Is there any reason to have one? Some books have them, others do not. What is your preference? On other books? On your own? Personally I'm so and so regarding this. On one hand, people can see your eyes and perhaps a portion of your soul with a good photo. On the other hand, why would anyone care what you look like as long as your words are good? I will probably do what my publisher tells me (if that ever happens, ha!). If I self-publish... yeah I will add a photo so people can see my mug, and I will try not to look too psycho on it. What about you?
Oh, hell, no, I don't want my photo on anything nor do I want my soulful eyes exposed to the world at large. I believe it was Georgia Bonesteel who once used a photo of herself half hidden by a big tree and huge sunglasses. I like that idea except I might hide behind a big dog or a giant rosebush..
Rosebush gave me an idea... I will put a single rose behind my ear so it sticks out near my forehead, and make sure I cut myself on the rose needle so that blood trickles down the side of my cheek. And smile profusley, together with big wide soulful eyes. That will grab someones attention!
Some publishers will request you provide a photo after they accept your work. This is true for novels, but it also can be true for publishing with some journals and magazines. Personally, I like seeing what an author looks like. At the same time, I've never given it all that much thought. If a publisher does want a photo, I will take a few selfies and send along the one that most makes me look like a writer and someone to take seriously.
The photo is for readers to judge the author based on their appearance, I guess. What else could it be for? I hate the idea of a photo of me being anywhere. But I guess there are worse things I would agree to in order to get published
It does appear to be a branding thing. Absolutely the photo is there for judging, and the people who see it will care whether they admit it or not. All part of the sale. Does it have to be you, though? Maybe not...
I don’t want my readers (friends excepted) to know what I look like. I write some controversial stuff; I’m already mentioned by name on a website of a magazine that’s fairly big in the poetry world, and I’ve got a bad reputation among their readers for what I write. The funny thing is, they didn’t say anything about me that isn’t true!
Why couldn't somebody work with an AI and come up with a proxy character to represent them visually? It's basically what's being done all over Instagram already with endless filters. Maybe an AI-perfectified version of yourself.
I think the photo is to foster loyalty. Readers feel like they know the writer and therefore supporting them on a more personal level. I'm not crazy about the idea as I like my privacy. And in this day and age of cancel culture I don't want someone confronting me in public because they didn't like what I wrote.
Well you'd be able to decide on things like that. Using photoshop you can leave the skin untouched and just change facial shape if you want, or whatever. I'm assuming AI would let you do something similar, though I don't know. But what I was saying was to create a character to represent you, not necessarily using your own face. Just as the narrator is sort-of the author, but is actually a character. Sort of like the way we use little avatar pictures here on the site to represent ourselves. But then that would be devious and deceptive and go against the whole point of putting the author's picture on the book.
Yes, this. An image compels an emotional response. Doesn't always work as intended, for example when politicians and other creepy salespeople try it.
Depends on if you've got that unique look that actor talent seeks out, or if you've been doxxed or something. Otherwise I personally wouldn't be too worried. I look so underwhelmingly average that I'm very commonly mistaken for other people. If I wrote something notorious enough to warrant public confrontation, which admittedly seems unlikely, I'd feel bad for all the other shmucks that look like me.
Photos on dustjackets are a real hangover from 20th century publishing practices when those were the only real visual images you could get of authors so you could try and connect with who they are a bit. These days it's less important because we can constantly connect, albeit in a more contrived way, and get that information from the internet if we want it. Some genres have that style so historically ingrained in them though that I would utilise it if I was publishing in those areas. Romance and Crime are two that particularly spring to mind. Maybe it's because they're two genres that can be really scandalous and dig right into people's psyches so they want to know more about the person who could imagine that, including what they look like? I work in a library part time and I do spend a lot of time watching people and trying to study what they pick up and get an idea of why... Just can't help it!
