Rendered at 22:11:21 GMT+0000 (Coordinated Universal Time) with Cloudflare Workers.
vintagedave 2 days ago [-]
I know many writers, and not a single one of them makes enough money to live from their writing.
The article is a long read and I'm doing it in segments, but it's hard to read - agonizing to see the struggles.
All writers I know do it for love of writing, because they have the urge to write. There are so many gates: I have written a novel, but I'm at the agent gate right now, trying simply to get someone to represent it. Self-publishing is common, but requires a lot of self-marketing which is not something I feel capable of doing myself, in the tiktok/booktok sense. (Blogs, talks, book events, sure; marketing with a publisher, absolutely; trying to get a self-published novel noticed on booktok, not by myself.) It's not like coding where you can publish a library on github or get involved in a community and your work becomes visible. I've done that. This is another game.
After all this -- the writing, the gates, the publishing -- you won't make enough to live.
The article really seems to be that the story of writing is a lie, that our culture has a picture of authors living from their writing and it's false.
The hidden work and jobs that subsidize being able to write make writing something of a side gig when it should be the main work, and I cannot help but think of all the cultural value we have lost by not letting writers focus more on writing. Some countries have small stipends, small support. We need more.
nradov 1 days ago [-]
We have no shortage of cultural value. There is far more excellent writing out there than anyone can possibly consume (at least in English and other widespread languages). This is not something that we should subsidize with tax dollars.
For better or worse, luck probably matters more than quality in determining whether a particular writer breaks through and earns enough money to live. They can do everything right and still fail. Aspiring writers need to accept that reality with grace.
JKCalhoun 1 days ago [-]
Also my experience:
"All <game> writers I know do it for love of writing <games>, because they have the urge to write <games>."
arjie 1 days ago [-]
Is that true? Are the great authors mostly those funded by the state? It seems to me that this is either UBI by proxy (a writing stipend for all) or some kind of Bureaucrat As Patron model. Neither of those appeal to me.
In fact, the examples of the NEA (no change in the rate of prize winning US works) and the Soviet Writers Union (famous writers explicitly expelled from the stipend mechanism) indicate to me that the effects are marginal at the levels of spending we can tolerate.
I’m sympathetic to the general argument that many problems can be solved by throwing money at them but this one seems like it needs a lot more to create an effect or adding government money to it does not result in the creation of more cultural works.
renyicircle 1 days ago [-]
> get a self-published novel noticed on booktok
Can anything that's not young adult fantasy pornography actually get noticed on booktok?
vintagedave 1 days ago [-]
Haha... mine is not that.
It's scifi, 'weird' fiction, and a commentary on power in the guise of an adventure story, and I think there is room for that somewhere. But I cannot imagine going solo marketing it, especially for Booktok.
bombcar 1 days ago [-]
If it makes you feel any better/worse, a publisher is also likely to leave the marketing up to you, beyond making it available to purchasers and one or two half-hearted "marketing" actions that basically consist of sending you to a convention or two.
Books don't earn out their advance unless your first name is a ball of initials.
dmd 1 days ago [-]
What does "a ball of initials" mean?
zootboy 1 days ago [-]
J.K. Rowling, J.R.R. Tolkien, etc.
bombcar 18 hours ago [-]
G.R.R. Martin, etc. It's apparently a defining characteristic!
renyicircle 1 days ago [-]
To be honest I don't know anything about marketing or publishing books, but I couldn't imagine promoting anything on tiktok either. Thanks for the response. Best of luck with your book.
vintagedave 1 days ago [-]
Thankyou!
jdougan 2 days ago [-]
Being a full-time writer has always been a tough gig unless it is attached to an institution (but that can corrupt the writing). I'm not sure why anyone would think it wasn't tough. The author/poet/painter starving in a garret was a well known stereotype. Just like most of the arts there is a supply and demand imbalance; lots (claim to) want to write, only a few will actually write to completion, and only a few of those will have written something someone else wants to read. And that's before the traditional publishing funnel.
On the other hand, I've known writers who make it work. Larry Correia has a lot of useful thoughts about it, he used to be an accountant before he got into writing and brings those skills to his analysis.
I would like to see an analysis including "non-traditional" publishing options, and how different kinds of writing sell. I suspect genre fiction is different from "literary" from non-fiction, etc.
