How important is it for you to know about the writer? Writers these days seem willing to bend over backwards to have their faces on every book sleeve and Twitter handle. Does it mean that much to you about who the person is compared to the quality and frequency of their art? Would prefer that the writer be reclusive or reject any exposure past their work getting out? Sub question: Does pycheon's reclusiveness entice or disappoint?
Authors should be unknown. Literature should stand alone. If an author is an "e-celeb", it's an assurance that their work is bad hackery. Author statements almost always damage the experience of art.
>>7441808
I agree. I honestly think 4chan is one of the greatest cultural inventions of the 21st century.
What if the author goes the Shirow Masamune route and makes public appearances but is behind a screen? Would just be a gimmick to wear a mask? Every cellphone has a camera? How would an author circumvent this?
>>7441858
They would circumvent it by being an author, i.e. somebody nobody gives a fuck about in 2015.
>>7441797
i exclusively read books authored by the dead
Are you gas-kun?
>>7441808
I wholeheartedly agree in most instances but it raises the problem that plagues a lot of modern art, that if you remove anything biographical people are gonna read into shit that isnt there, like if you suddenly find out your favourite recent novel was written by Jaden Smith, you begin to see all the coincidences you saw as good writing unravel. Something inherently amazing like Ulysses stands by itself but you get the idea
>>7441797
gas-kun is perhaps the single tripfag I've ever seen that is alright.
>>7441797
>How important is it for you to know about the writer?
0%. i dont care about the author at all their names might as well be index numbers
Just wear this.
it's a case-by-case thing. I have respect for reclusive or semi-reclusive authors, since their reclusiveness is a clear indicator that they write for writing's sake. I also respect a writer who is a good author and who successfully maintains an interesting image (Burroughs, Hemingway, etc.), as long as he isn't out there making an ass of himself (Tao Lin).
>>7441797
is this a copy pasta? it must be. obviously i care a great deal about who wrote a work of art. to the degree that i make sure im not reading a story by some random chad
(OP) what if the writer had a strict policy for signings. I.e, no personalized autographs and no pictures. Or in fact, had a special rubber stamp for time effectiveness.
I've been to signings and the authors look worn out by having to do all that shit. Isn't the money from the purchase of the work thanks enough? Isn't that where the interaction ends?
>>7441797
It's a complex question. It can be useful to understand the author as a means of contextualising the text, but of course in doing so there's always the potential to commit the intentional fallacy and attempt to explicate some kind of inner essence of the author from the work itself.
However the tendency of our media to put writers on pedestals and press them on difficult political/ethical/economic questions is idiotic. Writers know about writing. People shouldn't have to idolise the author as some divine site of universal knowledge
I could care less about the writer as long as they deliver the goods.
>>7442213
Would you rather read Cervantes' Quixote or Menard's?
It's stupid to judge writer's for wanting to be known because that's the only way to make a living from their writing.
Pynchon is a hack writer so whatever he does is a disappointment.
>>7442228
Something needs to be left to the imagination
>>7441858
I believe that if you read Machiavelli's De Principatibus/The Prince not in the original language but most of all without knowing who wrote it and in what context, then you are going to misunderstand it.
A lot of writers don't make shit nowadays. Promoting their book by making public appearances on talk shows and whatnot can help them promote themselves significantly.
Writers who do everything they can to expose their work to the masses are just trying to survive.
People who say otherwise don't actually care about the well being of the writer and just like the gimmicky mystery surrounding writers like pynchon.
>>7442351
Femanon detected
>>7442368
I did some reading online about what authors actually make off of book sales. Unless you're already a big name (king, gaiman, etc) you get hosed. Like 1.63 on a 24.99 hardcover. True there's over head to. Consider but that's just mean. The flip side of that is the Amazon writers who sell their own ebooks. Sure there's more profit to be made per unit, but there's also the reality that their work may be discounted by the public for going that route when so much content via Amazon is garbage. It's a steadily growing sea of terrible content but there are those who can make it work if they don't mind doing all the work that would be farmed out to people at the publishers/agents office.
>>7442219
Cervantes