# Author Bio pet peeves.



## Ban (Jun 5, 2019)

After having read through a number of them, I have come to the conclusion that I am turned off by third person bios from indie authors. To me, writing something in third person implies that it is not written by the person in question, but someone else (a third person if you will).

Now knowing a thing or two about indie writers (by knowing indie writers), I'm about 101% sure that most of them are writing their own bios. Unless they have yet to contact me, there are no author bio fairies who do the work for you. Isn't it weird to write about yourself from that perspective? You're not fooling anyone, and perhaps this is a cultural thing, but it comes across as vain to me. Whenever I read a third person author bio from an indie writer, I am reminded of Julius Caesar in the Asterix and Obelix comics.

In recent(ish) years, it has also become fashionable to be personable and a little quirky in your author bios, which I personally like. Most bios nowadays are not just listings of what the author has written before, but also give insight into their lives and their personality, usually with a self-deprecating tone about how mundane it really is (less fond of this, but points for being honest and authentic). Read through a few and most will read something like: "Jack London writes books about dogs, tropical voyages and the rough wilderness. He is a prolific writer who loves going out into the woods, drinking a pint and snuggling up with his dog Buck."

But that brings us back to the problem with third person. I can suspend my disbelief when it comes to an indie author supposedly having an imaginary someone else write their bio, but when someone adds this much flavour to their bio it becomes even less believable than it was before. When the names of the author's pets and their favourite tv-shows pop up I'm left to ask:  "Who is this weirdo that knows all the quirky details of your life?" and the follow-up "Should I call the police?"

Pet peeves rant over. What are your thoughts, and how insignificant is this issue?


----------



## Devor (Jun 5, 2019)

The "general advice" is to refer to yourself by your last name in any bio because it helps the reader to remember who you are. When someone reads, "I am the Swiss Swindler," they might think that's cool but it doesn't help them remember that you are _Ban_ and I should read this book because _Ban_ is a pretty impressive guy................ hypothetically speaking.


----------



## Ban (Jun 5, 2019)

Well sure, but that's not what I'm referring to. You can introduce yourself in first person just fine. Using "I am Devor" or "Devor is" has the same effect in your example.


----------



## Devor (Jun 5, 2019)

But that only works once.

"I am Ban, the Swindler of Swiss.  I, BAN, am the Good Gouda King. In my Banniness, I will also let you call me Sir Laserface.  I also have three pets and live in the Netherlands, which you can tell because I am BAN."


----------



## Svrtnsse (Jun 5, 2019)

Devor said:


> The "general advice" is to refer to yourself by your last name in any bio because it helps the reader to remember who you are. When someone reads, "I am the Swiss Swindler," they might think that's cool but it doesn't help them remember that you are _Ban_ and I should read this book because _Ban_ is a pretty impressive guy................ hypothetically speaking.



I've heard this as well (it might be you who told me). I don't have a problem with it as such, but I also feel like Ban is bringing up a valid point when it comes to the author bio i I put in my books (I finally got around to including one). The bio is in third person and referring to me by surname, just to hammer home the name.

For a bio on a website, like here on MS, or on Amazon, or anywhere else like that, I feel it works, wit third person and surname. I'm just uncertain about author bios in books now.


----------



## Ban (Jun 5, 2019)

Fair point Devor, but do you think that repetition weighs up against... the artificiality? I suppose that won't matter to someone if they haven't been bothered by it before, but to me, I'd prefer reading the name only once or twice and having a good author bio in return, than having the name hammered in my head and wonder why on earth they're talking in third person.


----------



## Ban (Jun 5, 2019)

Svrtnsse said:


> For a bio on a website, like here on MS, or on Amazon, or anywhere else like that, I feel it works, wit third person and surname. I'm just uncertain about author bios in books now.



I'd think the opposite really. On a website or amazon I still need to be convinced of the author and whether I like them. On a website I'd also find it even less likely that they'd have someone to write the bio for them. If on the other hand I have the book already, I have given the author my trust in their work, at which point they can have any quirky way of writing their bio as they please.


----------



## Devor (Jun 5, 2019)

But you're forgetting the point of a bio.  It's not to introduce yourself, it's to talk up your life and accomplishments.  Once you realize that jump, wouldn't you be more afraid of sounding braggadocious in 1st Person?


----------



## Ban (Jun 5, 2019)

But does that work for an indie author devor? I'd say one of the big leg ups that indie authors have is that they can come across more personable and authentic than traditionally published works. We can believe that they're the guy living next-door. Wouldn't a less haughty approach be better then? Maybe the whole bio needs to be approached differently for an indie writer. For me it would at least, because there's otherwise a dissonance between my perception and the way they portray themselves.


----------



## Svrtnsse (Jun 5, 2019)

Actually, I'm sort of doing both...

At the end of the story, just after "to be continued..." I have a page about the next book, and about where to reach me and find out more about the books etc. It's got my social media details and such, and it's in first person. Then, after that comes a page with the title "About the Author" and that's in third person.

So, there's a fairly personal page that says, "hey, here's how to get hold of me if you have any questions" and another one that's more like a press-release with a cheesy gag at the end.


----------



## Devor (Jun 5, 2019)

If what you mean is "does that work for someone who has no real accomplishments," I think that's being silly.  To be totally honest I read a first person bio and usually think, "Who is this nobody? Why are they hiding their accomplishments? Don't they have any confidence?"


----------



## Ban (Jun 5, 2019)

.... no that's not what I meant at all. I'm saying that an indie author has a benefit that they can utilize, without the company behind them that would give credence to the idea of a supposed third person writing their third person bio. You can still show off your accomplishments in first person, and I'd think it would be better that way. It shows that the author has confidence in their accomplishments.


----------



## Devor (Jun 5, 2019)

Do you have maybe an example?


----------



## Ban (Jun 5, 2019)

Let's say I want to mention the articles I have written on this website. I can write this in third person "Ban has 5 articles posted on the fantasy writer's website Mythicscribes.com" or I can write this in first person "5 of my articles can be found on Mythicscribes.com". Both say the same thing, but I'd personally (and it is fine if people disagree with this) prefer the latter, because it does not insert a fictional third person narrator and shows me this Ban guy is willing to say with confidence what he has written. It's not a major difference, but I think it still adds up a little bit to showing the author of the bio in a more confident active position than the more passive third person text.


----------



## Devor (Jun 5, 2019)

But that's one line.  A bio goes on for a paragraph or several.  First person gets arrogant pretty quickly.


----------



## Ban (Jun 5, 2019)

I can see how it could come across that way to you, but I don't think a third person approach comes across as more modest, especially when you can see through the third person facade given the context.


----------



## FifthView (Jun 6, 2019)

Ban said:


> In recent(ish) years, it has also become fashionable to be personable and a little quirky in your author bios, which I personally like. Most bios nowadays are not just listings of what the author has written before, but also give insight into their lives and their personality, usually with a self-deprecating tone about how mundane it really is (less fond of this, but points for being honest and authentic). Read through a few and most will read something like: "Jack London writes books about dogs, tropical voyages and the rough wilderness. He is a prolific writer who loves going out into the woods, drinking a pint and snuggling up with his dog Buck."



The personable, quirky, self-deprecating or, sometimes, slightly absurd parts are the areas that make me cringe the most.

I do think the cringe might be heightened by the third-person delivery when I know the author wrote the bio. I hadn't considered that before. But those parts would exist in a first-person delivery, so I don't think the POV change would make much of a difference for my level of cringe.

Do I need to know Jack loves going out in the woods, drinking a pint and snuggling up with his dog Buck? No, no I don't. I don't care. Are these bios on a dating app? Heh. That's the part that gets to me. I can never decide if the inclusion of those personal details, or that type of personal detailing, is due to:

A very self-conscious feeling of being an impostor, a poser.
A desire to pose for the camera/ad—like those we might find on a dating app.
The reaction to an assumed standard that has developed in publishing.
Perhaps the quirky personal detailing is often a result of two or three of these.

Personally, the need to talk or write about myself for the benefit of strangers I'll never meet produces a cringe all on its own. I hate the feeling that I have a requirement to sell myself. So I'm not unsympathetic. Usually I can read through the bio quickly, suppressing the cringe, because of a readerly response to #3 above. But the cringe doesn't disappear; it's merely suppressed.

Occasionally some detail in a personal bio will actually interest me a little more in the story. But usually, not.


