Author bios are changing. There have always been writers who instead of (or in addition to) including the standard list of publications choose to drop “interesting” factoids about themselves – their geographical whereabouts, the names and disposition of their pets. But it seems lately more bios are mini works of art themselves – works of fiction or memoir carefully crafted to hint at the author’s artistic interests, humor, and psyche.

These writers refuse the standard “He has been published in…” and “She received her MFA from…” They give something more rich and bloody. The story or poem doesn’t end with the story or poem. Here, in the contributor notes, is an offering. A free dessert.

These writers are my heroes. Because too many of us (myself included) have used contributor notes for evil purposes, mainly to judge the integrity of the author, to measure his/her success in the literary world, and to reinforce a hierarchy of “better” journals and “the best” MFA programs.

Interestingly, the artistic bios seem most prevalent in arty, online, alternative, post-avant garde, boundary-breaking, and/or new up-and-coming mags. The well-established journals, even the crazier ones, seem to sport mostly the safe and standard credential listings.

Perhaps this is a question of separating the author from the piece of writing. Should we appreciate the piece as a work of art as it stands? Or should we be influenced by knowing that the author has been published in X, X, and X? And as artists, how do we want to be known – for our art or for our endorsements?