Author Bio pet peeves.

[Devor]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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?

 

[Maker of Things Not Kings]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.