turner]

Oh, I have too replied to you!

Apologies! I meant some authors I'd not met personally.

Twitter is very bad at delivering tweets - I've found lots of tweets aimed (correctly) at me that never showed in my 'connections'/'mentions' feed.

I've seen you reTweet which means you're taking part in the conversation.

 

[Jo Zebedee]

I never mind if I don't get a reply to a Tweet; conversations have to end somewhere *
And we all have conversations with our mates on Twitter than not everyone wants to join in, I'm certainly guilty of having a little circle of mates there who I regularly tweet, and having some in jokes.

It's more an attitude, sometimes, just tiny things that can put you off a writer a little more than anything. Our tastes in conversation are all different; what irks me might be what someone else likes about that writer. But, definitely for new writers -- I agree with KMQ that if I already love someone's work them being a bit of an ass won't stop me reading it -- it makes me less inclined to read their work.



*Although John Taylor from Duran Duran's non-response last night was a hard one to bear...

 

[Ursa major]

But, definitely for new writers [...] it makes me less inclined to read their work.

I'm now wondering about those agents and imprint editors who insist that one should have an online presence. Given both of these only take on a few people a year, and given that there's a lot of good new writing coming through, do they use how an author comes across on, say, Twitter, as one way to decide between two potential clients whose work is otherwise difficult to separate in terms of quality and match to the current marketplace?

Scary!


(By the way, I could never buy the work of someone always trying to steal LPITTW. )

 

[Kissmequick]

Well if they're new, I'm probably not following them so I won't see it Unless they have a mega meltdown or something that goes viral.

It's tricky from this side -- you want to engage, have the conversation (above all, most authors got into this because they are fans, and they still are. I'm not going to stop talking about what I love just because I'm published now) and you can't pretend to be who you aren't. But I doubt there's one person in the world that everyone likes, soooo...

So you just gotta be you, and try not to be a total dick. Like I say, that's why I cut some slack -- there's a couple of authors I find annoying on twitter, so I unfollowed, (or are unbearably smug online but perfectly charming IRL, there can be a real disconnect online v off) but I love their books anyway. As long as the book isn't annoying, I'm good*. Otherwise I'd be holding other authors up to standards I can't maintain myself - perfection.

Your mileage may, naturally, vary. I can totally see how it would put people off (esp if they've been a dick to you personally, rather than just a bit irritating generally).


*And my very favourite authors I try not to read about. Just in case!

 

[Jo Zebedee]

I'm now wondering about those agents and imprint editors who insist that one should have an online presence. Given both of these only take on a few people a year, and given that there's a lot of good new writing coming through, do they use how an author comes across on, say, Twitter, as one way to decide between two potential clients whose work is otherwise difficult to separate in terms of quality and match to the current marketplace?

Scary!

Well, agents are pretty open that they check potential authors out on line prior to signing, and one certainly knew I was going to Worldcon before I mentioned it to them.

(

By the way, I could never buy the work of someone always trying to steal LPITTW. )

Darn. there goes the book sale.

*And my very favourite authors I try not to read about. Just in case!

An excellent plan!

 

[Nounboy]

If I were to be put off by the political/social/aesthetic attitudes of authors (or any kind of artist) I would be restricted to a very small library. I wouldn't read Yeats because he flirted with Fascism, or Hemingway because he was a Machismo junkie. It doesn't mean their art is worthless.

 

[lauren$77]

It makes me wonder to what extent authors inject their own personalities and opinions into their prose/characters? I think this would justify not wanting or wanting to read their work if you didn’t like their voice online.

You hear it from authors all the time – it’s a fictional character it’s not me! That’s true but you do put parts of yourself into your writing. It seems absurd to disassociate yourself from it completely.

 

[Stephen Palmer]

You hear it from authors all the time – it’s a fictional character it’s not me! That’s true but you do put parts of yourself into your writing. It seems absurd to disassociate yourself from it completely.

We can put lesser aspects of ourselves into our characters, and usually that's good, but I doubt many serious authors use much more than that.

 

[lauren$77]

We can put lesser aspects of ourselves into our characters, and usually that's good, but I doubt many serious authors use much more than that.

