A writer should be ‘invisible’. Do you agree or disagree?

I think it should be a particular writer’s preference. Although – as the once ‘okay’ Shia LeBeouf has shown us – once you’re made visible, you can’t turn back on it (even if you do have some lame-performance-art-excuse to counter-act your plagiarism cases – but that’s another story).

In terms of preference, I personally do not feel I have the charisma to become the next John Green, though I do know students who could pull off a similar feat. If I were provided with a choice then I’d like to be not quite visible but not quite invisible either.

I’d like to be the enigmatic in-between – that distortion you see when rain patters against a reflection.

But that is not what current agents and publishers are looking for. If you follow even one of the smaller agents on Twitter then you’ll know that they’re all about their prospective authors embracing digital new media. This is so the reader can put a face to the work, should they want to.

Generally, I like the idea behind this. If someone wants to find you (outside of that outpouring of your soul that you've already offered up) then I think they should be able to. But again, that’s all down to a writer’s preference. Even a certain social-media friendly author once said,

Writing is something you do alone. It’s a profession for introverts who want to tell you a story but don’t want to make eye contact while doing it.

-- John Green