I mostly read category books, and those don’t have bios (at least, the lines I read don’t). If they did provide them, I’m sure I’d put back a lot more books than I do now, especially when I’m making impulse purchases. If I’m at eharlequin.com and looking to see what’s currently out on the shelves, I read the linked author bios and sometimes make decisions not to buy the book based on what I read there. I am burned out on books that drown in the sort of chatty, faux-humorous tone that is supposed to communicate wit. So, I don’t decide to buy a book because of a bio, but I might decide not to.

A bigger pet peeve for me, though, is when there is a photo of the author and they are dressed like the main character. HATE. Bonus fail points if it’s in a setting from the book.

I definitely wouldn’t miss bios or photos one iota if they were gone. If I want to know more about an author, that’s what the internet is for.

http://tinyurl.com/6q2ak3

Which I think would in fact be helpful for someone coming across his work for the first time, to find out how loooong he’s been at it — and to start really saving up those pfennigs for that monster backlist!

And I hate writing my own bios. On the bio in either When Demons Walk or Steal the Dragon (I’ve forgotten which) it says I graduated from University of Montana. I didn’t. I graduated from Montana State University. I’d have been indignant except that I wrote the silly thing myself. I certainly know where I got my degreed. It must have been Gremlins. And I expect that I’m the only person in the entire universe who cares .

As to what’s in the bio, I like to know whether or not they are married, have children, something about previous careers and favourite things – I guess I pretty much prefer a straight and brief bio.

Oh, and in anticipation of next week’s piece – I like the photos too – again, it helps me to feel that the author is a real person.

If there is a bio, I usually skim it, even if it’s just to see where they live. “Oh, this one might show up at booksigning nearby some day” or “I’ll probably never meet her at a booksigning around here”.

Oh, and I really like it when the author includes a website address, especially if it’s not the author’s name dot com.

Says something about his work and his domicile, but nothing about his person.

It does say something personal, though, because his work is largely concentrated on Israeli culture and identity. His other works are listed and divided into fiction and non-fiction in the front of the book (a small hardcover published by Farrar, Straus, and Giroux). The other (front) flap of the book contains a brief explanation of the book’s contents.

I realize that I can’t hope to make my point particularly clear without it seeming as if I am trying to wring the personhood out of authors. But for me it’s really a matter of degree and of the whole notion of “credentialing.” The SF authors you mentioned in your long post all were “credentialed” or “authorized,” “by showing the reader that the author is qualified to write about the subject matter they have chosen, either by education or by peer recognition,” as you put it.

Comparatively, what is valued among Romance authors? What is offered to connect with their readership? How are authors being packaged and marketed and what aspects of the author’s personal experience are seen as more “valuable” within the context of the market. Nicholas Sparks, for example, has a “did you know” page on on his website, on which the third item is this: After selling The Notebook, the first thing he bought was a new wedding ring for his wife. Then there are the men who write under the female pseudonym — why is that? To me it’s not personal v. non-personal/impersonal; it’s what aspects of the personal and why.

Next week will be the dreaded Author Photo and whether looks matter in the selling of books.

Can’t wait to add my two cents to that topic. I think my original comment got lost in the black hole of the Internet.

And the only bio I can remember reading lately was for a male literary author, who mentioned his girlfriend and dog by name.

I also learned about Stephen King’s wife family and pets from his bio. And Neil Gaiman talks about his family, all the time. I know his pets names, and he lets his daughters blog for him.

I think the presence of a fandom is what leads to the personalization. And since many writers of romance are women with families, that’s where we’re focused and that’s what we talk about, if someone asks us to crank a bio out on the spur of the moment (which seems to happen a lot).

Do I have degrees? Yep. And have I held different jobs? Yep. Do I mention them in bios? Some of them, I think. I have a lot of different bios, for every occasion.

But whatever I say is what I want to be saying, and not a product of any direct pressure to conform to a stereotype. And I got my headshot from Glamour Shots, too. Although it is totally free of boas and glitter eyeshadow.

And the other authors posting here are saying mostly the same thing. No one is making us act this way. Have I missed someone? Do we have any wirter that wants to be a dissenter?

If there’s any pressure, it seems to be coming from here. And it confuses me. Because coming to places like this to post creates more personalization and familiarity than an author bio does. You can’t mingle with readers and leave nothing of yourself behind.

I’d find it really useless if I had turned to it find out more about the writer since it doesn’t list even one of the titles of his other books. If the function was to make me more interested in his work, I’d have to say it failed (this point may be moot if I was blown away by the book I just read by him).

Here’s a part of the author bio of a molecular biology textbook I just picked up.

After listing his BA, Ph.D., research, publishing credentials, his particular interests in his field and his teaching career, it goes on to say:

“Finding it impossible to carry on life as both full-time professor and author, Gerry gave up his faculty position to concentrate on writing. He hopes to revise this text every three years.”

