“Blythe Woolston doesn’t remember learning how to read, but she suspects someone taught her as ploy to keep her out of trouble in a slightly dangerous world full of bears and chainsaws and swift rivers. Today she reads books and writes the indexes that appear on their final pages. She lives in a wonder cupboard: One drawer is full of peppercorns, another holds the skull of a hoplitomeryx, another collects lint that might be useful in making bandages if it comes to that. The Freak Observer is her first novel. Follow her blog at www.blythewoolston.com.”
Has the role of the author bio changed? With authors on social networks and with web sites an absolute requirement, has the biographic role of the author bio been replaced by the need to be more demonstrative of the author’s personality? Put it another way: do author bios need to have a voice more than they need facts? I tend to think so. I think author bios are now more enticements to further interaction than statements of useful fact. Contradictory opinions?
(Yes, Blythe Woolston’s The Freak Observer has a photograph of a brain on the back. Wait until you see the front.)