You're not going to be able to jump head-first into (career) successful writing; but since it's almost perfectly suited to "after hours work" you can slowly build up to it.
The harsh reality is most wannabe authors suck and their writing sucks, and if they haven't written yet they need to get started, because the only way to get good is to get going and produce - the first five books may never see the light of day but you'll have improved.
cousin_it 2 days ago [-]
Making a living through art is such a strange thing to wish for. I always imagine a prehistoric hunter telling tales around the campfire. Should the hunter think of hunting as his day job? Should he wish for a life where he'd spend all his time perfecting his tales, while other people would feed him? If he spends his life hunting in the days and telling tales in the evenings, is he a failure?
throw4847285 1 days ago [-]
When challenged by the dictum that people often confuse nature with history, the response is to abandon arguments from human nature and replace them with a fantasy caveman land.
Caveman land implies human nature without needing to make an argument for it. It is so far in the past that there is limited evidence, and most people you encounter aren't anthropologists. So you can justify all your unexamined assumptions about present society with an appeal to the caveman land.
Ironically, all you need to craft a fantasy caveman land is an imagination. "Picture hunter gatherers, sitting around a campfire, carving rocks into Pokemon cards and trading them." What a great story! Anything is possible in caveman land.
swiftcoder 1 days ago [-]
> Should the hunter think of hunting as his day job? Should he wish for a life where he'd spend all his time perfecting his tales, while other people would feed him?
Funny thing how bards/poets/musicians/storytellers are a fixture in every society that has figured out how to produce more calories than each individual personally needs to consume
cousin_it 1 days ago [-]
You didn't answer the questions though. Should the hunter dream about stopping hunting? Should he think of himself as a failure if he can't? Is this way of thinking good for his soul or his art? It's not about caloric surplus.
swiftcoder 1 days ago [-]
You suggest that the only reason he shouldn't, is that others might have to support him if he stops hunting. I'm saying that the arts (and especially oral traditions in a pre-literate society) are a net benefit to society that do in fact warrant collective investment to support
brainwad 1 days ago [-]
Do we have a dearth of writing? If anything, we seem have a massive oversupply.
RugnirViking 1 days ago [-]
the traditional answer to this is something along the lines of the idea that writing is not fungible; that is, just because we have a lot of writing, doesn't mean we have enough good writing. What good writing is varies, but clearly there is some level of quality that exists, at least at the bottom end (its not hard to find people to agree on whether a work is objectively bad writing)
unfortunately, precisely defining good writing is difficult, much like good coding. And as such, whether there is enough good writing, or "how much better good writing is to bad writing", or "what the effects of good writing are on the individual or society" are questions that we arent remotely prepared to answer. I imagine many people advocating for support for writers believe on some level both that good writing has very positive effects for the readers and society, and that there also isn't enough of it, or at least that its drowned out by perverse incentives and mountains of bad writing
swiftcoder 1 days ago [-]
Bad writing is typically a necessary prerequisite of good writing - it's pretty rare for a Dickinson or a Fitzgerald to just appear fully-formed out of thin air. The more it is viable for folks to spend their time honing their writing skills, the more likely we are to discover great writers.
This is, notably, the exact same argument we make for why tech firms should hire junior engineers. If one doesn't keep subsidising opportunities for the up-and-comers in every field, one quick runs out of experienced candidates.
owebmaster 1 days ago [-]
Funny position from someone not hunting but telling stories
righthand 1 days ago [-]
Prehistoric men probably weren't capable of self reflection in a philosophical sense? Why is it so "wrong" to tie to to caloric surplus? Your questions might be deeper but the reasoning could be simpler.
vintagedave 1 days ago [-]
As an answer, a question could be: why should a hunter need to hunt in the day and only tell tales in the evening?
Why could a society not have a role for bards as well as hunters, as their day job, as their purpose?
cousin_it 1 days ago [-]
Because I'd rather hear a tale about hunting told by a hunter, not a tale about hunting told by someone who disdains hunting as a day job and considers himself a failure if he can't get a living from actual hunters for his tales about hunting.