----------



## Maker of Things Not Kings (Jun 6, 2019)

Maker of Things, Not Kings is not a fan of third person bios in general. He has long resisted this form of bio though, to be honest, it comes from the fact that he feels that it has permeated the art world at large for decades and now seems to be bleeding into more general usage outside of the arts. He recently read an about page for a small wine bar that spoke of the owners in third person. Yikes. (he thought). 

Well, If a publishing house writes it that way for an author, what can one do? But yes, a self-published indie author? It seems a little excessive to me.  Much like the way an average bike rider today might don the full Tour de France racing gear for their little jaunt around town. Of course, it's absolutely their right to do so, but they should be aware that some eyes are going to roll. . .  so we must all choose


----------



## Devor (Jun 6, 2019)

It's a resume, not a cover letter. Of course you write it in third person.


----------



## Ban (Jun 6, 2019)

Devor said:


> It's a resume, not a cover letter. Of course you write it in third person.



You know Devor it is alright for people to have different opinions. Simply because something is done a certain way traditionally, does not mean it is the ideal or perfect way to do it, and there is no reason why we can't discuss it in that manner. I'd also argue that your average author bio is not a resume and serves an entirely different purpose than a resume. The author bios you see on amazon, or on a blog, or on any similar platform exist to give you as a customer insight into the writer and their work. Unlike a resume, it does not exist to recommend the writer to an employer.


----------



## Devor (Jun 6, 2019)

Ban said:


> You know Devor it is alright for people to have different opinions.



What....?  Since when?  

In all seriousness, though, just because something is subjective doesn't mean you can't determine real facts or conclusions based on it.  There's a reason publishers make the choices they do about bios, and a reason that the "general advice" is the way it is, and that the industry trends have been set.  It seems spurious to dismiss all of that as a mere difference of opinion.

A bio is not an author greeting. It is a resume designed to build a writer's *credibility, not likability*.  And the third person POV is far more effective at doing so.


----------



## Ban (Jun 6, 2019)

Devor said:


> A bio is not an author greeting. It is a resume designed to build a writer's *credibility, not likability*.  And the third person POV is far more effective at doing so.



I'm sorry but I disagree again. You're presenting the bio as being factually about building the writer's credibility, but on what basis? If I and others are put off by the styling of the bio then that actively hinders the credibility, instead of constructing it. Also, I am not dismissing the reasons for a third preson author bio, but I am stating that the reasons for them are constructed from the traditionally published market. When you have a company to back you up, there is credence to the idea that someone is writing your bio for you. An air of prestige is constructed in this sense when the reader reads this. I am saying that the same does not hold for an indie writer. We know that they are writing their own bios, therefore the illusion of prestige is actively hindered by the reality of their situation. We can see through the facade, and because of that the facade becomes an active hinderance to the supposed credibility that the third person bio is supposed to construct.


----------



## Steerpike (Jun 6, 2019)

I feel like this is an area where writers can really get lost in the weeds, but where the typical reader will never think about it one way or the other.


----------



## Mythopoet (Jun 6, 2019)

Devor said:


> A bio is not an author greeting. It is a resume designed to build a writer's *credibility, not likability*.  And the third person POV is far more effective at doing so.



This would certainly be true for non-fiction. When I'm reading a history book I want to know that the author knows what they're talking about and has the expertise to teach others. But when it comes to fiction, credibility is built by the narrative, not the author's bio. There is no criteria for writing fiction. You either tell a good story or you don't; your prior experience has nothing to do with it.

Personally, I feel like the author bio is pretty useless in fiction. Generally they give inane information like what general region of the world the writer lives in and what awards they've won. But I like it a lot when the author includes an afterword in their own voice that gives insight into the writing process of the book and what they were trying to accomplish with it. In these days of social media and mass sharing and fandom I think it's a smart move for an author to be approachable and even develop a certain level of rapport with their audience.


----------



## Garren Jacobsen (Jun 6, 2019)

Steerpike said:


> I feel like this is an area where writers can really get lost in the weeds, but where the typical reader will never think about it one way or the other.


Imma be honest. I can count on one finger the amount of times I read an author's bio for a book (articles are something different for the reasons outlined by Mytho)


----------



## Devor (Jun 6, 2019)

Garren Jacobsen said:


> Imma be honest. I can count on one finger the amount of times I read an author's bio for a book (articles are something different for the reasons outlined by Mytho)



That's because bios aren't written for the reader - they're written for the industry.


----------



## Svrtnsse (Jun 6, 2019)

Devor said:


> That's because bios aren't written for the reader - they're written for the industry.


I'm afraid you've lost me now.
What do you mean by "the industry" in this context?
Are you referring to agents and publishers or others who have the ability to push an author forward, or are you referring to some kind of collective conscious of people who read books and may have an interest in discussing authors with others?

I've been under the impression that this discussion encompassed author bios that are included in books written by an author, is that not the case?
Is it just the kind of bios that show up on amazon, or other places where a little information about an author is available?

What's the purpose of an author bio?


----------



## Devor (Jun 6, 2019)

Svrtnsse said:


> What's the purpose of an author bio?



I think I'm done with the conversation, but I'd strongly suggest you give that question a good google.


----------



## Svrtnsse (Jun 6, 2019)

Devor said:


> I think I'm done with the conversation, but I'd strongly suggest you give that question a good google.


No, seriously. 
You just said bios aren't written for readers, but for the industry, and that really makes me think I've missed something significant in this discussion.

I did put in "author bio" into google though, to see what I could get from that. The guides on author bios from Bookbub, IngramSpark, and Reedsy, all tell me that the author bio is a way for me to help readers learn what makes me and my book interesting.

They all seem to agree that writing in third person is the way to go, but that wasn't what I was objecting against or what had me confused.

Also, my apologies if I came off as overly snarky, but the comment about author bios not being for readers really did throw me off.


----------



## Garren Jacobsen (Jun 6, 2019)

Concerning the question at hand (1st v 3rd) it's a question of who is talking. Generally speaking, when an author has a bio for their book by a trad company, it is the company, not the author that is speaking, hence the need for third. If one is indie but doesn't have their own imprint, then I don't see why 3rd makes sense since it is the author that is speaking. If one is indie with their own company, it is the company, not the author speaking, and so 3rd makes sense. If I write an article for MS, then MS is speaking and I need a 3rd person bio.

And I think this distinction is what Devor is talking about. Your bio isn't for you. It isn't for your readers. It is for the industry to say, "look at how fancy the writer is."


----------



## Devor (Jun 6, 2019)

It's not that I thought you were snarky but that I don't want to go digging for sources to back up what my answer would be.

But in general, your bio is of much more interest to reviewers, bloggers, agents, publicists, editors, and anyone else who is considering whether they want to work with you or talk about you than it is to readers directly.  Who is this person whose book I'm reviewing?  Is this someone that I would want for a guest post on my blog?  If I agree to do this editing work is this the kind of person that's going to follow through?  That's what the bio is for.

Of course readers are part of the industry, but they're kind of a secondary audience here.


----------



## Svrtnsse (Jun 6, 2019)

Devor said:


> But in general, your bio is of much more interest to reviewers, bloggers, agents, publicists, editors, and anyone else who is considering whether they want to work with you or talk about you than it is to readers directly.  Who is this person whose book I'm reviewing?  Is this someone that I would want for a guest post on my blog?  If I agree to do this editing work is this the kind of person that's going to follow through?  That's what the bio is for.


Thanks for the clarification - it makes a lot more sense to me now. 

As for the 1st/3rd person thing.
One of the articles I found while digging around has the following to say about it:
_Get ready to embrace your multiple personalities, because your author persona is not writing your author bio. Your marketing persona is. You have to completely separate yourself from the author within and approach your bio from the third person. If a reader sees the pronoun “I” in a bio, he or she is likely to deduce that it’s self-indulgent and amateurish._​Source: How to Write an Author Profile
The way I'm reading this, it encompasses indie authors writing their own bios. 

Obviously, we may all feel differently about this, but I feel like it's still a good point.


----------



## Ban (Jun 6, 2019)

Garren Jacobsen said:


> Generally speaking, when an author has a bio for their book by a trad company, it is the company, not the author that is speaking, hence the need for third. If one is indie but doesn't have their own imprint, then I don't see why 3rd makes sense since it is the author that is speaking. If one is indie with their own company, it is the company, not the author speaking, and so 3rd makes sense. If I write an article for MS, then MS is speaking and I need a 3rd person bio.
> "


I think this is a great distinction to keep in mind, I'm going to try and stick to it.


