EDITION: U.S.
 
CONNECT    

Jason Pinter

Jason Pinter

Posted: December 16, 2009 02:42 PM

Does Social Networking Kill the Author Mystique?

What's Your Reaction:

Steven Spielberg does not record commentaries for the DVD editions of his movies. For film buffs like me, commentaries are an insightful play-by-play of just what went into the making of a film. I love listening as the director, cast, and crew provide entertaining and informative (ok, and sometimes boring) tidbits about what went into a particular scene, or sometimes simply amusing anecdotes from the set. Yet Spielberg, perhaps the most influential and popular director of the past fifty years, refuses to record commentaries. And it's not because Spielberg is an old fart, he has simply stated that he believes commentaries reduce some of the movie's magic. This got me thinking...

I have a Facebook account. Twitter page. MySpace page. Website. Blog. I even think I have an old Friendster account (come on, you know you used to have one too). All of these were started after my first book deal in the Spring of 2006, in the hopes of reaching readers and building an audience through the magic of online social networking. And I'm far from the only one who had that idea.

With just a few clicks, you can find hundreds if not thousands of authors divulging their innermost thoughts about their books, their writing process, and occasionally the intimate and mundane details of their life. Some of these comments are interesting and insightful, offering candid looks into the process of writing and the career of publishing. Some of them are pithy, funny, irreverent, about their lives and relationships. Some are pointless, nothing more than daily itineraries or dietary choices. Some turn you off from an author entirely due to lewdness, crudeness, or endless and shameless hawking of their own wares.

So in the end, with all of this detritus floating around, does online social networking actually help authors sell books?

John Scalzi, New York Times bestselling author of Zoe's Tale and proprietor of the popular blog "Whatever" says, "A lot of people who friend or follow me are already fans, so I expect they may already know what I'm doing in terms of sales. With new people my feeling is that over time, the feeling they "know" you may increase their likelihood to take a chance on a novel. In both cases, however, you probably shouldn't assume every Facebook friend or Twitter follower is going to buy your work."

I have no doubt that some people buy books based on their online connection or discovery of an author through those means. But I also believe that what helps can also hurt if not done in moderation. I have never seen a movie based on an interview with a star or director. As a matter of fact, the oversaturation of an artist might make me less apt to try out their work (unfair, perhaps, but it's the truth). If you are subjected to a person ad nauseum, you eventually lose the curiosity factor. It becomes redundant. Familiarity breeds contempt. So I wondered ... does knowing too much about authors take away some of the magic of their books?

Growing up, I was obsessed with Stephen King. As much as I loved his books, the man himself was something of an enigma. I learned about his life only through his entertaining "Authors Notes" included in the paperback editions of his books. Even his author photos looked creepy. You looked at them and thought to yourself, yeah, this guy totally looks like the kind of person who would write about child-murdering clowns.

Now, King has written a partial memoir, On Writing (a brilliant and inspiring book, by the way). He has a pop culture column in Entertainment Weekly. He contributes numerous reviews and stories to magazines on a monthly, if not weekly basis. Now, Stephen King is, shall I say, 'grandfathered in'. He is an American icon, and not just in the literary sense. He is perhaps the most recognizable authorial name alive today after J.K. Rowling. King has remained relevant, if not vital, to popular culture. But someone like King is also the recipient of hefty marketing campaigns for every one of his books. A poor seller for him will still net hundreds of thousands of copies. His name doesn't sit above the marquee -- it is the marquee. He doesn't need to put himself out there, doesn't need all those bylines -- I think he simply enjoys it.

Yet the vast majority of authors do not have anywhere near the following of a King, Rowling, Grisham, or Meyer. Most are forced to augment relatively meager marketing and publicity budgets by drumming up noise about their own work. Most authors, I believe, are introverts. I include myself in this statement. However, Social Media has made it easier than ever for authors to 'put themselves out there'. Even the most technologically inept writers can maintain Twitter pages, cross post to a Facebook page, or do a blog tour without leaving their couch. Many writers, myself included, post several updates a day and communicate regularly with readers. Not just about our work, but about our lives. Our likes and dislikes. Anything and everything that might (or often might not) interest readers. Anything that might help us rise about the cacophony of authors trying to do the exact same thing everyone else is ... only better.

But does all of this networking white noise drown out the books? Does knowing too much about an author kill the magic?

Not necessarily. Allison Winn Scotch, bestselling author of Time of My Life, says, "Facebook has been truly helpful because I've reconnected with so many people from my past, people who have a vested interest in me and who have definitely gone out and bought my books because at some point in my life, they knew me. Twitter has been amazing, in terms of getting my name out there to an audience I'd otherwise never have reached ... But yes, a small percentage have (they tweet me to let me know), and given that I enjoy tweeting and the entire idea of Twitter, that small percentage is worth my time AND who knows who else will buy my books in the future."

