If you’re going purely on a snaphot of their physical appearance, both were unremarkable enough independent of their work, I suppose, but as far as personality, mannerisms, style, etc., I’d say both absolutely qualify. Mickey Rourke’s portrayal of Bukowski’s character Henry Chinaski in “Barfly” was based on Bukowski himself, just like Peter Weller’s Bill Lee in “Naked Lunch” was quite clearly Burroughs. Both were very much larger than-life iconic guys in the same sense Hunter S. Thompson and Truman Capote were.
I don’t get this one. We know very little about Shakespeare the man; he’s immortal because of what he wrote, not because of anything personal about him.
My first thought was Harlan Ellison.
Unfortunately, Jackie Collins and her ilk.
Just print out a copy of this image and ask any random passer-by on the street who it is. I’ll bet you nine out of ten folks will say “Shakespeare.”
And forgive the snarkiness, but if you also happened to show them a photo of Harlan Ellison, waaaaaayyyy fewer folks would have a clue as to that is.
OK and maybe I am just culturally ignorant, but Hunter S. Thompson and Truman Capote are extremely famous and well known characters long before their recent movies. Capote was a regular on the old talk show circuit and Hunter S. Thompson just was as well known as someone like Abbie Hoffman or Dr. Timothy Leary.
I just don’t recall Bukowski or Burroughs as in the public eye or mind and I don’t think they are really well known. Of course, maybe that is just me.
Eh, to each his own. To my thinking, even independent of movie portrayals Bukowski and Burroughs are, if not as famous, at least as distinctive and iconic in personality as HST or, say, Ginsberg, but I guess it’s all relative. My mother wouldn’t know Hunter Thompson from Fred Thompson. 
I tried googling his website to see if I could get the inspiration to make the phrase more tongue-twisty. I found out that the search omitted the word ‘kinky’ because work has us on Google Safe. I’d never heard of Google Safe.
Google safe sells no salacious salsa.
I think you’re missing the point of the OP. It’s not about whether someone would recognize a portrait of the author, it’s whether they are famous in part because of their distinctive personalities. Since we know very little about Shakespeare’s actual personality, there is no way he qualifies.
Hmm…perhaps. But I might argue that Shakespeare has become so iconographic in western ( or at least English-speaking ) culture, through a thousand myriad fictionalizations, from Clifford D. Simak to Neil Gaiman, that he transcends his position as a “mere” author.
However I will say that this list is needs be a bit subjective. I DO consider Burroughs to qualify and just on the recognition-angle I may or may not be able pick his face out of a lineup, but I certainly will always pick his voice out of a lineup.
Meanwhile I have literally never heard of Andrew Vachss before, which might speak to some lack of culture on my part :p.
My first thought was Philip K Dick, all that business about his drug use, his visions of an alternate universe ontop of this one, breaking into his own house to steal papers and then blaming the CIA, all a bit wacky before you read his books.
Actually, I was thinking iconic in terms of distinctive image and/or personality. Whether that image involves visual image or audio image is up for discussion, I suppose, but it does mean something other than just personality is eligible.
And as Tamerlane notes, there is a HUGE element of subjectivity to this. I couldn’t actually pick Burroughs out of a lineup by either face or voice, but I’m more than willing to allow that Tamerlane and probably dozens if not hundreds of other Dopers could.
The only reason I recognize Andrew Vachss is because he’s a friend of Joe Lansdale’s, and Joe plugs his stuff and vice versa. Vachss does a lot of work to combat child abuse. He’s probably more iconic in that community than as a novelist.
What’s with the eye patch?
Marc
It’s a matter of interpretation. If you were to mention Shakespeare’s name, or show his portrait, to almost anybody (at least in the English-speaking world), whether or not they’d actually read/seen any of his works, they’d recognize him, and his name or face would conjure up strong associations in their minds. So in that sense he’s certainly iconic. But what they would mostly be thinking of would be his work, and its reputation, and all the culture that has grown up around his work, and not of the human being himself apart from what he wrote. So in that sense, he’s not the kind of thing that the OP is talking about. (And, in that sense, I think Poe and Vonnegut, for example, would not qualify either, but Wilde certainly would.)
Trust me, Burroughs is identifiable. Ever hear him rap? He’s good. Marlene Dietrich taught him how.
No. Not making it up.
Stephen King is identifiable, but not because of personality. Or looks.
Hugh Hefner is technically not an author, but a publisher, but I think he needs to be considered.
I think J.D. Salinger is now as famous for being a recluse as he ever was for being the author of “Catcher in the Rye.”
From the pseudo-religious/cult icon group you have Ayn Rand and Elron.
William Burroughs was in a Nike commercial in the 90’s.
James Joyce, with that eyepatch.
In a certain genre:
Terry Pratchett, always with the hats and beard.
Neil Gaiman, with the leather jacket and tousled hair.
China Miéville, with the muscles and the skinhead.
Alan Moore, with the beard and wild eyes.
I’d recognise any of those in caricature, and so would a lot of geeks.
L. Ron Hubbard would fit the bill I would think. More people know him from his religion :smack: than for his prose.