A writer should be invisible – even though the way the publishing industry works now is running counter to that. You no longer need an author once you have a copy of the book yourself (audio-books are increasingly being read by their authors, but they often have horrible voices). An author’s persona wouldn’t do half as much for their work, in my eyes, as a musician’s does. Partly because in almost every book there will be several characters an author will need to inhabit but e.g. a concept album can get by on just one.
Some authors do seem to have public personas – at the moment, there’s Neil Gaiman, who as much as it irritates me wears a leather jacket and is summarily called ‘rock star writer’ in America – and there used to be Barbara Cartland on the opposite end of the spectrum, with her continuously pink and fluffy appearance. I think that the only writer who’s carried off their image with success is Oscar Wilde – and I think that shows in what he’s now remembered for (in part also because of the scandal he was involved in, which his style has become forged with). Which would you rather be remembered for – the presentation of your work or it’s content?
I think the obvious answer is indeed the content as in this sense writing is your legacy. The question perhaps in my view would be when you are remembered, what will come first, the author or the content? When you think of Bram Stoker you think of Dracula but when you think of L Ron Hubbard you think of Scientology and the man behind it, rather than any of the many novels he wrote during his life.
ReplyDelete