Authors, Readers, and the Internet: Are we losing something?

Stefan from over at Civilian Reader put out a tweet some time ago asking if anyone wanted to do a guest post.  I spoke up and mentioned my interest in doing one about whether or not having authors in touch with their readership is a bad thing.  Of course, he noticed that we bug authors all the time to communicate even more in interviews and guest posts.  Good point.  But, the topic interests me, so I figured I'd just write it here and the consequences be damned!

Over the last few years we've seen authors go from having their own website (maybe) to an expectation that an author keep a blog and be reachable via e-mail or Twitter.  Authors are able to get feedback from readers in real-time.  George R.R. Martin has been blogging for 10 years.  In that time he's received millions of comments that I'm sure he's read and more often ignored.  He's done chats and discussions.  Sam Sykes, author of Tome of the Undergates and Black Halo, has tweeted over 20,000 times.  He hosts giveaways on his feed and keeps a very well put together blog with thoughtful discussions.

It's clear that authors like Sykes gain quite a bit from this presence in social media and the blogosphere.  Or is it?  Publishers, as far as I know, don't urge their authors to really engage in social media and I doubt there's been any study done that's found some correlation between on-line presence and sales figures (authors like Michael Sullivan may disagree).  Regardless, I know I'm more likely to review a book if I've talked to the author on Twitter or dialogued via their blog.  And that's a good thing.  Authors get more things said about their book, good or bad.

Certainly more readers today are checking out reviews before buying a book.  The internet had made smart shopping so much easier.  We've got message boards, blogs, specialized websites, and more to help everyone make decisions about how to spend their money.  My worry is that authors know this too.  If I were an author with an active on-line presence and my book was broadly criticized for something specific, how could I not endeavor to work on that in future installments?

Peter Orullian's debut The Unremembered comes to mind.  Heavily criticized as a rip-off of the plot from Eye of the World, was book two originally planned as The Great Hunt redux?  If it was, has Orullian changed his original line of thinking based on the response from the review community?  Should he?  I'm sure this is reading like a blogger who thinks too highly of his own opinion.  That's not my intent.  I personally think authors should ignore what we, as bloggers, have to say.  It's their job to write and our job to say whether we like it or not.  Nothing that's said on this blog should change how or what an author writes.  But, is that possible?  Has the internet given authors and readers so much access that it's  fundamentally eroded the divide between the two?  Could we be entering an era of unrestrained "on demand" consumerism in literature?

I was finishing K.J. Parker's The Folding Knife when these thoughts came into my head.  Parker, as an anonymous pen name, could be Sam Sykes.  For the sake of this argument lets assume Parker doesn't go on-line.  It's certainly true that Parker does not interact in any way as K.J. Parker.  Folding Knife is not traditional in the fantasy genre.  There's no magic, and almost nothing "fantastic".  Everything is raw and real and the only reason it's classified fantasy is that it's second world.  The novel is functionally a tragedy in a very Shakespearean kind of way.  It's a brilliant novel, but I doubt one that heads up Orbit Books list of best sellers.  Nothing about it is whimsical or fun.  Are Parker's sales harmed by a lack of interaction with fans?  Or is it the case that lack of interaction frees Parker to write a novel insulated from outside influences?

I see a lot of consternation in the publishing world about eBooks and how it's going to change the way we buy books and develop authors.  It will, but isn't the issue I've raised just as crucial and potentially damaging?  Look around.  Every major house has a hooded man cover.  Why?  Because they sell.  They look cool.  Publishers know all this because the data and feedback is so immediate now.  If Angry Robot Books slaps a cover up on their homepage, they've got fifty people telling them what they think in real-time.  I'm not sure there's a point in all this other than to say, I'm a little worried that intellectual and creative integrity could be under threat if we don't pay attention to how technology is changing the model.

Or I'm full of shit.  What do you think?