Separating Artist and Work

With midterms last week there was no time to do anything but study. But now that I have gotten used to the rigor of university life I want to try to see if I can do at least ten or fifteen minutes of editing every day. My goal is to finish the chapter I am currently by next weekend. Even if I don't get large chunks of work done, I want to keep the story fresh in my mind. The more time I take off in between working on it, the harder it is to get back into it because I will have to refresh myself even more each time.

# 

With the surge of the internet, information is quickly accessible. Therefore we know more, much more, about things than before. This certainly allows for many conveniences but it also forces certain preconceptions to change. It used to be that authors were nothing more than faceless beings somewhere, weaving stories from the air with their omnipresent abilities. We didn't know any more about them then what could be read in the bio at the back of the book.

Now that a quick search on google can give us their entire life's story, the relationship between reader and author has changed. They are actively engaged in social media and can be accessed in ways never before thought of. One bad twitter post, a fraction of the words they have written in their novels, can have the power to cause huge damage.

That was dramatic, but it is true. The public can now share its opinion quite vocally and they have the confidence to do so. Since we are all hidden behind our keyboards it is tempting to share opinions that we would never voice face to face. It is difficult for an author to keep secrets hidden for long and when they are uncovered readers are faced with a decision as to whether they can enjoy someone's work even if they can't agree with that person's morals or behaviour.

For example, take James Frey, the author of I Am Number Four. The novel was popular and even adapted to a movie. But what most of the public isn't aware of, is this man was the creator of the publishing house Full Fathom Five, a publishing house. He takes advantage of new writers by having ridiculously repressive contracts which basically sign all their rights over to his company. They get paid an advance of $250, aren't promised to have any credit for the work they have produced, and can be faced with a fine of $50,000 if they admit to working for the publishing house without having permission to release that information. There are numerous blog posts and articles detailing other atrocities this man has committed: here, here, and here are good places to start if you would like more information.

Of course this is an extreme example. There was a scandal a little while back after an author posted this article on the Guardian, basically her detailing having stalked a girl online and gone to her doorstep to confront her for a bad review. The backlash on the internet has been harsh as many criticize her actions. This has opened up a new discussion as the limitations an author has, whether they can ever answer a negative review--or even a positive review--of their book online.

This works in the opposite way as well. If you were to follow an author on Twitter that you thought was funny, wouldn't you be more likely to pick up their book? And if you did like the author when they posted on their respected social media, you would also be more likely to see past the faults in their writing that you would notice with an unknown author.

I'm not saying that this is a bad thing, only that it can be perceived both ways. The internet has taken over and nothing can truly be hidden from the public's eye. This is simply another influence for readers to take into account when choosing which novel to read next. Or else they can choose to read books without knowing anything about the authors at all. But where is the fun in that?