While no babies, wives, hobbies, pets or other cute creatures were mentioned the bio was able to connect me to the author, his personality, his priorities and his future career plans, something the bio you quoted did not.

I much prefer a bio that gives me some insight into the author’s personality. YMMV and probably does! :)

David Grossman is the author of seven novels, two works of journalism, and a previous volume of collected commentary. He lives in Jerusalem.

K.A. Mitchell discovered the magic of writing at an early age when she learned that a carefully crayoned note of apology sent to the kitchen in a toy truck would earn her a reprieve from banishment to her room. Her career as a spin control artist was cut short when her family moved to a two-story house, and her trucks would not roll safely down the stairs. Around the same time, she decided that Chip and Ken made a much cuter couple than Ken and Barbie and was perplexed when invitations to play Barbie dropped off. An unnamed number of years later, she's happy to find other readers and writers who like to play in her world.

It tells me nothing about the author’s private life (in which I have no interest) but *does* tell me she’s been curious about same sex romance for a long time (and hasn’t just picked it up as the next big thing) – plus it’s funny and clever without being too clever. The author, coincidentally, happens to write pretty well too. I liked her ‘bio’ voice enough to pick up the next book, and wasn’t disappointed, even though the the first one was only so so for me.

but I promise I won't pose for my author pic with hula hands.

Yeah, but how will the photographer pose you? *g*

I randomly picked 10 books off my SF/F shelves.

Five out of 10 had an author bio (Tanya Huff, Robert Heinlein, M.A. Foster, Catherine Asaro and Marion Zimmer Bradley did not).

Arthur C. Clarke’s mentions where he was born but not where he lives and does not refer to the wife I know he had. Heavy on the qualifications, awards and honors received.

Sharon Lee/Steve Miller starts with past SF related positions, mentions where they live, that they are married and have lots of cats.

Robert J. Sawyer’s is heavy on his awards and his TV appearances and mentions his wife’s name and domicile.

Ursula LeGuin’s mentions her hometown and then concentrates exclusively on honors and awards.

Jack McDevitt’s lists his past jobs, past novels, his wife’s name and where he lives.

I was curious, so I checked other books by the 5 authors who didn’t have one in the first title I picked. Asaro’s next two books had one. Heavy on the education, mentions her ballet career and current involvement in both ballet and hard science and her other books. The other four authors did not have bios in any of the books I checked. Interestingly enough, most of those titles were very old and almost all by DAW.

It definitely seems that the SF/F bios are heavily into ‘authorizing’, showing the reader that the author is qualified to write about the subject matter they have chosen, either by education or by peer recognition.

For comparison purposes, I picked 10 books off my romance shelves.

Elizabeth Hewitt’s gives domicile, mentions husband and cats, lists hobbies and previous titles.

Kate Hoffmann’s mentions how long she’s been published (since 1993) and how many books she’s had published (holy cow, 60!, I had no idea). Goes on to list her hobbies and her location and two cats. No prince charming, husband, or otherwise mentioned.

Naomi Horton’s lists her birthplace and the fact that libraries were few and far between and the winters long. Includes a quote on how/why she started writing, mentions her engineering degree, her husband and a collection of assorted pets.

Jo Beverley’s is so short I’ll quote: ‘has won just about every award in the romance field, including 4 RITAs. She is a member of the Romance Writers of America Hall of Fame.’

Anne McAllister’s bio mentions her RITAs, points out that she fell in love with cowboys at age 5, but that her husband is a college professor. First (and only) mention of ‘man of her dreams for 30 years’.

Eloisa James’ bio touts her as the author of 8 award-winning romances, mentions her professorship, her family and domicile. Books must be written in her sleep because of the 2 kids, guinea pig, frog and tumbledown house. Husband conspicuously absent.

Jill Shalvis’s ’08 Blaze title didn’t have a bio.

Sharon Sala’s bio tells us she’s a farmer’s child, likes solitude, is a dreamer and likes that her stories have become tools of healing. No princes, frogs or other males mentioned.

Judith Duncan’s mentions her marriage, kids and domicile, her involvement in teaching the writing craft, her position with the Canadian Authors’ Association and the Alberta RWA, which she founded.

Rosemary Rogers’ book doesn’t have a bio (very old title.)

Out of 10 romance books (which slanted heavily into category because I was too lazy to go upstairs and pull more single titles), 8 had bios, but only 4 that may fit the type that Jane and Robin find problematic. The other 4 bios did not mention human males.

Notabene: none of the 4 bios mentioned the husband or significant other by name, while two of the SF/F ones did.

Coming down to the nitty gritty we are at the question of whether the fact that women writers mention their family/pet ties as well as awards and positions within professional organizations while SF/F writers concentrate on degrees, awards and honors means that they are using their personal lives as ‘authorization’ for the type of books they write.