----------



## Demesnedenoir (Jun 6, 2019)

Yeah, I did third person with a tongue in cheek thing that makes it clear who the hell is writing it. I actually had a person drop me an email telling me they bought the book because of the bio... now how many didn’t buy because of the bio? Well, at least no one ever told me that, heh heh.

As a reader, most often I ignore bios anyhow.



Ban said:


> After having read through a number of them, I have come to the conclusion that I am turned off by third person bios from indie authors. To me, writing something in third person implies that it is not written by the person in question, but someone else (a third person if you will).
> 
> Now knowing a thing or two about indie writers (by knowing indie writers), I'm about 101% sure that most of them are writing their own bios. Unless they have yet to contact me, there are no author bio fairies who do the work for you. Isn't it weird to write about yourself from that perspective? You're not fooling anyone, and perhaps this is a cultural thing, but it comes across as vain to me. Whenever I read a third person author bio from an indie writer, I am reminded of Julius Caesar in the Asterix and Obelix comics.
> 
> ...


----------



## Maker of Things Not Kings (Jun 7, 2019)

Drevor, I understand your perspective but the bio, by nature, if it is about the author's life and accomplishments can be told both ways. If we are to spend years perfecting the craft of writing, is it too much to ask that an author spend the time it takes to craft that bio, no matter the perspective, to not sound braggadocios? This is as true for third person which we all know isn't always written from a true third person, otherwise perhaps there would be quotations around it and a writing credit for it as well. 

 To someone else it may be off-putting but I cannot recall ever reading an author's bio before I turned to page one and dove in. I could care less about the author until I finish or am at least a good way through the story. If the story is really hitting me, I might turn to the author bio before I finish because  the book is amazing and I'm thinking "Who is this author?" If the book is written well, the author doesn't pop into my head at all. I know that I have never purchased a book because of an author bio/resume.  So, once I am there at the end, it matters little to me if they've put it in first person, third person, or Dr. Seuss rhymes.  

 In this case I just think that the author should feel free to decide what and how they present themselves and not feel constrained by some old school rut of expectation if that form does not feel comfortable to them.  I just don't think it's an important part of the process to adhere to a particular rule of thumb. Again, if you are being published, you probably aren't writing it yourself or it will be rewritten in third person by someone inside the publishing house. I can't remember ever hearing someone saying they lost a book deal because they did not have a third person bio ready to go or because their bio was written in first person instead. And if you are self-publishing, I cannot see where the perspective of the bio is selling one more book for you unless it DOES make you stand out in some way among the masses and seem more accessible. That, I believe, is what more readers today respond to rather than a list of accredited accomplishments.


----------



## Demesnedenoir (Jun 7, 2019)

Demesnedenoir said:


> Yeah, I did third person with a tongue in cheek thing that makes it clear who the hell is writing it. I actually had a person drop me an email telling me they bought the book because of the bio... now how many didn’t buy because of the bio? Well, at least no one ever told me that, heh heh.
> 
> As a reader, most often I ignore bios anyhow.



I should note that I am more apt to check the bio after reading the book than before... once I know I enjoy their writing. Probably why so many author bios are on the back inside cover, LOL.


----------



## Devor (Jun 7, 2019)

I just want to say that I completely agree with the quote that Svrt found, and I have definitely cut out books because the bio was in first person.

It, to me, raises any or all of the following red flags, depending of course on what the bio actually says:

 - Arrogance.
 - Insecurity, hiding their personal record behind anecdotes.
 - They don't do their research or pay attention to details.

Of course a red flag is just a warning, and I'm sure that someone, somewhere, has written a first person bio to avoid these things.

But again, a bio isn't written for readers. It's written for reviewers, for bloggers, for, y'know, that list of industry peep's I mentioned earlier.  That's why there are many people saying they skip over the bio. But don't hear that readers skip bios, and then assume that means there's something wrong with the bio that needs to be fixed. Go take a survey of reviewers and bloggers and author interviewers and editors and find out what they prefer, AND THEN you'll have a basis for explaining what a bio should or shouldn't look like.  But, of course, we have that. We have the _industry standard_ that they have set.  And it is clear:  Third person.


----------



## Ban (Jun 7, 2019)

Devor said:


> it is clear:  Third person.



Because of the precedent set by the traditional publishing industry. I understand what you mean Devor, but you're arguing this from a traditional point of view. At one time, the purpose of the author bio might have been for 'the industry' alone, but the fact that consumers are reading the bio's and are being influenced by them means that nowadays in our internet world the purpose of the author bio is no longer exclusively what it used to be.


----------



## Devor (Jun 7, 2019)

Ban said:


> Because of the precedent set by the traditional publishing industry. I understand what you mean Devor, but you're arguing this from a traditional point of view. At one time, the purpose of the author bio might have been for 'the industry' alone, but the fact that consumers are reading the bio's and are being influenced by them means that nowadays in our internet world the purpose of the author bio is no longer exclusively what it used to be.



But Ban, nothing has actually changed.  Readers have always had access to bios, and we're still hearing that _readers don't care about them_. But meanwhile, reviewers and "the industry" still want them, and there's no reason to think their preferences have shifted here, is there?


----------



## Ban (Jun 7, 2019)

Readers have always had acces to bios... in literature. I had a talk recently with svrt how nowadays writers do well to cultivate a persona, to attract a community around not only themselves, but the ideal of a writer. The same way in which the music and art inudstry have taken to the internet. From that networking perspective that is becoming the norm, you want to be as personable as possible. Authenticity appeals to the rising audience.


----------



## Devor (Jun 7, 2019)

Again though, you're still trying to write your bio for readers, like the industry doesn't matter.  That attitude is going to suicide your success.  You've got to be able to reach out through the industry if your audience is ever going to hear about you.  And that's what a bio is a part of.  Connecting with the readers does not mean you can ignore the industry.  That's a serious mistake that many, many people make.


----------



## Ban (Jun 7, 2019)

But why? If we're talking about the indie world, why are we talking about 'the industry'. The indie market is succeeding in spite of the industry titans, not by their grace. And also this 'industry' is just as much part of the reader base as anyone else, they are humans afterall. If you look at the young writers and entrepeneurs popping up we're talking about a generation that prides itself on dynamism and casual informality, the exact dynamism that an indie writer can tap into.

I don't think we're going to agree on this so I'll just tap out, but know that I do take into account your counter arguments Devor and I don't disagree with them in the context of the traditional marker. I simply don't believe they should be the primary focus in our newly developing indie landscape.


----------



## Devor (Jun 7, 2019)

Ban said:


> But why? If we're talking about the indie world, why are we talking about 'the industry'. The indie market is succeeding in spite of the industry titans, not by their grace.



The "industry" does not refer to six traditional publishing companies but to everyone connected to the whole business.  The "industry titans" write author bios because they have to appeal to the same kind of reviewers as everyone else does.

"Indie" means independent.  That's not the same as going alone.  Find me a successful indie publisher, and I'll show you a person who knows how to network behind the scenes in ways that most of the rest of us are too afraid to and make excuses not to.




> And also this 'industry' is just as much part of the reader base as anyone else, they are humans afterall. If you look at the young writers and entrepeneurs popping up we're talking about a generation that prides itself on dynamism and casual informality, the exact dynamism that an indie writer can tap into..



You're wrong here. By the time an industry insider is looking at your bio, they are _working_. They don't care about your latest clever witticism. They're tired of them. They want your credentials. Your background. A clear picture. It's a _resume_ or a CV. That's what they want.


----------



## Malik (Jun 7, 2019)

Devor said:


> "Indie" means independent. That's not the same as going alone. Find me a successful indie publisher, and I'll show you a person who knows how to network behind the scenes in ways that most of the rest of us are too afraid to and make excuses not to.



In all fairness, the fear and excuses aren't unfounded. At cons and festivals, I'm a walking Rolodex with a drink in one hand. And the amount of shit I catch for it from other indie authors is staggering.


----------



## Ban (Jun 7, 2019)

Devor said:


> You're wrong here. By the time an industry insider is looking at your bio, they are _working_. They don't care about your latest clever witticism. They're tired of them. They want your credentials. Your background. A clear picture. It's a _resume_ or a CV. That's what they want.



Well if that is the one and only purpose for bios why do people continue to write witty and personable bios in third person? Might as well critique the entire basis of my post, instead of the voice used. Nevermind.


----------



## Malik (Jun 7, 2019)

Ban said:


> I do take into account your counter arguments Devor and I don't disagree with them in the context of the traditional marker. I simply don't believe they should be the primary focus in our newly developing indie landscape.



