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

[Gordian Knot]

I read authors whose books I enjoy. It is their writing style I enjoy, not their social life. So it is rare for me to even know what an author is saying in public, and for the most part it is not important enough for me to know. Twitter, blogs, etc., my life is too busy as it is to try to pay attention to that type of stuff.

If it is especially obnoxious it will make it into the main media stream. If it gets that far I am made aware of it, and depending on the circumstances it would affect my decision whether to continue to read that author.

I don't read Orson Scot Card, but can assure you I will not be seeing his movie; a direct result of his public opinion on gays.

But for the most part I am blissful in my ignorance.....

 

[Toby Frost]

I do have a Twitter account and occasionally I post on it, but I don't like the concept and I think it's essentially weird to cram a coherent thought into 180 characters. That said, sometimes I wonder if I ought to cultivate an online persona. I would go to a lot of parties and drink trendy beers from small bottles whilst grinning. On occasion, me and Salman Rushie would chillax. I would be quite cocky and conceited, but in an ironic way although deep down I really would be quite cocky and conceited anyhow. Oh, and I'd know about wine.

On the other hand, I could just potter on with this writing stuff and see where it goes.

 

[K. Riehl]

I've never engaged an author via twitter and I never will. I look at my interactions with authors as I would any other friend/acquaintance. I won't insult them by not fully explaining or attempting to have clarity in my content. Twitter is the antithesis of reasoned discourse.

To wit, I currently correspond with 3 authors via snail mail, and 2 others via email. I had one of the best experiences of my life corresponding with Roger Zelazny over a period of 3 years.

I have met and disliked a couple of authors in person; which did color my view of their work. Through my previous job I met over 200 authors and I consider a 1% dislike rate to be very good.

 

[A J Dalton]

Some authors have a wonderful online personality – most notably Anne Lyle, and that's just the truth.

Other top notch characters include Alastair Reynolds and Richard Morgan. I've emailed both in the past and received very (very) nice letters back.

Funny how the books I make a connection with always finish up being by great people.

Coragem.

And if it weren't for the niceness of Justina Robson (Quantuum Gravity stuff), I would never have been told the necessary to get the book deal. Authors are often far more approachable and generous with time and info than agents and publishers!

 

[Abernovo]

...But some make me feel like there's a clique others aren't entirely welcome in.

I have to say, as well, there are some authors who I've picked up purely because I like their online personality (Joe Abercrombie was one, Chuck Wendig another).

The cliquey thing, oh yes. There's one little twerp, I'm sure you and Ms Mouse can guess, does that all the time. Thinks of himself as a literary giant and puts others down. I've read some of his stuff and, sorry, but it didn't engage. At all. Basically, I've come to the conclusion that life's too short to bother paying him attention.

At the same time, Chuck Wendig and Joe Abercrombie have wowed me. I'm even tempted to read Abercrombie's work, despite not being an epic fantasy fan, because he comes over as being intelligent and witty, which I like in fiction.

And you tend to like people when you share their sense of humour or like the way they put things, which bodes well for how much you'll enjoy their writing.

I've read some online interaction from authors who've put me off not because of anything offensive, but because their "voice" has sounded humourless** or has grated with me...

** or the reverse, too full of that chummy, ubiquitous internet-style humour that sounds exactly the same from everyone who uses it.

I'm not fond of the overly, false chumminess, but I do worry that I sometimes come over as humourless. So, I wouldn't hold it against an author unless they did it all the time. See above.

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.

This. If I'm engaged by their comments, blogs (not that I often read blogs), or tweets, I'm more likely to go and have a look than if I find them annoying. I decided to look up Kmq's and Anne Lyle's books due to what I'd seen here, and was happily rewarded.

 

[Joe Abercrombie]

I'm even tempted to read Abercrombie's work, despite not being an epic fantasy fan, because he comes over as being intelligent and witty.

It's all smoke and mirrors.

 

[David Evil Overlord]

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.

I'm writing a super hero novel, and one character is a super villain who enjoys burning people alive. Apart from the obvious (heroes need villains to fight), I'm writing that character because she's as far from me as I could possibly get.

Writing myself would be a lot easier. Writing her is a challenge.

Writing a convincing character with that kind of personality...can I do it?

 

[Kissmequick]

Writing a convincing character with that kind of personality...can I do it?

It's great fun to do, and much more of a stretch than writing someone like yourself. But it has its pitfalls. I think the advantages outweigh them*, myself, and I'm finding the pitfalls more amusing than anything now.


*You'll end up being a one trick pony if you don't challenge yourself, nothing else.

It's all smoke and mirrors.

Caul Shivers is actually Joe's author insert. This is why you should always buy him lots of whiskey if you meet him. Also, wear a helmet just in case.

 

[David Evil Overlord]

It's great fun to do, and much more of a stretch than writing someone like yourself. But it has its pitfalls. I think the advantages outweigh them*, myself, and I'm finding the pitfalls more amusing than anything now.


*You'll end up being a one trick pony if you don't challenge yourself, nothing else.

Exactly. I want to teach my ponies many tricks.

 

[Erin99]

I don't know about online interactions* (I haven't found anyone horrid enough!), but I must admit being shocked by someone's real life behaviour a couple of years ago at a con. I offered to buy them a drink at the bar since they ended up sitting beside me, Seph and my Chronner pal, and because a crowd held me up at the bar, this person complained about me to my fellow Chronner (obviously not realising or caring that he was my good pal), saying that he wouldn't have said yes if he'd known I would take so long. I'm sorry I'm too polite to push my way to the front of a queue. Plus, I didn't have a lot of money, and that con was mad expensive, yet I went out my way to buy him a drink.

Said person even admitted that, as the biggest self-pubber there, in his estimation, even bigger than some of the traditionally published authors in attendence, the way to write a novel was to make the first 60k great (or was it 60 pages? Or six chapters? Or something), then not fuss as much with the rest because a reader will be hooked and not care about the drop in quality thereafter... which, imo, also means the reader has paid, so the author gets his money.

"It's a bag of tricks" was his motto. Horrendous! I'd like to think if I got published, my novel would be decent all the way through if people were to spend their hard-earned money on it.

Because of this, it would take a heck of a lot for me to read the author, even if said author has improved their ways enough to attract a publisher (which is the case). Anyway, I bet he's stopped spouting all his complaints about the traditional publishing industry.

I shall not name this person in case he's changed his ways, but he is forever tarnished to me and my pals.


/end rant



*Though, tbh, I know how easy it is to be misunderstood online, so in that I'm likely to be more lenient. Text on a screen does not have the subtleties, facial expressions, and body language that real-life conversation has.

 

[thaddeus6th]

Leisha, as well as sounding like a buffoon the chap's plain wrong. At university (did a psych degree) we learnt about primacy and recency effects, namely that the first and last things a person reads/hears on a given subject has a greater impact upon them than the middle bit.

The end of a book is just as critical as the start, I think. If someone reads the end and thinks it's rubbish they're less likely to go looking for your other work. If they read the end and love it the reverse is true.

It is very easy to be misunderstood online. There's also the problem of saying something stupid, which then gets immortalised on Twitter or elsewhere.

 

[Erin99]

At university (did a psych degree) we learnt about primacy and recency effects, namely that the first and last things a person reads/hears on a given subject has a greater impact upon them than the middle bit.

That sounds like what I'd read concerning the first and end lines of a sentence. You put the most important parts there, because they provide the biggest impact and are more memorable.