Yet there is something mysterious about J.K Rowling. Cormac McCarthy. Even King, who years from now I suspect might shed his skin and morph into some sort of giant winged creature or bloodthirsty zombie (don't believe me? Check out his author photo for Cell). The $64,000 question always asked by authors and publicists is how much does all of it really help? The prevailing feeling tends to be that it can't hurt (provided you don't have an Alice Hoffman or Anne Rice-ian freakout). And as long as it doesn't hurt -- and doesn't get in the way of the actual writing -- you will be encouraged to Tweet like your life depends on it.

That said, Winn Scotch seems to nail what every author hopes for when networking: "On places like Twitter, I really try to toe the line between personal and professional. What I mean by that is that I don't think readers just want to hear about my writing life - what they enjoy is sort of like what the general public enjoys in those "Stars, They're Just Like Us!" features: they like hearing about the mundane, albeit, hilarious details of your life, they like glancing behind the scenes, hearing how your kids are driving you crazy or your dog is totally bananas. It opens up a dialogue that you wouldn't have been able to have a few years ago with readers and you develop a common ground, and yes, you also develop friendships."

The trick seems to be, as Winn Scotch says, toeing the line between being a professional writer and a human being. Promoting your work without coming off as a used car salesmen. Writing posts that readers can relate to, coming off as someone they might even want to spend time with. If an author's Tweets or blogs are funny, inspiring or meaningful, it is reasonable to think their books might be as well.

Yet as Scalzi succinctly states, "People aren't stupid; they know when Twitter is being used for enjoyment's sake and when it's being used as a calculated marketing channel. Guess which they respond to better."

 
 
 

Follow Jason Pinter on Twitter: www.twitter.com/jasonpinter

Steven Spielberg does not record commentaries for the DVD editions of his movies. For film buffs like me, commentaries are an insightful play-by-play of just what went into the making of a film. I lov...
Steven Spielberg does not record commentaries for the DVD editions of his movies. For film buffs like me, commentaries are an insightful play-by-play of just what went into the making of a film. I lov...
 
  • Comments
  • 15
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Bloggers
Recency  | 
Popularity
photo
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
Josa Young
05:48 AM on 01/08/2010
I wrote the first draft of One Apple Tasted back when there was no social networking­. It was published last year www.oneapp­letasted.c­o.uk. When it didn't get published way back when I returned to journalism­, and was a very early adopter (for the UK) setting up a website for husband's food business in 1995. I wrote other bits of fiction, but never finished anything, too busy working for a pay cheque. Since 2000 I have mostly worked in the internet, must despised to begin with by old journalist colleagues­, but less so now. I blogged from 2003, and started tweeting in 2007, but the party didn't hot up until last year really and I have found it not only very enjoyable, but also a brilliant way to reach out to new readers. I do tweet nice things people say about my book, but I also join the conversati­ons of anyone I find amusing, and also what my little boy says (good way to catch these fleeting verbal jewels as they are uttered). I am afraid, however useful, it does slow down production of prose. But do follow me @JosaYoung and see.
01:38 PM on 12/18/2009
This is interestin­g in relation to another article I was tweeted- (not sure how to retweet here so I'm pasting): BeyondMadA­ve

"Profiles on social networks express true personalit­y traits rather than a virtual, ideal identity." http://bit­.ly/4KvoCH

That is; If you follow an author, you tend to get a real picture of the person beyond their published writings. For me, it feels like becoming acquainted­. I'm more likely to purchase the work of a friend- if I am interested in the subject of the book- than an equivalent book of an unknown writer. I really like the feeds of people who interspers­e commentary alongside where to buy their latest publicatio­n. It is a real plus if they are witty or interestin­g, rather than keeping a diary of their eating habits. :D

I read books even if I was not impressed by the personalit­y of the writer if the book itself appeals to me. Think of the really bizarre lives of some artists. It is easy to divorce appreciati­on of the art from the artist if the art is good enough. However, if I think the author I am following is merely doing calculated advertisin­g for themselves­, I'm more likely to go to the Library to read it than run out to buy it sight unseen.

I think glimpses of an writer- connection to their life- has overall benefits in sales for the writer- at least by me.
01:28 AM on 12/18/2009
I honestly don't see why getting to know an author would convince you to not buy their books. If they seem more boring than you'd imagined, there's always the unfriend/u­nfollow options. If an author is doing their job well, you shouldn't be thinking about them when you read their books.

Maybe they should carefully consider political/­social comments (I can honestly say I'll never buy a book from Orson Scott Card or Holly Lisle again) but I don't see how day to day minutiae have any bearing on the desire to read a novel. Why should I not want to buy the latest Tanya Huff book just because she Tweets about baking cookies and random stuff her cat does?