The line between "indie" and "traditional" author is getting blurrier by the day.

I wrote my bio in third person because my hook--my market placement--is to basically be this guy:






The authors I compete against every day--_every damned day_--have bios in third person. I agree with you that it's idiotic, but they make the rules.

My job is to thrive by the rules that make me money, and to challenge the rules that don't.

I think I've said it before on these boards, but it bears repeating: the indie author landscape right now reminds me of the indie rock landscape in the mid- to late-90's. A lot of the same factors are at play; namely, the plummeting cost and relative accessibility of professional-caliber production methods, coupled with a playing field that's increasingly level.

Ban, you and the mods know this already, but for anyone else reading this: I go head to head with the big kids. I release a book roughly every two years. I price at $9.99, competing for the same tightly curated promotions, and paying for the same ad space, that the major publishing companies use. And not to be a dick, but it works. My audio advance was comparable to what some new Big Five authors get for a first novel. (To be fair, it was an advance for two books versus an advance for a single book, but I hope you understand my point, here.)

If the guy I'm talking to right now about my film rights decides to bite, it could change the world. No joke. I'm not alone on this; there are hundreds if not thousands of indie authors out there right now who are one phone call away from effectively setting off a suitcase nuke in the middle of the publishing industry. We're that close. It may not be me, but it _will_ happen.

I did a signing at a Barnes and Noble not long ago, and the staff--the _staff!_--were asking me which major publishing house Oxblood Books was a subsidiary of. That? That's my brand, right there. Being indistinguishable from the majors, even by industry professionals, is where I make my money and how I manage to spend evenings in strange cities signing books. That's why my bio is in third person. It's what professionals do.

There's a time and place to shake up the system and a time and place to benefit from what's gone before. I do plenty of the former, and writing a bio in third person is definitely the latter.


----------



## Devor (Jun 7, 2019)

Malik said:


> In all fairness, the fear and excuses aren't unfounded. At cons and festivals, I'm a walking Rolodex with a drink in one hand. And the amount of shit I catch for it from other indie authors is staggering.



Wait, they really give you grief for knowing people?


----------



## Malik (Jun 7, 2019)

Devor said:


> Wait, they really give you grief for knowing people?



Not for knowing people, but being an extrovert (or at least, being able to convincingly cosplay as an extrovert) seems to be considered an easy-mode hack in this industry.


----------



## Devor (Jun 7, 2019)

Malik said:


> Not for knowing people, but being an extrovert (or at least, being able to convincingly cosplay as an extrovert) seems to be considered an easy-mode hack in this industry.



That sounds more like jealousy to me.


----------



## Svrtnsse (Jun 7, 2019)

I'm starting to feel more and more stupid here, but I can't quite let this thing with targeting the bio go...

I've been looking around at guides for writing author bios, and they all seem to say in one way or another that the purpose of the bio is for the author to connect with the reader.

From reedsy: How to Write a Memorable Author Bio (with Template)
_It’s important for indie authors to know how to write an author bio that tells readers: who you are, what you write, why readers should trust you, and how you stand out from other writers._​
From Bookbub: Writing Your Author Bio? Here Are 10 Great Examples.
_Writing your author bio can be a daunting task, but a well-crafted bio can help readers learn more about what makes you and your books so interesting. You should regularly maintain your bio on places like your BookBub Author Profile so fans and potential readers seeking you out can learn more about you and why they should pick up your latest book._​
From kindlepreneur: How to write a compelling author bio
_The author bio is where you establish yourself as the kind of person who ought to be read by your target market. It’s where you forge a connection with your potential readers and get them to trust you, believe in you, and want to read what you have to say. If you take the author bio seriously and get it right, you’ll sell more books. *That’s* why the author bio matters._​
I have a hard time matching the above with "author bios aren't written for readers" because from what I'm finding, they very much are. That said, this doesn't mean you can't write them with the eye to also letting jaded industry professionals find out more about you. Additionally, you can have more than one author bio available depending on who it's targeted for - which was another suggestion I came across.


----------



## Svrtnsse (Jun 7, 2019)

Malik said:


> Not for knowing people, but being an extrovert (or at least, being able to convincingly cosplay as an extrovert) seems to be considered an easy-mode hack in this industry.


I shall have to tag along with you at worldcon and take notes for a bit.


----------



## Devor (Jun 7, 2019)

Svrtnsse said:


> I have a hard time matching the above with "author bios aren't written for readers" because from what I'm finding, they very much are. That said, this doesn't mean you can't write them with the eye to also letting jaded industry professionals find out more about you. Additionally, you can have more than one author bio available depending on who it's targeted for - which was another suggestion I came across.



And you promised in chat you wouldn't make me go searching for sources.


----------



## Ban (Jun 7, 2019)

Thank you Malik , it might be a bit idle to say it, but that's what I wanted to hear. I think it is entirely fair to abide by the rules of the game as they are laid out, that is only sensible. Why wear a backpack full of stones during a marathon when you don't need to? No reason to give yourself a handicap. The problem I started this thread on, or what I had in my mind at least but didn't word as I should, is that we accept these rules left over by the traditional industry as sensible on the basis of tradition, even when the market and the cultural landscape in the literature world has shifted to make them obsolete.

Writing in third or first is ultimately a minor issue, but it is indicative to me of the nonsense junk we have littered in the indie scene. To me, the whole idea is based on retroactive logic and quite frankly doesn't make sense given the state of the industry and where it is heading. We have a market that shows strong signs of being ideally suited towards personalities, people who exist in the minds of their readers beyond their work. In this emerging landscape, which has already been realized when looking at our neighbouring creative worlds of music and art, to portray yourself to the reader should be the principal goal. They are the customer and the wheel on which our success ultimately hinges. Cut out the middle men ideally, and work with them only when in a good position to bargain.

Now the problem on my side, is that in my head we're already in the post-punk stage, where we can do away with the archaic mannerisms and conduct ourselves in the industry as makes sense in the specific context of this online indie industry. I take your word for it that we are not quite there yet, and are still in the punk stage looking to burst the bubble, and I hope that bubble burst fast.


----------



## Svrtnsse (Jun 7, 2019)

Devor said:


> And you promised in chat you wouldn't make me go searching for sources.


I did.
That's why I tried looking for them myself, but from what I saw, the most common advice by far is for indie authors to write bios for potential readers.

The sites I linked are fairly well known and well respected (at least that's my impression), and a lot of indie authors will heed the advice they find there. It could be they're factually wrong, but I find it hard to believe they're all wrong, and in the same way (yes, it's possible).

What's more, it ties back to what Malik and Ban just mentioned. 
It shapes the rules of the industry in its current state. If this is the advice indie authors are given by sources they trust, they're probably following them. Readers see it, and it shapes their expectations. Perhaps the purpose of the author bio has shifted, and it's now more of a direct marketing tool than a tool for business networking?

It's not unthinkable, is it?

Regardless of whatever though, one thing is clear, and that is that I'm going to have to rewrite my author bio both for my books and for my website.


----------



## Malik (Jun 7, 2019)

Svrtnsse said:


> it shapes their expectations



This. 

Even in the meta, you have to play to the tropes. Abide by them if you want; subvert them if it's your thing. But _you have to know what the reader expects_, and you have to know where your take on the accepted tropes is going to land you. That's your brand. That's what you're selling. More than anything else, your placement in the widely accepted ecosystem of your craft is what you're asking people to buy, whether by time or money.


----------



## Devor (Jun 7, 2019)

Svrtnsse said:


> It could be they're factually wrong, but I find it hard to believe they're all wrong, and in the same way (yes, it's possible).



It's not about being right or wrong. Anything that readers can see is of course something you want to be able to use to appeal to them. But a poor bio is going to have a lopsided effect on your ability to network within the industry, while even the strongest bio is not going to do much for your reading audience.


----------



## Svrtnsse (Jun 7, 2019)

Devor said:


> But a poor bio is going to have a lopsided effect on your ability to network within the industry


This makes sense.



Devor said:


> while even the strongest bio is not going to do much for your reading audience.


From what I'm reading on the topic, this isn't correct, but I'll leave it at that and tap out on this subtopic (at least for the evening).

I think we can all agree that having a good author bio is a good thing though. Arguing about _why_ having a good bio is good may be interesting, but, well, I'd rather talk about how.


