One of my greatest pet peeves is about authors who don't have websites.
Generally speaking, the authors I know of who do not have a website probably don't need one . . . people like Zadie Smith and David Sedaris seem to have a guaranteed audience. A website for publicity and fan-generating purposes might be unnecessary for them. I really don't know.
All I know is that I dislike when authors don't have a website.
This is partially because I feel that having a website shows some respect for the fans. It provides a space where at the minimum readers will be able to find information about upcomming releases and a bio. I tend to prefer sites with even more features than that (writing / publishing tips for aspiring writers, blogs, photos of pets, "behind-the-scenes" info on the process of each book, fun links), but I at least like the assurance of an author-owned page to tell me when the next book is expected.
Most of all I want the author to care that when I type in his or her name on google.com that the first site to pop up will be his or her own -- something individually controlled and managed. Otherwise I feel like they're sending the message "I am inaccessible and surrounded by an aura of mystery, therefore bow to me peons" or "I am an artiste and care more about my product than enticing the consumer" which might be true but seems poor business practice.
Is my attitude totally unfair? I know that websites may not be cheap if you can't build and maintain it yourself, but I also see a lot of authors who probably aren't making a living off their writing who still have them. I also understand that creating a website is an invitation to contact with the masses which many authors simply don't have time to maintain. However, I've also seen authors who explicitly write on their websites that they don't have time to answer fan mail. What drawbacks might a website have that I am missing? There must be something.
At the end of the day, I am the one who buys books. I am the consumer. And damn it, I want to be courted.