I'm sure you're right - otherwise the characters would just be replica's of yourself. When writing I've had to work hard at not putting too much of my own personality into my female protagonist - its actually quite difficult

Still authors who have strong opinions which finds its way into their work is off putting. I wonder if the best authors are those people who can see things from other peoples perspectives, and translate this into their characters? Not knowing much about the personalities of the authors I read I'm just speculating of course.

 

[Kissmequick]

I am not my characters*.

I may share minor (very minor) traits with them. Other than that, they are not me, I am not them. I mean, I've written die hard atheists and devoted Catholics, and I'm neither

The whole point of writing -- for me anyway -- is that you are writing someone else's experiences and exploring how it shaped them (well, unless it's an autobiography I suppose...)

That said, when you're reading it can be hard to separate the character from your thoughts of the author - I know I've done it, and it's a natural first response. But any author worth their salt could write you ten different characters, all that have nothing in common with them

Still authors who have strong opinions which finds its way into their work is off putting. I wonder if the best authors are those people who can see things from other peoples perspectives, and translate this into their characters? Not knowing much about the personalities of the authors I read I'm just speculating of course.

Exactly -- I'm not saying it doesn't happen that opinions leak in, it clearly does, more for some than others -- but I don't think it's a default assumption.


*Some people have thought I am. Though which character they think I am depends on whether they think I'm male or female -- if they think I'm male, I'm 'clearly' Rojan, if they think I'm female, I'm 'clearly' a female character, which probably says something deep and existential about something or other. It also makes me a bit twitchy about people thinking I am my characters. No I am not Rojan. If I was my husband would be very upset.

 

[Mouse]

*Although John Taylor from Duran Duran's non-response last night was a hard one to bear...

I almost choked on my tea.

I am not my characters*.

My female MC is obsessed with a guy who looks like Ben Barnes. That may be me just a little.

 

[Kissmequick]

I'm glad you answered, cos I thought maybe I was being annoying

Me and Rojan both love bacon. That's about it. He's a bit more obsessed than I am though.

 

[Mouse]

Me and Rojan both love bacon. That's about it. He's a bit more obsessed than I am though.

Ha! Nice.

 

[Ursa major]

It seems odd that some readers think writers can only write about themselves, even though most books have lots of different characters, and many books have multiple PoV charcaters; some books/series even have multiple MCs.







* Absentmindedly wonders if Mouse is thinking about streaky Bar... er... bacon. Yes, definitely bacon.... *

 

[Mouse]

Now I have mental images.

 

[Hex]

If an author annoys me on Twitter, I stop following them. I don't want to be put off enjoying their books.

One of my favourite authors is very active on Twitter and gives away all sorts of hints about what's going to happen next. I really don't want to know because I love her books too much to want anything to spoil them.

I resent anything that gets between me and a book I love, even the author.

Conversely, if I see people whose online persona I like (like kmq), then I'm more likely to investigate what they've written and buy it.

 

[Lilmizflashythang]

I don't use Twitter at all. Just not enough time in the day. This site, and a few blogs (including working on my own) are all I can handle. I focus on the stories. Don't like anything grim and dark, so I look for bright happy endings. Notice that I said endings.

The way I see it, all authors put part of their world view into their books. That's why I like Dean Koontz, he always has good winning and a light at the end of the tunnel. For the same reason, I don't read Stephen King, his world view is so dark and depressing.

Also remember that Card is a Mormon. They don't really agree with gay marriage at all, and the minute he tithes, he is going to be putting his money to something that disagrees with the gay rights community. Personally, it's his money, his beliefs, and between him and his God.

 

[Kissmequick]

Also remember that Card is a Mormon. They don't really agree with gay marriage at all, and the minute he tithes, he is going to be putting his money to something that disagrees with the gay rights community. Personally, it's his money, his beliefs, and between him and his God.

If it was just that, I wouldn't have a problem with him tbh (I've read several Mormon authors). But what he does is waaaaay more than that, which is where I must draw my line

Everyone has one, it's just it gets drawn in different places in the sand depending on who is doing the drawing.

 

[anthorn]

I was a little off put by one authors comments that I was very judgemental and close minded in saying that some people do claim benefits because they want to, and abuse the system.

Author admitted that there are few people who do that but I was very judgemental to say so.

Made me feel as though it was wrong to say people abuse the benefit system in Britain.