----------



## Chessie2 (Jun 7, 2019)

Ban said:


> After having read through a number of them, I have come to the conclusion that I am turned off by third person bios from indie authors. To me, writing something in third person implies that it is not written by the person in question, but someone else (a third person if you will).
> 
> Now knowing a thing or two about indie writers (by knowing indie writers), I'm about 101% sure that most of them are writing their own bios. Unless they have yet to contact me, there are no author bio fairies who do the work for you. Isn't it weird to write about yourself from that perspective? You're not fooling anyone, and perhaps this is a cultural thing, but it comes across as vain to me. Whenever I read a third person author bio from an indie writer, I am reminded of Julius Caesar in the Asterix and Obelix comics.
> 
> ...


It's the standard for how they are done in the Indie world. How they are written also depends largely on genre. Writing a bio in first person is outside the norm/not professional.


----------



## Ban (Jun 8, 2019)

We're having different dicussions here. I (and others) want to talk about why the current situation is not ideal given the developing context, while others have interpreted the question in the sense of why indie writers choose to accept the current situation (as you likely should). 

I should start writing good first posts for once.


----------



## Ned Marcus (Jun 8, 2019)

Ban said:


> But why? If we're talking about the indie world, why are we talking about 'the industry'.


Because some people are prejudiced against indie authors and look for any sign of a book being indie in order not to buy it. Why would indie authors want to make their books look different from traditionally published books? We can get good covers, good editing, good blurbs etc. I think this is just part of that. And selling indie books is a business like traditional publishing is. 

Ultimately though, I'm not sure many readers will care.


----------



## Malik (Jun 8, 2019)

Devor said:


> That sounds more like jealousy to me.



Potato, po-tah-toe.


Ned Marcus said:


> Ultimately though, I'm not sure many readers will care.



Again, it comes down to branding.

What are you trying to do as an author? Not as a writer, but professionally? Where do you see yourself in the market, and also, do you bring something unique to the table? An exclusive perspective, your own story to tell? Readers do care about that. Especially in this day and age of Own Voices. Holy crap, if you feel that you alone have captured a slant on your story due to who you are and where you come from, shout it through a bullhorn.

For those of you who know me, this next bit will probably sound contradictory, but I likely diverge from the masses here when I say that it's not necessary to have a bio that would make a terrific memoir on its own.

I'll give you a minute to laugh that off.

Seriously, though. While I personally recommend doing epic shit whenever possible if you're going to write epic fantasy, I don't think it's necessary. It does sell books, but not on its own.

This is because nothing--not one thing--will ever make up for putting in the work. There are plenty of bazillion-selling, world-changing authors out there who spent their lives quietly learning the craft. Craft is enough.


----------



## skip.knox (Jun 8, 2019)

>Craft is enough.
Tell that to Van Gogh. Or to a thousand other artists who were brilliant and overlooked. Craft is necessary but not sufficient.

No one thing is sufficient. And some of the necessary things are beyond our control. I think that's the hardest part of being an artist. Whether we paint or write or play the flugelhorn, we are in the moment the masters of our fate--if fate is the painting, the novel, the music. But when it comes to making a living, or even just selling a few copies, factors enter that are completely outside our control. It's a difficult juxtaposition. All we can do is to keep working on the parts we can control--the craft, persistence, our own efforts to get seen or heard--and somehow learn to live with the hand dealt us by the universe. And that's especially hard on those raised in a modern, secular society whose central message is that anyone can be president, be all you can be, seize the day, and all the rest of our modern mythology.


----------



## Maker of Things Not Kings (Jun 8, 2019)

Devor, Ban is spot on. You are arguing from a traditional, and rapidly changing, point of view. 

I find it hard to believe that reviewers would have a preference for a third person bio. Can you point to an actual wide ranging study to back this up? Because, with all due respect, it really sounds like what you've been stating all along is a personal preference. Which is fine. But it's not the same as fact. 

  And by "reviewer," who are we speaking of? NYT and the National Book Review? Or the thousands of blogger/podcast reviewers who have no accredited reason to care if authors follow that standard? I ask because I have read a number of books highlighted in even those national reviews, published by medium to large houses,  that feature first person bios . . . so it didn't seem to hurt those authors one bit at all. Maybe because the command of the craft on display within the book is truly all that matters? 

If we all held to "industry standards", and you widen your scope a bit,  it would be easy to joke that we might all still be writing like Shakespeare today. Someone, somewhere, deviates from a norm and in time, standards inevitably change.

What I find almost impossible to believe is that it would actually matter in any way shape or form to anyone. I'd wager that the industry standard was set by those who ran the insular, old-school industry, not the writers. But that was another time before the internet and self publishing and the industry actually understanding that there visa far wider audience out there for them if they loosen up a bit. 

Like many other things in the publishing world such as a wider array of cultural inclusion to self publishing and small press success, we are apt to see all of those standards that don't have anything to do with what lies within the book/story itself, break down and disperse too. If that threatens those who tend to white-knuckle the idea of change or the loss of an industry standard, well, so be it. 

Change is good. Always.   

Again, your opinion is valid and if you wish to skip a book because of the bio, that's fair but you, Devor, are the first person I have ever encountered who would allow such a thing to keep them from even opening a book up to page one to see what the writing is like. And that, to me, in all honesty, seems to be just as close to bordering on a form of arrogance in and of itself.  But it is your right, of course.


----------



## Maker of Things Not Kings (Jun 8, 2019)

Svrtnsse said:


> Thanks for the clarification - it makes a lot more sense to me now.
> 
> As for the 1st/3rd person thing.
> One of the articles I found while digging around has the following to say about it:
> ...



This IS a well written opinion/article and it makes solid points for the third person. Not to diminish it but I'll just add that it was written seven years ago, in which time the self-publishing industry has, what, at least doubled or tripled itself yet again? In that time, we've seen the rise of hundreds of income producing, self-publishing authors who do not follow that rule as well as the number of online resources for selling and marketing which seems to grow daily.  I don't think there is a right or wrong way, but I am sure there is more than one acceptable way.  

We are in an ever increasing "first person/me" focused world. Thanks to our modern media we have seen the film, TV and music industries all change completely from what I knew as a young adult. They resemble so little of the old standards and it once seemed unthinkable that they might shift or fall. My mother thinks there's not a single tv show as good as the ones she loved 50 yrs ago. They've gotten faster, wittier and more nuanced. That has left her behind. This is the truth of age and change in the world around us. It comes to all things. 

As time goes on, people may begin to relate more to that first person perspective than to care about the standard or the tonal quality of a first person bio vs third.  Now, whether the industry as a whole changes over time? Who knows. But it is hard to imagine anything in this day and age staying static and unchanged. Selling, after all, is the publisher's main goal. Not upholding an old standard.


----------



## Garren Jacobsen (Jun 8, 2019)

Maker of Things Not Kings said:


> Devor, Ban is spot on. You are arguing from a traditional, and rapidly changing, point of view.
> 
> I find it hard to believe that reviewers would have a preference for a third person bio. Can you point to an actual wide ranging study to back this up? Because, with all due respect, it really sounds like what you've been stating all along is a personal preference. Which is fine. But it's not the same as fact.



No. No, he is not spot on (sorry Ban). He is missing some important nuance here, and so are you. The question of first v. third is a question of who is doing the speaking. If it is the author doing the speaking, then first is appropriate. This is most common on websites and social media engagement stuff. I suppose it is possible on books provided that 1) you are not traditionally published and 2) you have not formed an LLC or some other corporate entity to use as your imprint. Because in cases where you are either trad published or using that imprint the author is not the entity that is speaking. The company is.

Further, I have noticed that the general trend is that people prefer third-person bios. First, it's formal and comes off as more professional. Second, it allows you the freedom to talk up your accomplishments without sounding pretentious. As for myself, I hate self-deprecating bios. They're sophomoric. They're not clever. Give me the facts about you, I don't care about anything else, whether that be first- or third-person.


----------



## Chessie2 (Jun 8, 2019)

Bios are totally for readers. I happen to read the bios on every author I read because I want to know who they are. I want to know the story--the person behind the creation. I want to know where their ideas came from and what inspires them to create. Even before I became an author. I disagree that bios are for reviewers and for the industry alone...they are for everyone. An author has a public face. Readers want to know about us. They want to build relationships with us, etc. It's why we do social media in the first place.

The author bio is a great place to inform readers about something important: will they like your style? Will they like your stories? I typically read author bios along with the blurb + first couple chapters of a book before I jump in. Why? Because I need to know a few things, like, are they religious? It's not about their spiritual beliefs but more so that it guides me into what I can expect in their books.

