While the book had the power to captivate us, so did the author. Oscar Wilde, Hunter S. Thompson, William S. Burroughs, F. Scott Fitzgerald, Ernest Hemingway – to name a few – were just as bizarre and compelling of characters as the ones they gave life to in print.

So what happened? Where have our eccentric writers gone?

Eccentric authors didn’t just write books. They sold them. When readers purchased a copy of “For Whom The Bell Tolls,” they were never just buying a book. They were buying Hemingway.

If you ever get a chance, watch the hour-long, BBC 1978 documentary on Thompson that appears on the second disc of the Criterion Collection version of the film, “Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas.” It follows Thompson as he displays his now-famous brand of eccentric and sometimes dangerous behavior patterns. Not behavior to be endorsed by any means, but it shows how Thompson’s personality gave his work an added dimension. That added dimension is what makes many great works timeless.

Now, don’t take this as a call for today’s major authors to start firing handguns off rooftops while stone drunk. It’s more of a musing as to when the publishing industry decided to replace “personality” with “celebrity.”

Go into a Barnes & Noble nowadays, and there’s an entire section devoted to fictional works written by “celebrity authors” such as actors Steve Martin and Ethan Hawke.

But at least these books are original works.

Buffalo Bills wide receiver Terrell Owens (a character in his own right) already has released two autobiographies (“Catch This: Going Deep with the NFL’s Sharpest Weapon” and “T.O.”), a children’s book (“Little T Learns to Share”) and a fitness book (“T.O.’s Finding Fitness: Making the Mind, Body, and Spirit Connection for Total Health”). He is 35 years old. He released his first autobiography in 2004 and his second in 2006.

Former Alaskan governor Sarah Palin called herself a “lame duck” when stepping down from office – in the middle of her first term. Upon her resignation, the 2008 vice presidential candidate signed a book deal with Harper Collins, who will co-release her memoirs with its subsidiary, Christian publishing house Zondervan. Palin’s rumored asking price for a book she will co-pen? $11 million. She may not get that much, but many analysts expect her to get more than former President George W. Bush received for his memoirs.

“Celebrity” over “personality.” “Style” over “substance.” Call me crazy, but I just don’t see these titles stacking up against “The Catcher in the Rye” or “The Great Gatsby” in the long run.

A side note: If you have a Facebook account, try taking the “Which Crazy Writer Are You” quiz. Post your result on your homepage and here on Delmio.

By Diane Evans, Delmio.com

The beauty of Hollywood is that it’s just that. Hollywood. With full license to create, embellish and pull rank, even great authors find their stories changed when books morph into film scripts.

Milan Kundera had the right idea. He didn’t like the movie adaptation of his “Unbearable Lightness of Being,” so has never allowed another adaptation of his work. His choice.

The running debate, over when Hollywood’s creative liberties go too far, surfaced again over some current films. In one case, “My Sister’s Keeper” author Jodi Picoult indicated that she enjoyed the recent film adaptation of her book while many of her fans did not.

Writing on her Web site, www.jodipicoult.com, Picoult says, “Yes, I know the ending is different. Yes, I know some of you are very upset. I didn’t change it… Please don’t e-mail me asking me why I changed the ending, or ‘let’ Hollywood do that – it wasn’t something I had any control over.”

Her message makes the point: We’re talking two different mediums, producing two different sets of experiences. That’s why, in the credit lines, you see that certain films are “based on” a particular book or real-life experience. It’s as good as saying ideas were borrowed – with creative license.

This is art. It’s not history, biography or documentary. And the art of film, with its immediate and visual impact, creates a separate experience from that of a novel, with a more complex and fully developed storyline. Plus, the bottom line is business, and what sells in books may not sell at the box office.

Still, these artistic debates are refreshing, if only because true artists care about such things. An example is “Watchmen” director Zack Snyder, who after a rough first cut of the film, was told by studio executives to cut two scenes: the Comedian’s funeral, which establishes tone and introduces key characters, and Dr. Manhattan’s reverie on Mars, where he narrates his origin story and muses on the nature of time.

Both were crucial scenes in the graphic novel, so Snyder fought to keep them in the movie. He prevailed, even through he still had to cut 30 minutes from the film.

As consumers of art, it’s good to remind ourselves that if through art we imitate the perfection of the universe, then we need to be satisfied with different methods of imitation to suit different artistic forms. As Brian K. Vaughan, “Y: The Last Man” creator and “Lost” writer, commented in Wired Magazine, regarding the adaptation of “Watchmen” before its release: “It’s like making a stage play of ‘Citizen Kane.’ I guess it could be OK, but why? The medium is the message.”

Much like our deepest feelings, art just is. One could write a book about this. And it would be very different from the film.

By Diane Evans, Delmio.com

As we approach the Fourth of July weekend, we prepare to celebrate our many precious freedoms – two of those essential ones being freedom of speech and expression.

Freedom, of course, requires tolerance – tolerance to those of different race, creed and belief. However, tolerance doesn’t mean we compromise our values as Americans. A governor or public official that lies and cheats, a financier or corporate executive that commits fraud; all should accountable. Public pressure should side with honesty and honor.

So why is Hyperion Books so casual about author and journalist Chris Anderson using unattributed passages — closely mirroring material from Wikipedia and other sources –in his soon-to-be-released book, “Free: The Future of a Radical Price.”

Anderson is no novice. He is editor-in-chief of Wired Magazine, and his previous book, “The Long Tail,” became influential in business circles. Yet now, in a simple blog post, he has confirmed the use of unattributed material by saying it was his “screwup.” His explanation: That in the “rush” to finish the book, credits were omitted, and that passages in question “were mostly on the margins of the book’s focus, mostly on historical asides.”

For its part, Hyperion said it was satisfied with the explanation – kind of like the teacher satisfied with the lame, “dog ate my homework” excuse.

Hyperion now plans to work with Anderson to make corrections for an electronic version of the book and subsequent hard copies. The 80,000 first-print copies have already been shipped.

Interestingly, Anderson’s new book talks about the wisdom of free products on the Web. He said he depended on Wikipedia, an online encyclopedia of free user-contributed articles generally considered “questionable” as a reliable source of information, to describe meanings of phases such as “there’s no such thing as a free lunch.” The Virginia Quarterly Review discovered the borrowing of text and ideas.

Ironically, the controversy has been noted on Anderson’s Wikipedia page.

At a time when book publishers have been repeatedly called into question for intellectual honesty, Hyperion and Wired, for that matter, made it easy on themselves while protecting a financial investment. In this case, tolerance short-shifted the ethics that are sacred in journalism and publishing.

Anderson now joins a long list of authors called into question for plagiarism, with lawsuits even extending to “Harry Potter” author J.K. Rowling.

In Anderson’s case, his acknowledgments are on the table. Sure, you can say it’s a small thing, involving information in the margins. But that’s like saying a small lie is acceptable, or perhaps a small incident of fraud.

Tolerance in such cases reduces our collective expectations, and the unwritten standard to which we hold journalists and authors. We all lose when we lower our standards.

At the very least, I would have felt better to hear a serious mea culpa from Anderson and his publisher.