For the record, I've been a huge Stephen King fan since I was in elementary school, but I never cared about him being 'mysteriou­s.' It never really occurred to me that he should be strange or creepy just because he liked writing horror novels.
photo
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
Jason Pinter
10:05 AM on 12/18/2009
If an author turns their facebook/t­witter etc... pages into total shill machines, where 100% of their postings are "Buy my book, buy my book!" it comes off as kind of crass. I think readers want to feel like they're part of the conversati­on, not that they're being 'sold'. Obviously authors hope people who follow them online will buy their books, but the key is making them want to do it on their own. And as you mentioned, any sort of racist/sex­ist comments or meltdowns are absolute dealbreake­rs.
01:23 PM on 01/11/2010
I absolutely agree. Writers/Ce­lebrities/­Musicians.­.. need to know how to properly use social media, and if they don't it can be disastrous­.
photo
BlackJAC
It's better to be a black king than a white knight
11:51 AM on 12/18/2009
Lisa Scottoline had a webcam feed right at the desk where she does her writing for a while. It turned out to be a lot of her just sitting there either typing or gobbling M&Ms by the handful whenever she got blocked.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
MAragon
06:36 PM on 12/17/2009
I have no corporate or other kind of publisher backing me in any fashion, so I have to network as much as possible with kindred souls who might take to my novels - and to my artwork, which also does not fit in with the contempora­ry art scene. Otherwise, I'm screwed. Right now, I'm lucky if I get enough royalties each month to buy milk and eggs.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
MAragon
07:25 PM on 12/17/2009
I don't blog though. I figured I should make that clear. All of that energy other writers expend on blogging goes into my current projects.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Shawn de Montaigne
http://thepiertoforever.webs.com
06:00 PM on 12/19/2009
I find this entire discussion enlighteni­ng, to say the least. It confirms my suspicion that the vast majority of authors (as opposed to writers, which can be, and often is, a much different thing) are nothing more than panderers and sell-outs, willing to do anything to get noticed.

I blog and have a webs.com site. I also "tweet"--t­hough that's only to tell another story, a subplot that's part of the larger story. And that's it. I honestly couldn't care less about having fans or followers: they simply aren't a priority. Nor should they be.

A famous blogger recently said of writing: "Don't quit your day job." He's right. He wasn't referring to the lack of cash that writing brings to most authors, but to the loss of integrity that inevitably follows upon the heels of any writer willing to do anything to get the cash than fandom hopefully generates.
photo
BlackJAC
It's better to be a black king than a white knight
03:55 PM on 12/17/2009
It probably depends on the author's own subject matter and the rate at which they turn out product. I'm trying to move a technothri­ller satire right now whose jokes are very likely going to need to be explained to the uninitiate­d (such as why one character'­s cellphone is rigged with a "Danger Zone" ringtone for the base emergency recall number) so I'm probably going to need someplace they can go to get answers without pestering me.
photo
Cheryl Malaguti
If I wanted a micro-bio it wouldn't be empty.
12:39 PM on 12/17/2009
I couldn't disagree with Scoutxx more. By "friending­" authors I was already a fan of I have been introduced to many more authors in the several genres I read (including you, Jason.) The bit of social networking contact I have with authors has had this effect: (to use you as an example again) rather than seeing a new book announceme­nt and thinking "Huh, there's a new Pinter coming out later. Maybe I'll keep an eye out for it." I think "Oh, Jason has a new book coming out! I'll have to go by the bookstore and preorder it."
photo
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
Jason Pinter
01:26 PM on 12/17/2009
Thanks Cheryl. I think there is certainly a Right and Wrong way to go about it. Those who do it right--lik­e I believe John Scalzi and Allison Winn Scotch do--draw in readers through their wit and engaging personalit­y. If an author is interestin­g in their networking­, readers are likely to find they're interestin­g in their books. That said, authors can go too far. They can do too much, say the wrong things or hawk their wares too much and turn readers off. I think the authors who do it best use it simply as an extension of their own personalit­ies.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ProfessorDuh
11:29 AM on 12/17/2009
Well, I have known a number of authors, and that fact never made me less inclined to read their books. Rather the reverse.
10:47 AM on 12/17/2009
Great post! Definitely something to think about. I echo your sentiments about Stephen King. Years ago, when I took a trip to Bar Harbor, Maine and passed through Bangor, I actually went to find King's house. It seems as if those with celebrity status who are also active on Twitter seem more real, more within reach. However, I still kind of like some of the mystery sounding the ones who still keep private- yet seem larger than life. I guess I am somewhat torn by admiring the untouchabl­e status mixed with the illusion that these stars are my "friends" and within reach through this social networks. I think this even works on a local level - local writers, news people, business owners, etc. When it comes to the writers who aren't necessaril­y world famous, like the Kings and Rowlings, I think it definitely makes me want to read books more. In fact, I just read a social media book which I am using as a textbook next semester. I tweeted about it and was contacted by the author because he was interested in learning about my class. Neat little things like that can happen and I like the open conversati­on. Again, really great read. Glad I found this!
04:57 PM on 12/16/2009
I completely disagree. The more I see an author milling around the social networking sites, the less I want to read their novels. When you pull back the curtain and show the person behind the books, it's always going to be a disappoint­ment.

I look forward to a new Cormac McCarthy book or a Daniel woodrell book because it's like being reaquainte­d with an old friend. If McCarthy was blogging on a daily basis about his life or his writing or his pets or whatever, the mistique would be gone and I wouldn't care nearly as much.

And I'm not alone.