I read a lot of romance in pretty much all subgenres. If I come across an author that has religion written into their bio, I am almost guaranteed that their stories will not include the elements that I enjoy reading, mainly physical intimacy, some strong language, etc. Regarding fantasy, author bios help me decide if the story is for me because I could learn they know fantasy from having read/written it/played Dungeons and Dragons/love LOTR, etc. An author bio helps me see the credentials behind the author--are they new to writing? Have they been around a while? Are they new to writing in this genre? Do they have books in another genre? Do they also write nonfiction? Etc. I then know whether to curb my expectations is need be and whether I can find other books they have written that I might like. It's an insight into their back list and what motivates them to keep working. I have turned away from authors who are too young (sorry, not going there). I have turned away from industry darlings. I have turned away from authors for xyz reasons listed in their bios. It's a tool to help me as a reader decide whether or not I want to invest my precious time reading their work.

Like I mentioned before, they are written in third person because it's the industry standard. It's professional, it's clean, and it's a great way to help you relate with readers.


----------



## Ban (Jun 8, 2019)

Garren Jacobsen said:


> No. No, he is not spot on (sorry Ban). He is missing some important nuance here, and so are you.



You kind of said the same thing I have though. As said before, first person is becoming the ideal in the changing landscape... when and if it makes sense. If I can believe there is  a third person speaking, in the case of a publishing house, traditional publishing, etcetera, the third person can add credence. In purely indie publishing it does not, and I argue that in the changing landscape it soon will be a detriment. I'm critiquing the why not the what. It makes sense to write it in third person because of the expectations of the field, but it does not make sense to not question it and not anticipate what the emerging climate encourages. I feel like people are arguing against things that haven't been said.


----------



## Devor (Jun 8, 2019)

Maker of Things Not Kings said:


> I find it hard to believe that reviewers would have a preference for a third person bio. Can you point to an actual wide ranging study to back this up? Because, with all due respect, it really sounds like what you've been stating all along is a personal preference. Which is fine. But it's not the same as fact.



I really hate to get semantic, I really do, but this is important to understand.  There's a difference between being wrong and stating a personal opinion. If the opinion could theoretically be backed up or disproven by a wide-ranging study, then by definition it's not an opinion.  It's either a fact or an error.

I mention this because you're using the personal opinion label wrongly to dismiss an important point.  If for some reason reviewers (and others in the industry) do have a widely held preference for third person bios, then a first person bio will hurt your success.




> I ask because I have read a number of books highlighted in even those national reviews, published by medium to large houses,  that feature first person bios . . .



I asked Ban for examples early on.  But do you have a few?




> . . . so it didn't seem to hurt those authors one bit at all.



There are many cases where professional authors get away with ignoring "the general advice," but it's a mistake to use them as an excuse to argue that the general advice is wrong.  It could be, or it might not be.  But there's a high probably that one of two things happened instead of the advice itself being wrong:  The author was just that good _despite_ breaking the advice, or the author skillfully broke the advice in ways that subtly elevated the work, which most of us will fail to reproduce if we attempt it.




> What I find almost impossible to believe is that it would actually matter in any way shape or form to anyone.



People in this very thread are posting because they say it matters to them.




> I'd wager that the industry standard was set by those who ran the insular, old-school industry, not the writers. But that was another time before the internet and self publishing and the industry actually understanding that there visa far wider audience out there for them if they loosen up a bit.



The standard is actually cross-industry.  Bios are usually written third person in pretty much every industry. It's a professional standard.  A bio is a standard networking tool. Anyone with a career should have one, and it attaches to presentations and portfolios and client materials of every nature.  That's the kind of document it is, and it'd be a mistake to mistake it for something unique to writers or uniquely for readers.




> Like many other things in the publishing world such as a wider array of cultural inclusion to self publishing and small press success, we are apt to see all of those standards that don't have anything to do with what lies within the book/story itself, break down and disperse too. If that threatens those who tend to white-knuckle the idea of change or the loss of an industry standard, well, so be it.



Cultural inclusion, and the availability of small presses, has an awful lot to do with what's in the book.  The POV of your bio is strictly a small and simple question of an author's judgment. They're not comparable.




> Again, your opinion is valid and if you wish to skip a book because of the bio, that's fair but you, Devor, are the first person I have ever encountered who would allow such a thing to keep them from even opening a book up to page one to see what the writing is like. And that, to me, in all honesty, seems to be just as close to bordering on a form of arrogance in and of itself.  But it is your right, of course.



If I come across as arrogant or strong-willed in this conversation, you might be on to something. It's true. I have seen a great many people struggle and fail in part because they express a general attitude that if they write it readers will come.  Or if the readers don't come, it's just a matter of bum luck.  And it's just not true.  The key step that they're missing is _networking_.  You won't get a lot of reviewers if you don't send them the book. Bloggers won't feature you or interview you unless you approach them. And half the time all you have to do is ask.

It baffles me - it completely baffles me - that anyone would take your _primary_ professional networking tool, your personal Bio, and rejigger it for some other purpose. Whether or not it can still work, it raises the High Red Flag that someone has completely forgotten that behind-the-scenes networking step, and has thus set themselves up on a path to failure.

If I come across as arrogant, or strong-willed, to you in this conversation, it's because I'm trying to get across one important point:  If you don't take networking seriously, you sound to me like you're on a path of wasting your career, and I don't want that to happen.


----------



## Maker of Things Not Kings (Jun 9, 2019)

Ban said:


> Readers have always had acces to bios... in literature. I had a talk recently with svrt how nowadays writers do well to cultivate a persona, to attract a community around not only themselves, but the ideal of a writer. The same way in which the music and art inudstry have taken to the internet. From that networking perspective that is becoming the norm, you want to be as personable as possible. Authenticity appeals to the rising audience.



Yes, and it's a rapidly growing share of the audience that appreciates the authenticity and personal appeal. I believe that has/is going to change the way at least some in the publishing world are thinking and reacting in ways both large and small. The internet, as it did with music, has opened many doors that were once sealed with a lock of exclusivity. One only has to look at the growth of online genre fiction and the growing diversity of industry published stories and authors see how much that has changed in, what, ten, fifteen years? We should all be grateful for that. I see expanded inclusivity within the industry and the wealth of self published gems that might never have found their way into the world becoming more prominent every day.  Even the impressive amount of lesser quality but capable work that is out there is good. The growth of the internet and online publishing allows for new and aspiring authors to not have to wait for someone else's approval to get their stories into the hands of hundreds or even thousands of readers.  

Devor, just so you know, I appreciate that you have a set of rules by which you decide upon the books you invest time in. If I came off sounding critical of that, I'd just add that I do this too, though I tend to look at cover art and titles instead of a bio. As a lifelong visual artist, if the art is weak, or a stereotype of the genre, I don't have much faith in the inside of the book, though I will still give it a brief chance by reading the first page or so. And as a long time devourer of fantasy, I have developed an aversion to titles that fit the    "_____ of _____"  format.  At this point, if I ever see another three word title with "of" in the middle, It would be too soon. But, I will still open the book and take a peek at the first few pages before I curse the writer or publisher for trying to sway me with a title that is remarkably similar to "Game of Thrones."  

So, yesterday I sent out an email to roughly a hundred of my on-line community, none of whom, to my knowledge, are writers. With no lead in as to why I was asking, or what side I fall on, I put forth this question:  

_When you pick up a new book by an unknown author, does the writers bio matter to you and, how does the perspective it was written in (first or third) affect your opinion, if at all. 
_
I received about sixty or so responses by the end of the night. Many of these said it doesn't matter to them at all because they open the book and start reading. A few said they do read the bio before beginning the book but, of those, only three said the perspective it is written in is even noted and just one said that it mattered to them in their decision making. Now, that's a mix of  my rural county and city peeps but all of them I know to be avid readers. For the most part these were also people under the age of thirty (I chose this age range specifically from my networking list). So this tells me . . . nothing that I expect would sway anyone's opinion, nor does it add credence to my own because, in the hands of every reader, it is still just opinion. 

Mine is clear. I could care less if the information is coming to me from a first person or some supposed outsider/third person perspective.  We all know who wrote it so why would I let that matter? And even the industry standard should not deter someone. If a publisher is going to trust an author with weeks or even months of rewrites will they not find it in their capacity to spend the five minutes it might take to rewrite a bio in third person? If that's so, then the industry, or some within it, probably _needs_ to change.  

