• Welcome to the Fantasy Writing Forums. Register Now to join us!

Author Bio pet peeves.

Malik

Auror
That sounds more like jealousy to me.

Potato, po-tah-toe.
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

toujours gai, archie
Moderator
>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.
 
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.
 
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. :)

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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ban
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

Staff
Article Team
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

Troglodytic Trouvère
Article Team
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.
 
Last edited:

Devor

Fiery Keeper of the Hat
Moderator
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.
 
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

Felis amatus
Moderator
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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 

Devor

Fiery Keeper of the Hat
Moderator
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

Myth Weaver
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

Myth Weaver
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

Troglodytic Trouvère
Article Team
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 :p
 

Nighty_Knight

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

A. E. Lowan

Forum Mom
Leadership
Ohh man, I'm still embarrassed about how upset I got in this one. :oops: :confused: :muted:
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

Fiery Keeper of the Hat
Moderator
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.
 
Top