The Catcher in the Rye
discussion
Should authors privacy be respected?
date
newest »
newest »
Monty J wrote: "Andrew wrote: "All I am saying, is that it should be expected."Yes, expected, but not necessarily accepted by the author, as Harper Lee and JD Salinger have demonstrated.
Only the author knows t..."
I'm not sure I entirely agree with that, unless by setting the bar is implicitly involves an evaluation of how much courting of the public in order to secure a readership the author is prepared to do. There must be some sort of quid pro quo in that
No, the author's privacy should not be respected, all hail the NSA.
Elisabet wrote: "Thank you, Andrew. I understand what you say, however, I just cannot, I refuse to, accept that this is something I should expect or have to live with because society has sunk so low. Hopefully afte..."Hopefully not! Being a hermit would be horrible. At least you'd get lots of writing done. Ha!
Monty J wrote: "Andrew wrote: "All I am saying, is that it should be expected."Yes, expected, but not necessarily accepted by the author, as Harper Lee and JD Salinger have demonstrated.
Only the author knows t..."
Yes, every individual can set the bar of their own requirements but when a following of fans is created, they then set their own requirements. And the media then sees this following as an opportunity and sets their own requirements. Invasion of privacy then ensues. All I am saying is that this should be expected, not accepted.
-Andrew
Andrew wrote: "Elisabet wrote: "Thank you, Andrew. I understand what you say, however, I just cannot, I refuse to, accept that this is something I should expect or have to live with because society has sunk so lo..."And good luck on the interviews!
Marc wrote: "Monty J wrote: "Andrew wrote: "All I am saying, is that it should be expected."Yes, expected, but not necessarily accepted by the author, as Harper Lee and JD Salinger have demonstrated.
Only th..."
Marc wrote: "Monty J wrote: "Andrew wrote: "All I am saying, is that it should be expected."
Yes, expected, but not necessarily accepted by the author, as Harper Lee and JD Salinger have demonstrated.
Only th..."
Agreed. If you court the public, they then feel they have the right into your life.
-Andrew
If an author (or anyone) actually does court the public, should they expect to then maintain the same level of privacy they had before? How much privacy should an author who offers up a "semi-biographical" book expect? That is, should an author (or anyone) be able to say "here's my life, now stay out of my life" and expect that people will do so?Of course, everyone has the right to say, "no comment" (most of the time...) but is it reasonable for an author (or anyone) to present something for public review and their own profit without expecting that the public will want to know about the source of that product?
Jamie Lynn wrote: "Wasn't Stephen King stalked? That's a step too far."Misery is about that kind of thing. I don't know how much of his real life it is based on, though. Is trying to find out crossing the line?
(He did also get run over by a drunk... but that wasn't a case of stalking.)
Fame is as fame does. One of the beautiful things about reading what someone else has written is that you get to know them through their words. Why ruin a good friendship by actually meeting the person?
Nichola wrote: "Fame is as fame does. One of the beautiful things about reading what someone else has written is that you get to know them through their words. Why ruin a good friendship by actually meeting the pe..."Well put. It would be like flipping a starlet's gown up on a red carpet only to discover buttcheeks covered in pimples and wooly mammoth hairs. The hard work of creating and accepting illusion is lost. :}
E.D. Well said! I think anyone following me would get bored. I eat, read a book, read another book, write, read a book, eat, drink tea. You get the cycle. My characters are dynamic. Follow them!
Demetrius wrote: "Sallinger could be a private person. He did step out to speak to the townspeople and such as a recent special showed. But he was photographed without permission, and criticized for being private.
..."
Famous people have as much "right" to privacy as anyone else, of course (though whether there's any such thing as "rights" in the first place is open to question - human rights theories are based on some pretty shoddy philosophy). But the News of the World would disagree using some kind of "public interest" argument.
..."
Famous people have as much "right" to privacy as anyone else, of course (though whether there's any such thing as "rights" in the first place is open to question - human rights theories are based on some pretty shoddy philosophy). But the News of the World would disagree using some kind of "public interest" argument.
Rachel wrote: "Demetrius wrote: "Sallinger could be a private person. He did step out to speak to the townspeople and such as a recent special showed. But he was photographed without permission, and criticized f..."Somehow, the "public interest argument" sounds like a defense used in court by a peeping tom.
Demetrius wrote: "Rachel wrote: "Demetrius wrote: "Sallinger could be a private person. He did step out to speak to the townspeople and such as a recent special showed. But he was photographed without permission, a..."
