J.K Rowling, Stephenie Meyer, and Suzanne Collins are arguably the three most well-known authors right now with the three biggest franchises (Harry Potter, Twilight, and Hunger Games). Of the three, only Rowling has a Twitter, though she’s only tweeted 7 times to date… and only to say that pen and paper are her priority at the moment. Meyer had a MySpace back when MySpace was the thing to have, but since then has not had any online presence. Collins has absolutely no online presence at all aside from a few interviews. There are plenty of highly successful authors, such as John Green and Maureen Johnson, who are active on social media sites but have not reached that ‘phenomenon’ status bestowed upon Rowling, Meyer, and Collins.
Social media provides authors a kind of name recognition that was not available to authors even five years ago, and yet the three most successful franchises were written by online-reclusive authors. So what part does social media play in your choice of books? Are you more likely to read someone’s books if they are active on Twitter? Is it possible that being active online isn’t as important as people believe it is? Could the mystery surrounding the author add to the experience provided by the book? Some people would tell you that characters in books who you don’t know much about are more likeable because you can fill them up with traits you admire, but does that also apply to the authors themselves?
If you’re dying to read ‘Harry Potter,’ ‘Twilight,’ or ‘The Hunger Games,’ we now are giving away any book we cover to a random commenter, every month! A winner will be chosen on the 1st of the month, and all you need to do is chime in with your opinion in the comments to be eligible. This giveaway is open to international readers.
When I first read Harry Potter, I was five or six years old. There was no such thing as Twitter, Facebook, Youtube or something like that. The internet was fairly new, or what to say. And frankly, the few things I did on the internet was to like, play stupid games.
And I don’t think it matters if an author is active on the internet, but yes, it is good and you probably get more readers, but not that much I think.
It might be a little bit mystery.. Or maybe about not flooding it. When I follow some author and they tweet a lot and talk a lot about the book it sort of puts me off.. Maybe it’s so obvious the book isn’t real, just written by someone (so I really believe THG, HP and Twilight are real… haha). But otherwise I don’t think it matters. But it is true that the books I’ve loved the most are written by very private authors… Maybe they write better because they’re not on the internet a lot? (That doesn’t bode well for my own “writing career”.. Haha)
I’d argue Rowling had a huge online presence. Maybe not through the social media sites of today, but her own website attracted huge numbers of guests. Information about upcoming books were released through puzzle and scavenger hunt form. It also allowed Rowling to answer frequently asked questions from fans an share them to the world. Now, in an effort to share her wealth of knowledge of the Potterverse, she’s created Pottermore; essentially, a potter based social media site.
I like a book on what the book is about. But I do like a recluse author. It’s like he/she’s letting the book speak for itself, and I really love that.
I don’t think that anyone would rather read a book because the author tweets or posts on Facebook. However, sites like these could be helpful to find new authors and book preferences.
I do think that the lack of online presence from these three very talented authors is somehow a (small) part of why became famous. It helps the readers feel and know the characters instead of just seeing as him/her being written and being imaginary.
In terms, of John Green, I became interested in reading his books simply because I was subscribed to him on Youtube. I liked his personality so now I’m interested in reading his newest book, The Fault in Our Stars. However, I think his most popular book, Looking for Alaska, became popular when he wasn’t online as much. Still, I think his vlogs on Youtube has a big influence in his books’ readership.
I think when such big authors aren’t very active on the Internet it just makes me more excited when they actually are–like when they do an interview or something, I get super-excited and can’t wait to see it. So maybe it generates more interest in them and the book when they rarely show up online? I don’t really know, but I believe readers love their books just because of how amazing they are.
I love when authors tweet, like John Green! It gives us a little insight. Though if they don’t feel the need to tweet, they don’t have to! And we shouldn’t expect them to. It makes them remain sort of a mystery.
I think that when the author doesn’t have a big presense online, it makes the words they do say (in the books) that much more meaningful. It’s like, if you want to see in the author’s head, you have to read their books. And I enjoy that way more.
But overall, I don’t care whether the author has a huge internet personality or non at all, as long as the book’s content is good.
Actually I think it’s rather the opposite. Just like Rachel, I love it when authors have blogs or something where they actually post information, etc. about themselves or about their books. It forms a certain reader-author-relationship which can’t establish itself otherwise, because only having read the book still makes you very distand from the author.
Okay, my explanation was awful but I guess you get my point =)