I am slowly approaching the point where I want to show who I am to future potential readers. I want to dress in some fine clothes and look decent. My plan is to recite short stories on a channel somewhere. And I want to also introduce myself in a sort of introduction video. What are peoples opinions on how one should tackle this? Do you go all out in your finest clothes? Or do you feel a more laid back approach would be better? The thing is I love old vests with nice patterns on them and fine clothes in general. So I want to present myself in my best light. I still have a ton of writing left to do before I fully introduce myself, but it's nice to think of how one should handle this. I know I may appear as an oddball from another century and that is okay. I want people to see the true me and I want to be honest about the things I like and the way I want to dress. My clothes are also a sort of reflection of my writing. How would you tackle presenting yourself to the public?
Well, you need to look like a writer. Whether that's dapper, thoughtful, intense, quirky... lots of ways to go. You need people to be like, yo, that guy looks like he has something to say! I would probably where some kind of hat. I'm partial to fedoras.
At this point it sounds like you're talking more about shooting videos rather than a picture for the back cover. I would start doing it now, as practice, and you'll gradually get better, just like with the writing. Do a bunch of little free-shoots (video versions of freewritres)—just get used to being in front of the camera, talking, how to set up the lighting, etc, and you'll get more comfortable as you go. At first just do whatever—say a dozen words, or read from the back of a cereal box, or whatever—it doesn't matter. You have a lot of things to work out and the only way you'll do that is by making a bunch of little videos. You might want to also look into how to work on your voice for public speaking. After listening to myself speak in a bunch of little videos I came to realize I needed to work on my diction (pronunciation), by making sure to form the sounds carefully, like a professional announcer, otherwise I tended to sound like some kind of country hick with lazy diction. I got better at it with practice, I also learned that a good way to warm up each day before speaking into a camera is to do a little singing. It's the way the pros often do it, and once you've done that, with an emphasis on being free and loose rather than stiff and formal, talking is so much easier, plus the little burst of singing gets your blood flowing and gets you all fired up. Oh, I also realized I needed to keep a little kit with some transparent face powder on hand because some days my skin, especially on my nose and forhead, looked shiny and distracting.
Thanks, @Xoic and @Homer Potvin @Xoic I have the same problem as you with a shiny skin. Thanks a lot for all the tips. I am still not sure whether it would be an acutal video or just a picture of me and then my voice.
Actually, it goes deeper than what I said before. You want to keep a little kit in your shooting room, with a comb or brush and a small hand mirror. I actually ended up getting a compact, like women keep in their purse, with a little mirror inside the lid, and I filled it with the transparent face powder. It even has a little powder puff inside it. Lol, makes me feel like a vain actor, doing my own makeup. Lol, and then doing my voice warmups. But really it's a handy little emergency kit.
Publicity photos. Ugh. Publicity videos. Even ugher. People expect me to put on lipstick and mascara so I don't look like an eyelashless troglodyte. I gave that junk up when I quit dancing and didn't need stage make-up any more. No one told me writing might require make up.
Investing in good camera and mic is much more important than attire IMO. Possibly also having a script rather than rambling.
Agreed, and that applies just as much for a still photo as for a video. I mean, a decent camera for the picture, and then a good microphone for the podcast, if that's the way he ends up going (which it sounds like). Plus I would still use a software that allows color correction. When I say it's the difference between professional results and amateur ones, what I really mean is between it looking decent and looking terrible. If a picture or video isn't color corrected, unless you got really lucky and there's no color distortion in it, people will immediately get that feeling of 'This isn't up to decent standards,' even if they can't tell you exactly why. I use a photo correction software called On1 Photo Raw, but you can get excellent results for free with an online photo correction app. I've used one called Pixlr X that does a great job.
I never even thought about colour/contrast etc. Especially if your lighting changes throughout the day or even slightly based on what you're wearing.
I learned about it when I was doing stopmotion animation. I used to wonder why everybody else's work looked better than mine, and I couldn't figure it out until somebody mentioned white balance and color correction. Then I discovered an app called Lightroom (as opposed to darkroom)—an Adobe Photoshop product, but only for color correction. I did the free test thing and it made a massive difference, and suddenly I could see all my pictures had a weird greenish cast to them that I never noticed before. But the instant you white balance it properly it looks incredible. In fact, here's an image I white balanced. It just took one click: On the left everything has a faint green color cast and it's hard to notice unless you have a trained eye. It's the kind of thing where people will know something is off but they can't tell you what.