Haha that's what I think too. Apparently it's okay if there are LOTS of peepers.
Haha that's what I think too. Apparently it's okay if there are LOTS of peepers.
Jamie Lynn wrote: "Well I forgot which state said it was perfectly legal to take pictures under women's skirts but that's a whole different issue. Now they have those google glasses with cameras. There's no such thin..."
Ah, but vaginas are in the Public Interest! :D
It's a strange world we live in haha...
Ah, but vaginas are in the Public Interest! :D
It's a strange world we live in haha...
Jamie Lynn wrote: "Well I forgot which state said it was perfectly legal to take pictures under women's skirts but that's a whole different issue. Now they have those google glasses with cameras. There's no such thin..."Shamefully, it's the state of Massachusetts where I live.
Apparently there's a loophole that the woman has to be naked in order for it to be a crime. Yes, I know, totally idiotic. Thank you! That's the second compliment I got for my screen name.
Andrew wrote: "Elisabet wrote: "Andrew wrote: I think if you decide to put yourself ou there, you should expect the invasion of your privacy. If I put myself out there to publicize my books, I should not expec..."
You wrote "The Importance of a Badass Cover?" Here is a cover of one of my stories.
http://www.amazon.com/The-Dogs-Devons...
I believe covers are important as you say.
Nonsensical wrote: "Apparently there's a loophole that the woman has to be naked in order for it to be a crime. Yes, I know, totally idiotic. Thank you! That's the second compliment I got for my screen name."In my state, a cannibal can sue the parents if the person he ate tasted awful. But people bring up a good point about law I think. Should laws protect privacy or the medias "right to know"? Should there be changes?
Does the cannibal have to present evidence or corroborating testimony? Could he sue the parents of a cable newscaster if he was advertised as "fair and balanced" and turned out to be"dark and off-kilter"? I'd like to know. :}
Elisabet wrote: "As a writer and one who wants privacy, I say yes we have a right to privacy. I want people to like or dislike my book for what I wrote not because of what I ate for lunch, or what school I went to,..."Hear! Hear! I agree completely. I am a published author, too. My books speak for themselves. I want to live my life without unwanted intrusions.
I recently listened to an author interview on a well known public radio station. The book like mine, covers a topic of interest to me: religion and women. As I listened to the interview, I became disgusted. The interviewer asked her about her deceased husband, his life, how was it to be his wife. He asked her about her travels, what her children are doing since graduation, and many questions irrelevant to the topic of her book. She answered the questions with a tone of disappointment. In an hour long discussion he asked 2 questions about the book. When she excitedly began telling about the book, he cut her off to say they were out of time. I am not sure why she was on the show. Was it to promote the book? Or does the interviewer know that people have become so pathetic that they will buy the book based on the author's life. Yes, she was married to a famous man (I never heard of him), however, the book is not about him or their life.
Elisabet wrote: "I recently listened to an author interview on a well known public radio station. The book like mine, covers a topic of interest to me: religion and women. As I listened to the interview, I became d..."Must be extremely frustrating.
Was it Hillary Clinton who (allegedly) agreed to do an interview only if there would no questions about her husband?
The author should have done the same. We need to take control of interviews, however, it appears to me that the masses have been trained to focus on the lifestyles of artists, sports star, etc.
Elisabet wrote: "The author should have done the same. We need to take control of interviews, however, it appears to me that the masses have been trained to focus on the lifestyles of artists, sports star, etc."Well, I suppose it's easier when you're a world famous politician, rather than an up-and-coming (if that's what she was) author in a hard industry.
Jamie Lynn wrote: "Are people really that interested? I see "news" about people all the time that I roll my eyes at and ask "Who cares??" I really could NOT care less if George Clooney is getting married! It dominate...""I bet the interviewer never actually read the book." That was my thought, also. Now the author knows to ask some questions of the interviewer before agreeing to do the interview.
Raymond wrote: "Elisabet wrote: "As a writer and one who wants privacy, I say yes we have a right to privacy. I want people to like or dislike my book for what I wrote not because of what I ate for lunch, or what ..."ah, if only we still lived in an age when books could speak for themselves and no one knew what authors looked like. But we don't.
The genie is put of the bottle. Is it a good thing? No. Will it revert to how it used to be? I doubt it. I'm afraid it really is part of the territory of being an artist who wants to put their art out into the public sphere.