As my last thought on the subject, if I were to be offering a writer advice on writing a bio,  I would tell them to go with writing it in third person, especially if they are submitting to established publishing houses or print magazines. If they prefer their bio be in first person, OK, so send those to a few small press and online magazine/website submissions or, yes, save it for self publishing. And, if a Devor or someone like-minded takes the time to send you a missive calling the use of first person an outrage, simply offer a polite thank you for their time and advice and then move on.  

All the points here in the last few days were well taken. For me, readers will decide what matters and I will always put my own faith in that ever-growing, ever-evolving collective who buys the books.


----------



## Steerpike (Jun 9, 2019)

Garren Jacobsen said:


> you have not formed an LLC or some other corporate entity to use as your imprint. Because in cases where you are either trad published or using that imprint the author is not the entity that is speaking. The company is.



This falls in line with my thinking. Whether you've formed a legal entity or not, if the book is presented as having a publisher other than the author as an individual, then it makes sense to have the bio in third person. That is part of the presentation of the book--like the cover or the blurb on the back--and is being presented to the reader by the publisher, not the author. This remains true even if the publisher and author are one and the same, so long as they don't appear to be one and the same (e.g. on Amazon, who is listed as publisher?).

Even if the two are one and the same, I don't think readers generally get that far into the analysis. A reader may be put off by a first-person bio because it blurs the lines commonly expected between the two. I don't have a strong preference either way, but if there is a putative publisher of the book separate from the author I'd find a first person bio odd if I took the time to think about it.


----------



## Maker of Things Not Kings (Jun 9, 2019)

Devor said:


> If I come across as arrogant, or strong-willed, to you in this conversation, it's because I'm trying to get across one important point:  If you don't take networking seriously, you sound to me like you're on a path of wasting your career, and I don't want that to happen.



I get this, and it is appreciated. Truly.  

I DO consider networking to be important. I suppose I don't consider the bio to be the main networking tool _today.  _Or, should i say, I feel there are personal ways around it being so. 

I have made a career, for the last ten years, as my avatar says, as a "maker of things". Full time sculptor/miniature maker/digital artist.  Do you have any idea how many times, at the beginning, I heard "Oh, you have to be on social media, and you have to have an artists bio written just so?"  Yet both my wife and I have done it without any social media at all (other than blogs) and all of our promotional material written in a far more prose-like manner than anything else. A more personal course of action. One to one.  The shows I have been in are immaterial. My schooling is immaterial. The background of my work history is as well. You stumble across my work, you either like it or not. If me having been in a gallery is what makes you buy my work, then you aren't truly getting it. And, while I am not advising anyone else to pursue such a path, the fact remains, it has worked. And it remains the thing I am most proud of in my life. 

Now, I don't know if I will have the ability to do something similar with writing but I am not concerned with that right now. I write for the pleasure of story and the love of the craft itself. Should I one day feel I wish to submit to a major publisher, I imagine I will write a bio in third person just for that. I can't say if it's something I am interested in at all though.

But you see Devor. This isn't the first time I beat those odds. My entire life has been like this. Mad an honors program in middle school without the actual grade point for it. My personality and desire to do the extra work for those classes got main. Then I was an executive chef for a dozen years and that without an hour of culinary school to my name. Just from-the-ground-up hard work, a passion to learn and an understanding that I needed to apply myself to the craft daily. And yes, now I am a full time artist/maker of things without any instruction in sculpting or design or art school classes. In each case I set my sight son what I wanted to achieve. I put in the time and then some to learn what I need to know and I worked on the craft every day without fail.  Thousands of hours. And I beat those odds by not going the "accredited way" in each case.  

My experiences are not solitary.  I could tell you of a friend mine,  a well known comic writer who got her start without ever wanting to be in the comics industry. But she knew comics inside and out as a reader.  That success came out of a blog she wrote for several years. And you might expect that she was criticized and bashed because there are, of course, thousands of writers out there who have been trying for years to get into the industry. 

But is it fair to discount her story as a valid success story that might inspire because it wasn't achieved the usual way? Can any form of inspiration or encouragement be bad?   

Why does that seem to put some people off? Is it because they invest so much in the "right way" that anything that goes against it is a threat? Jealousy of success? Inch case, there is a craft to learn. The rest is down to effort, passion, luck and/or fate.

I respect that you wish to help others. So do I. Yet I feel that to shut down ANY other idea that contradicts your own, or to claim there is only one way, even if the secondary method is at best an even greater long-shot, is not right-minded in my opinion. 

I will, in the future, be careful to state what is purely my opinion, though I believe I could not have been clearer that I was stating just that here and Ban began the thread with only an opinion. It's valid. It wasn't offered under the guise of writing advice. Please consider that when you take someone to task for an opinion. 

As for the books I read with first person bios from mid and major publishers. I will find those and come back here and list them as I do. You do understand that since it is not something I look at with any importance as a reader (in the published work) I cannot recall them off hand.  

I will also continue to offer my experiences in the world as I've lived them and created them. . . because I don't think it hurts anyone to hear it can be done another way.  

Be well.


----------



## Ned Marcus (Jun 10, 2019)

Maker of Things Not Kings said:


> Selling, after all, is the publisher's main goal. Not upholding an old standard.


Yes, selling is the main goal of publishing, and perhaps one day it will change, but I'll let other people test it for me first.


----------



## Devor (Jun 10, 2019)

Maker of Things Not Kings said:


> I respect that you wish to help others. So do I. Yet I feel that to shut down ANY other idea that contradicts your own, or to claim there is only one way, even if the secondary method is at best an even greater long-shot, is not right-minded in my opinion.
> 
> I will, in the future, be careful to state what is purely my opinion, though I believe I could not have been clearer that I was stating just that here and Ban began the thread with only an opinion. It's valid. It wasn't offered under the guise of writing advice. Please consider that when you take someone to task for an opinion.



I should apologize, or clarify, that the last line of my previous post shifted to a "general" you.  I'm sorry if it looked like I was accusing you personally of being on a path to failure.

I did get a little heated because I feel the bio is important to the step that everyone ignores and is afraid of and doesn't know how to handle. It's not that I'm glued into old ways of thinking.  But if you ask a stranger to work with you, one of the first things they do is check your bio.  That's what you need to write it for first, and readers second.  If you think having it in 1st Person will help you with that, I probably don't agree, but that's one question.  Rewriting it in first person for your readers, and completely ignoring it's main function, to me, suggests a real problem in how a person is approaching the sales and marketing and networking side of things.  That's what I'm worried about.


----------



## pmmg (Aug 29, 2022)

And here, pmmg, thought this discussion would be mostly fluff. He did a bio once, but that was long ago, and now he is getting to the point where he will have to do another. All things considered in this thread, he will almost certainly do it in third person. Maybe different if it was an 'about me' on a website.

Not that he gave it much thought in the past. Most often, he does not read the bio or forward and all of that. For many of the books he has read, he's pretty sure the bio was written by someone other than the author...but perhaps that was not giving it enough scrutiny.


----------



## ThinkerX (Aug 29, 2022)

My bio, more or less:

'I was raised on an Alaskan homestead at the edge of the road grid and worked a range of jobs since those days. For most of the past decade, I put in an hour or two after work writing dark fantasy stories. Now that I am semi-retired, it is time to unleash these tales upon the world.'

Yeah, not exactly an award winner.


----------



## Ban (Aug 30, 2022)

I see pmmg has revived this discussion. Haha, it seems I never followed my own advice. My author's bio on Amazon was written in third person despite the fact that my poetry collection is self-published without any private company registered to represent it. I'm still not entirely sold on third person, but I reckon the slight air of haughtiness that accompanies it suits poetry a bit more so than prose. 3rd person written by the author themselves still reminds me of Julius Caesar from Asterix and Obelix, but perhaps it's not so bad to be Caesar


----------



## Nighty_Knight (Aug 30, 2022)

I think I am going to write mine from the perspective of the late Gilbert Gottfried roasting me for my life accomplishments.


----------



## Devor (Aug 30, 2022)

Ohh man, I'm still embarrassed about how upset I got in this one.


----------



## A. E. Lowan (Aug 30, 2022)

Devor said:


> Ohh man, I'm still embarrassed about how upset I got in this one.


I think we all have those moments that the internet has frozen in time for the whole world to see. Especially me, showing my hot-tempered Irish butt every so often.

I still think this conversation is an interesting one, and I agree that the industry standard is to write bios from the 3rd person, which, whatever your opinion on the subject, means that deviating from the established format means your bio will look weird.

