For years, I've told my writing students that to be a successful novelist, you must be the writer, AND the author. The Writer does the writing: alone in a room, butt in chair, hands on keyboard for hundreds of hours. The Author is the personality out in public and on social media. The halcyon days of novelists being able to hide behind a word processor were over in the 90s. Readers and publishers expect you to be out in public, promoting your books.
Here's the thing that has always puzzled me. I don't understand why readers want to meet the author. For many years, my favourite author has been the Sicilian, Andrea Cammilleri. I adore Inspector Montalbano, star of his sharply funny books. In fact, I so adore Cammilleri, that I have no real interest in meeting his creator. Why? Because Montalbano *is* Cammilleri to me. Seeing him in person would take away the magic. What if he looks entirely different? What if Cammilleri is 80 while Montalbano is 50?
(Sadly, I knew that to be the truth. Cammilleri
died recently, at the age of 93. With him, dies Montalbano who was
just into his 60s. No more books, and that's a tragedy for me.)
But I digress.
The point of this post: I am always a bit surprised when readers are enthusiastic about meeting me. I wonder that they too might find seeing me in person could corrupt the image they have of my protagonist/s.
But beyond appearance, and possibly worse, does my own character do justice to my protagonist?
Do we have to like the artist to love the art?
Put another way: if the artist falls from grace, does it affect how we perceive their art?
A few names come to mind. Woody Allen. Michael Jackson. Can I still watch a Woody Allen movie without feeling slightly queasy? Can I listen to Thriller or Beat It, and enjoy them, without thinking of disturbing sexual misconduct?
And then there is Dilbert. Can we still laugh at the comic strip, yet deplore the opinions of its creator?
The
jury is out for me on this one. I really do go back and forth about
equating the art with the character of the artist. I am sure that if we
looked into artists of the past (I'm going way back here - the Romans,
Renaissance, Age of Enlightenment, 19th century) we would find people
who held views that we find abhorrent now. People who conducted
themselves in amoral or cruel ways, but produced wondrous art.
How far does one go in this? Should we be refusing to value the art of men who denied women the vote until the last century? Should one idolize and cheer for Tiger Woods on the PGA tour when he treats women so dishonorably?
I don't know. I'm anxiously ambivalent about this one. In fact, I'm losing sleep at night. It's 5:20 AM right now as I'm writing this sentence. I've been up for two hours, stewing on this.
Which all goes to show... I've found another fabulous way to procrastinate on writing my next novel.
Melodie Campbell writes wryly funny crime books, from the shores of Lake Ontario. The Merry Widow Murders will finally hit the shelves in May.