After thinking about this for a while, I have decided that romance writers may very well be doing this (either because they haven’t gotten awards (yet), have no college education or do not consider it relevant to their chosen genre or as Victoria says because the people or pets are the most important things in their lives and they use the bio as a shout-out to them) and that I have zero issue with that and do not find it problematic, negatively stereotyping of females, etc.

I also have no issues with SF/F writers listing their awards and scientific backgrounds.

That said, I found the romance writers bios more informative on a personal level. The fact that X author has gotten a million awards really doesn’t do much for me as a reader. I usually get the instinctive ‘man, do you think that head will fit through the door’ reaction to reading bios that focus heavily on that (be they SF/F or Romance).

I guess now I’ll echo what others have said, at least to a degree. I do not care how the writer is qualified to write about what they write, I read bios because I want to find out more about them, and how they came up with the world I was just immersed in. If a SF/F author can’t write a convincing story, all the Hugos or engineering degrees will not make me like the book better, same with a romance writer, if the couple doesn’t convince as a couple, the fact that the writer’s been married for 30 years won’t convince me that s/he knew what s/he was writing about.

I think I’ll quit now. Not sure I’m ahead or whether I’ve contradicted myself, grin.

Thanks for the interesting topic, Jane! Kept me intellectually stimulated on a day when I desperately needed a distraction! And not just because of the election. I’m afraid to turn my TV on…

Sarah Palin/Fred Phelps 2012

Teddy Pig, I’d buy this bumpersticker :)

I read the bio if I liked the book. I just spent hours with that person’s creation, so of course I want to know more about them. If I learn something new or interesting, cool. If not, whatever.

I’m going to have to write a bio soon and, like Patrice, I’m probably going to spend too long working on it. Mine will probably include mention of my geckos, but I promise I won’t pose for my author pic with hula hands.

Is this specific to romance, Robin? Going back to the example of art (becasue I live in a small town with lots of little galleries), are you disturbed by a showing of paintings accompanied by a biography and a photo of the artist? What if the artist is actually there speaking about her inspiration and/or personal life as it relates to her art?

I think Romance is *specifically* marketed through a(n) (over)personalized paradigm that is perhaps related to the whole relationship focus of the novels. I remember, for example, being wholly surprised when I first started online by the way Romance readers speak of authors using their first names. I still notice it, because it’s something that is so contrary to my own training, although I no longer assume it means that the reader actually knows the author, lol. It’s been difficult enough for me to address authors by their first names in a blog environment, but I’m pretty sure I’ll never be able to refer to authors by their first names in reviews. I don’t see either way as good or bad, but I do think that the first name indicates a more personal address, one used between people who know each other and within a more informal personal context.

So would I respond the same way to a visual artist’s bio? To answer that I would have to start by going back to my original point which is that I don’t have an issue with author bios per se. I get that authors are simply writing down those things that are part of their lives, husbands, children, dogs, cats, ferrets, whatever. So I don’t read author bios thinking, ‘oh, she’s just trying to sell her books based on her own marriage history’ or whatever. Most bios I don’t register at all unless they are particularly clever or particularly awkward or stand out in some other way.

So when it comes to reading the bio of an artist of a painting, it would come down to my perceptions of how art tends to be marketed. IMO certain visual arts are marketed with a perception of rarity, exclusivity, scarcity, both of the artist and the work (think about how artists whose work is mass produced can be seen as lesser somehow, as hacks or worse). An individual artist bio would likely have no impact on me, but if I were to take issue with some of the operative stereotypes I see in so-called fine art, I might have a similar analysis of the marketing of art and the role that I see artist bios playing in that marketing.

To clarify further, let me bring this back to something more overtly in the crosshairs of Romance community analysis — clinch covers. A lot of people like them. Publishers insist they sell. Both of those things I believe. But IMO those covers both reflect and perpetuate certain stereotypes about the genre and about its readers. That doesn’t mean I hate every clinch cover and believe they’re a tool of the devil’s patriarchal plans for the overthrow of women. That doesn’t mean I believe they *shouldn’t* sell or that I don’t understand how people can’t love clinch covers or that I believe people who adore them are submitting to patriarchal authority. It just means that I believe those covers — in toto — have a certain effect and also reflect certain perceptions that may not fit with how readers really view the genre. When it comes to author bios, I see it as part of the way in which *authors* are IMO marketed as heavily (perhaps more so) than their actual books — i.e. that readers are being subtly encouraged to relate to the book *through* the author *even though that may not be the intention of any author*.

I could construct an argument with different premises and assumptions that is equally critical of certain SF marketing, as well, especially in the days before women were so prominently involved as readers and authors in the genre (the covers alone are quite a study). But since we’re talking here about Romance, that’s where I’ve been focused.