I believed too that the interviewer did not read the book. Yet, I find it difficult to believe because the interviewer is famous. His show is aired across the U.S. and Canada. He is considered a celebrity. Authors long to have an interview on his show. I did until I heard the interview. The topic of her book is so important and perhaps dispelled the rumors circulating globally about her religion or supported them. I'll never know because he mentioned the title of the book only at the beginning of the show.
Everyone's privacy should be respected.
Jamie Lynn wrote: "Elisabet wrote: " If viewers are actually interested in the personal lives of the famous people they see then it's really a sad society right now."They are seemingly, there's no getting away from that. Why else would you have programmes following Ozzy Osbourne, the Kardashians & Lindsey Lohan around their daily lives? Now you well may say that with little alternative to choose from, or the bombardment of marketing to promote these programmes to an audience, that this is a false desire in viewers and readers. Doesn't matter whether it's false or not, at present it is a desire & a seeming unquenchable hunger. Are books going to turn the tide against this? I doubt it, if anything they are more likely to try and piggyback on the trend itself. Perhaps part of 50 Shades' huge success is because people did want to know what their neighbours could be getting up to behind the closed curtains... And before I'm accused of being sympathetic or even accepting of this desultory trend, read my books to see just how far towards the polar opposite I am in my writing. I wish my books could speak for themselves, but I don't think anyone is interested in listening...
Jamie Lynn wrote: "Reality shows (I know I went off topic) are cheap to make so they will keep making them. It takes no brain power to tell people to fight on TV on a loosely based script."that's on the production side. The point was asked about the viewing side and they lap them up. Cheap or not, they wouldn't bother making them if no one was watching them.
I feel that the argument that becoming famous means you forfeit your privacy to a certain a degree is valid. For actors. Not for authors. With actors a LOT of their career is based on publicity that focuses on THEM. With authors the publicity is usually about their words, not their looks, or who they're sleeping with. Which is the way a lot of authors prefer it.
Now there are some authors who eventually become famous (because they make cameos in every movie that is based on their work) and I'd think in THAT case...well they kind of want that recognition.
Cassandra wrote: "I feel that the argument that becoming famous means you forfeit your privacy to a certain a degree is valid. For actors. Not for authors. With actors a LOT of their career is based on publicity..."
I think that certainly used to be true, but with the plethora of self-published authors battling for attention, they push themselves forward on social media and are not shy and retiring. You can't really invite people to be interested in your output and then close yourself off to their requests for all sorts of information.
Marc wrote: "Cassandra wrote: "I feel that the argument that becoming famous means you forfeit your privacy to a certain a degree is valid. For actors. Not for authors. With actors a LOT of their career is ..."
But there is a vast chasm between interest in what an author is willing to tell about himself and invasion of privacy.
Raymond wrote: "Marc wrote: "Cassandra wrote: "I feel that the argument that becoming famous means you forfeit your privacy to a certain a degree is valid. For actors. Not for authors. With actors a LOT of the..."
I'm still unconvinced a public facing author can control or define the boundaries - it's a grey area
Marc wrote: "Raymond wrote: "Marc wrote: "Cassandra wrote: "I feel that the argument that becoming famous means you forfeit your privacy to a certain a degree is valid. For actors. Not for authors. With act..."
The author is asking for public recognition in order to sell his books, so you're right that he takes the risk of the public wanting to know more about him than he necessarily wants them to know. But human decency should still count for something!
Raymond wrote: "Marc wrote: "Raymond wrote: "Marc wrote: "Cassandra wrote: "I feel that the argument that becoming famous means you forfeit your privacy to a certain a degree is valid. For actors. Not for authors..."yeah good luck with that :-)
Jamie Lynn wrote: "I don't know how often authors go through invasions of privacy. Salinger and Stephen Kind have experienced it but I don't know if any other authors have been harassed."yeah Stephen Kind was so harassed, he had to change his name to King! :-)
Anybody who'll sleep with a Joyce Maynard can hardly be taken seriously if they complain about what happens to their umm... "Privacy".
Yes, there is a right to privacy. It doesn't matter who you are or what you do (except, perhaps, adult criminals)- privacy invasion is not automatically requested.
Every one is entitled to privacy regardless of what they do for a living. Just because someone wrote a book sings, or acts doesn't mean their lives are on display. There is a sense of respect that everyone needs.
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
Yes, expected, but not necessarily accepted by the author, as Harper Lee and JD Salinger have demonstrated.
Only the author knows their requirements, and they have the right to set the bar where they want it.