In fact, you want not just one, but three - short, medium, and long (we actually have four - no overachievers here, oh no). They all have their uses, and you'll use them more often than you think you will. And while clever is fun, don't push the humor. Be true to yourself and your voice before you try for 'entertaining.' And be happy you only have one person's bio to stuff into the available, expected space.


----------



## Devor (Aug 30, 2022)

I suppose I'll add a few notes.

It's perfectly reasonable to have different versions of your bio in different places.  Your bio on amazon doesn't have to match the one in the book or the one on your website, or the one at the end of a guest post, or the one on twitter or on a poster at a convention, or the one you link to when asking someone for a review.  They all have slightly different purposes, audiences, formats, and expectations.  They don't all need to follow the same rules.

I'm sure that when I looked at information on writing a bio, I looked at both "author bios" and "professional bios," and meshed them together in my notes.  I usually find the advice in publishing industry disappointing, so I do that pretty often.

I still think it's generally true that your bio will have more of an impact on people who want to work with you than it will with your readers.  And you're going to want a lot of people to be willing to work with you even as an indie author if you want to sell more than a handful of books.

While there's a good case for 3rd person bios being more professional, there's certainly a lot of compelling 1st person bios.  It's not really the biggest concern compared to style and content.


----------



## D. Gray Warrior (Sep 28, 2022)

I think part of the reason for third person is so that the author avoids coming across as egotistical or vain.


----------



## pmmg (Sep 28, 2022)

Funny, but when writing my own Bio in third person, I feel Egotistical and vain. I agree with the others though, or the industry... Bio's seem to require third person, unless there is a reason to be more personal, such as on one's own  blog or newsletter.

Course, I'd be the only one to feel that way writing it.


----------



## Ban (Sep 28, 2022)

Well the premise of this thread back in the long, long ago of 2019, was that writing in 3rd person came across to me as a bit vain. So it's interesting to see someone believes it to be the opposite way around. Both pale in comparison to the royal "we", so I now look forward to seeing someone write their author bio from that pov.


----------



## pmmg (Sep 28, 2022)

I dont know that I like 'We', but I can see where it might apply. I think I would prefer a separate bio for each contributor, and not a we. We makes me feel like I dont know who is writing, and can switch off.


----------



## pmmg (Sep 28, 2022)

Ban said:


> Well the premise of this thread back in the long, long ago of 2019, was that writing in 3rd person came across to me as a bit vain. So it's interesting to see someone believes it to be the opposite way around


Does this mean the thread has gone in a full circle?


----------



## A. E. Lowan (Sep 28, 2022)

Ban said:


> Well the premise of this thread back in the long, long ago of 2019, was that writing in 3rd person came across to me as a bit vain. So it's interesting to see someone believes it to be the opposite way around. Both pale in comparison to the royal "we", so I now look forward to seeing someone write their author bio from that pov.


Ask and ye shall receive...

*Author Bios for A. E. Lowan*

*Two-Line Bio:*
A. E. Lowan is the pseudonym of three authors who collectively create the dark urban fantasy series _The Books of Binding_.

*Short Bio:*
A. E. Lowan is the pseudonym of three authors who collectively create the dark urban fantasy series, _The Books of Binding_. Collaborating on this project since 2013, Jessica Smith brings a passion for science, Jennifer Vinck brings a love of theatre and linguistics, and Kristin Vinck brings an obsession with history and folklore.

*Medium Bio:*
A. E. Lowan is the pseudonym of three authors who collectively create the dark urban fantasy series, _The Books of Binding._ Born in Texas, Jessica Smith brings a passion for science to tame the physics of Seahaven. Hailing from Missouri, Jennifer Vinck is a former bookseller who brings a love of theatre and linguistics to breathe life into the characters. A Navy brat, raised in Washington, California, and Missouri, Kristin Vinck is a recovering medievalist who brings an obsession with history and folklore to paint a detailed cultural canvas for _The Books of Binding._
 
*Long Bio:*
A. E. Lowan is the pseudonym of three authors who collectively create the dark urban fantasy series, _The Books of Binding_.

_Kristin Vinck_
Raised as a Navy brat, Kristin Vinck began writing as a child on the American West Coast, learning her love of words at her mother's knee. Kristin won her first writing award for urban fantasy in Seattle at eight-years-old for a story about a city on a boat pulled by dinosaurs. In her teens, Kristin moved from learning at home from her satirist mother to formal writing education at the Paseo Academy of Fine and Performing Arts in Kansas City, Missouri. Kristin studied medieval studies and creative writing at Truman State University and now writes from the beauty of the Missouri Ozarks.

_Jennifer Vinck_
Raised among musicians in Kansas City, Missouri, Jennifer Vinck came to writing from another direction - poetry and song. Poetry was her primary creative endeavor throughout childhood and when Jennifer was twelve-years-old she was asked to write the lyrics for a song used for All Species Day (a precursor of Earth Day) in Kansas City. She auditioned for the creative writing department at the Kansas City Middle School of the Arts and there discovered a new passion - speculative fiction. Jennifer met Kristin on the first day of school at the Paseo Academy of Fine and Performing Arts. They began developing epic and urban fantasy worlds and have been collaborating in fiction and in life ever since. Jennifer studied linguistics and classical languages and literatures at Truman State University and spent many years as a bookseller before moving to the Missouri Ozarks to concentrate on writing.

_Jessica Smith_
Jessica Smith found her passion for fantastical storytelling where so many young writers do - through the masterpieces of fantasy's renowned matriarchs. As the pile of worlds inhabited by dragon-riders, wizards, and fair folk caused her bookshelves to plea for mercy, the constellation of worlds inside her waiting for their story to be told grew. With enough ideas to fill the state of Texas where she was raised, Jessica first took pencil to paper before she hit double digits. Jessica's love of the complexities of the universe and the intricacies of the human mind led her into study in the sciences. Her passion for writing took her to the internet in search of others who kept whole worlds in their minds. Jessica has been active on many online writing communities over the years, but it was on a fantasy-specific site, Mythic Scribes, where Jessica met Kristin and Jennifer in 2013. Her worlds and theirs collided as a whirlwind of collaboration began. _T__he Books of Binding_ is the first project that partnership has unleashed on the world.


----------



## Ban (Sep 28, 2022)

Ah but you're an actual, plural "we", not a singular royal "we." Sorry Lowan, no matter how many exist in your writing hive mind, that's not quite the same


----------



## pmmg (Sep 28, 2022)

A. E. Lowan said:


> sk and ye shall receive...
> 
> *Author Bios for A. E. Lowan
> 
> ...



I appreciate the example of your Bio. Would it not be useful to include a line like..er...we... can be contacted on our blog, or email, and then have an address. Or is that just something that appears in other materials and would be too low-rent to include in a bio?

A question I might have for the group... For myself, I am wrestling with a pen name. Secretly, I would just like to use pmmg, but I am not sure if the world would accept initials without a name. I suspect it might, cause we've been on the internet for many years now, but...maybe it is too different. I have other options, but they don't feel as right, and are not even close a brand I have been working on. For whatever reason, I am wary of using a real name, as I would not be able to hide in plain sight if things worked out. So, I am just kicking the can around. Decision time gets closer and closer though.


----------



## Prince of Spires (Sep 29, 2022)

pmmg said:


> A question I might have for the group... For myself, I am wrestling with a pen name. Secretly, I would just like to use pmmg, but I am not sure if the world would accept initials without a name.


It's your choice. You can do what you like. I think people don't care all that much anymore.

Personally I wouldn't, just from the idea that it might be more difficult for people to either remember, or connect with than with an actual name. I would rather go for P.M.M. G... where the G is a full last name, or PMMG <last name>. 

Also keep in mind that a pen name is no perfect protection for your identity. You're leaving crumbs everywhere for people to search through if they really want. Amazon (or whoever you publish with) certainly knows your real identity, since that's what you use to create your account. But there's also things like your copyright registration (if you live in the US and decide to register), business registration (if you become successful enough to make setting up a business a good idea), address for your newsletter (legal requirement in many countries), and so on.


----------



## pmmg (Sep 29, 2022)

Certainly many options. My name, unfortunately, has a lot of hard sounds, and does not have good flow. And oddly enough, I have picked up another McP, so I could be P.M.M.McP.G    but will just ignore that one.

I dont know, I keep going back and forth on it. I know people could find it out if they did the work, but I would just the shield to blunt the general public. Pmmg has been a type of brand for a long time. I'd be more comfortable just pushing it forward. We'll figure it out before I go live.

Probably should move it to a more proper thread though. This one is about Bio's.


----------

