I always thought that an author should remain unseen, in the background of a written story, but it seems that even cantankerous authors are loved, perhaps even more than bland scribes. Common wisdom is that an author should be as specific as possible, including—as it appears—their biases, both positive and negative.

It's almost like storytelling is more like meeting a person (persona?), less like listing facts in a fancy way. How it is told seems more important than what is told. This implies authors should have people-skills, perhaps not while meeting readers in a real life setting, but certainly as a voice, 'talking' through words on a flat surface. Observing people other than yourself, without judging, may be essential if you want your words to have entertainment value (read: not bore the reader by the characters being all the same—basically, the author).

Authors don't disappear behind a wall of text; they seem to emerge through it. However, no one likes a sermon, being told what to think. The restraint of show-don't-tell feels like the author remains in the background, yet they are quite in front of the reader, in plain sight, conveying meaning through imagery in the reader's mind. The author simply doesn't hit the reader over the head (much) with descriptive and repetitive text, although some repetition is necessary, to update the majority of readers of certain facts, when and if it makes sense. It's just that most readers aren't stupid, and even if some of them are, they don't want to be treated as such.

Good to know as someone who hasn't published work, ever. Please take my words with the appropriate amount of salt.