If it helps to clarify matters I’m perfectly willing to share two cases in point. The first is that literature is, among other things, essentially a dialogue, an opinion I share with a great number of people including Horace Engdahl of the Swedish Academy (responsible for awarding the Nobel Prize in literature), who predictably aroused American hackles in 2008 when he suggested that American writers’ self-absorbed exclusion from the international dimension of that dialogue helped to account for the relatively low number of American Nobel Prize winners. Books in general permit the wonder of external information storage, allowing us to safeguard, manipulate and communicate data in ways that would be impossible if we had to rely solely on our craniums. If committing one’s thoughts to paper were not both an invitation and a stimulus to dialogue, it’s hard to see what other utilitarian merit the process could claim.

Secondly, without the aid of additional premises that have nothing to do with reading and enjoying books I can’t see any conceptual link between wondering what an author looks like and fanaticism; and I’m skeptical that a logic equivocal enough to conflate such disparate concepts really sees it either. In my opinion, though, it would be existentially inconsistent, if not somewhat hypocritical, for a writer to dismiss as ‘fanatics’ the very people he hoped to beguile with his work to an extent sufficient to support his continuing to produce it. It’s not the kind of anomaly one would associate with a Greg Egan character.

One does not need to understand or identify with the creator of a work of art to appreciate the art. Is it not enough that you have been given access to the concepts and engaging themes in Egan’s work? Like many of the misguided self-absorbed in our generation of popular media, you are mistaken in the belief that Egan owes you the responsibility to have an “interest in [your] opinion.” If he choses to remove himself from the mass frenzy of SF fanatics so as to better enjoy the company of his family and friends and to focus on his writing, then we should respectfully allow him to do so. It may even be the case that the novelty of his concepts and quality of writing would suffer if he were to start attending SF conventions and influencing himself by the opinions some of fanatical fans so eagerly want to to impose on him. I, for one, applaude his choice to remain somewhat aloof.

By the way, you simultaneously come across as pretentious, petulant, and exhibiting the latent traits of a stalker — I suspect neither of these your hero would appreciate. I understand your impatience and frustration — it’s hard feeling unappreciated by someone you respect. But that is the nature of the human condition. Learn to live with it and be grateful that you have someone (i.e. your daughter) to share your SF passions with.

I’m not enough of a crackpot to do this myself… but when my daughter was at UWA in Perth last year I did ask her to keep an eye out for any public appearance (a book signing, perhaps?) by Mr. Egan. After all, notwithstanding my criticism of the incoherent form his aversion to being photographed takes in this interview, I’m still a fan of his work.

Mate, just buy and read his books or not. That’s all you have to do.

-Rod-

If I could, per impossible, get a hearing from Mr. Egan he might find that it’s not quite so easy to anticipate both ends of a non-fictional dialogue. I’d be tempted to ask him whether the capacity of photographs to function as ‘reminders’ really exhausts their ability to convey meaningful data, and whether people ought not to be free to decide for themselves what the photograph of a stranger means to them. Logically, Mr. Egan’s proffered argument should lead him to shroud himself in a burqa, for strangers gazing on his naked visage in the street surely have even less chance linking it with whatever he considers his essential self to be than his readers do. Logically, it’s not even clear why he consents to interviews. Perhaps they’re mandated by his publisher.

In truth, I do not aspire to have a debating relationship with Mr. Egan. I understand perfectly his desire for privacy and his sensible aversion to sf conventions. I also understand that he doesn’t have the leisure to be drawn into lengthy correspondence with ‘fans.’ But some social and ethical considerations can justly claim relevant roles in defining our responsibilities even toward people we’ve never met. While his political activism suggests that Mr. Egan understands this very well, the insight seems to have partially deserted him here.

I have no expectation of ever meeting Mr. Egan, which is a shame since there’s sufficient affinity between us on the page to suggest that I could conceivably enter that charmed circle of people who mean something to him. If there’s an element of fantasy in this supposition what harm would it do him to accord me the courtesy of indulging it, via the proxy of a photograph or in any other way? What is the downside of giving others the opportunity to encounter, if not him, at least his picture and allowing them to attach whatever meaning to the experience they deem appropriate? Why must not only his website but the dust jackets of his books be so hermitically sealed against any possibility of interaction, even in so minimal a form, with his readers? How can readers regard such vehement resolve to keep them at a distance and ensure a one-way relationship with them as anything other than evidence that their potential to become ‘meaningful’ personages in his life is being contemptuously written off in advance?

And why does Mr. Egan, in his short tutorial on rudeness, fail to acknowledge the animating role his standoffishness obviously contributes to the case of mistaken photo identity he cites? If he believes his readers are this inept at spotting self-serving logical equivocation, what motivates him to entrust them with intellectually ambitious texts in the first place?

Since our opinion is already discounted, one can only hope that Professor Egan of Monash University will contact Mr. Egan, science fiction writer, and say, “Look, mate, the best way to help me out is by acknowledging the legitimacy of readers’ desire to put a face to the author of your wonderful stories. ‘Stolen’ photos are evidence of that desire as much as they’re breaches of etiquette, and your own approach to etiquette isn’t exactly smelling like a rose here. In fact, your insistence on frustrating that desire is increasing your resemblance to a cranky noodle, and it hardly squares with the high moral tone of your stories.

“Incidentally, if you really wish to make me feel better, would you kindly consider forwarding an autographed picture of yourself in the enclosed, stamped, self-addressed envelope? It’s for my daughter… Thanks in advance; your hoping-to-be-grateful Namesake.”