Or in modern times, replace "hunter" with "working class".
bombcar 1 days ago [-]
You're getting at the difference between job and work. It's a deep philosophical question.
mc32 1 days ago [-]
Specialization is a modern phenomenon. I have doubts that in ancient societies there was clear division in labor. I would suspect that lots of people were jacks-of-all-trades. One moment the bread-winner, another the reeve, another the witch doctor, another the parent, the story teller, the builder, etc. Obviously some people would have a knack for particular things and would be relied upon to carry out those chores…
The article is a long read and I'm doing it in segments, but it's hard to read - agonizing to see the struggles.
All writers I know do it for love of writing, because they have the urge to write. There are so many gates: I have written a novel, but I'm at the agent gate right now, trying simply to get someone to represent it. Self-publishing is common, but requires a lot of self-marketing which is not something I feel capable of doing myself, in the tiktok/booktok sense. (Blogs, talks, book events, sure; marketing with a publisher, absolutely; trying to get a self-published novel noticed on booktok, not by myself.) It's not like coding where you can publish a library on github or get involved in a community and your work becomes visible. I've done that. This is another game.
After all this -- the writing, the gates, the publishing -- you won't make enough to live.
The article really seems to be that the story of writing is a lie, that our culture has a picture of authors living from their writing and it's false.
The hidden work and jobs that subsidize being able to write make writing something of a side gig when it should be the main work, and I cannot help but think of all the cultural value we have lost by not letting writers focus more on writing. Some countries have small stipends, small support. We need more.
For better or worse, luck probably matters more than quality in determining whether a particular writer breaks through and earns enough money to live. They can do everything right and still fail. Aspiring writers need to accept that reality with grace.
"All <game> writers I know do it for love of writing <games>, because they have the urge to write <games>."
In fact, the examples of the NEA (no change in the rate of prize winning US works) and the Soviet Writers Union (famous writers explicitly expelled from the stipend mechanism) indicate to me that the effects are marginal at the levels of spending we can tolerate.
I’m sympathetic to the general argument that many problems can be solved by throwing money at them but this one seems like it needs a lot more to create an effect or adding government money to it does not result in the creation of more cultural works.
Can anything that's not young adult fantasy pornography actually get noticed on booktok?
It's scifi, 'weird' fiction, and a commentary on power in the guise of an adventure story, and I think there is room for that somewhere. But I cannot imagine going solo marketing it, especially for Booktok.
Books don't earn out their advance unless your first name is a ball of initials.
On the other hand, I've known writers who make it work. Larry Correia has a lot of useful thoughts about it, he used to be an accountant before he got into writing and brings those skills to his analysis.
eg. "Analyzing My Royalties" https://monsterhunternation.com/2022/02/08/analyzing-my-roya... he breaks down how the system works. Claims to be making Doctor/Lawyer level money as of 2022.
I would like to see an analysis including "non-traditional" publishing options, and how different kinds of writing sell. I suspect genre fiction is different from "literary" from non-fiction, etc.
You're not going to be able to jump head-first into (career) successful writing; but since it's almost perfectly suited to "after hours work" you can slowly build up to it.
The harsh reality is most wannabe authors suck and their writing sucks, and if they haven't written yet they need to get started, because the only way to get good is to get going and produce - the first five books may never see the light of day but you'll have improved.
Caveman land implies human nature without needing to make an argument for it. It is so far in the past that there is limited evidence, and most people you encounter aren't anthropologists. So you can justify all your unexamined assumptions about present society with an appeal to the caveman land.
Ironically, all you need to craft a fantasy caveman land is an imagination. "Picture hunter gatherers, sitting around a campfire, carving rocks into Pokemon cards and trading them." What a great story! Anything is possible in caveman land.
Funny thing how bards/poets/musicians/storytellers are a fixture in every society that has figured out how to produce more calories than each individual personally needs to consume
unfortunately, precisely defining good writing is difficult, much like good coding. And as such, whether there is enough good writing, or "how much better good writing is to bad writing", or "what the effects of good writing are on the individual or society" are questions that we arent remotely prepared to answer. I imagine many people advocating for support for writers believe on some level both that good writing has very positive effects for the readers and society, and that there also isn't enough of it, or at least that its drowned out by perverse incentives and mountains of bad writing
This is, notably, the exact same argument we make for why tech firms should hire junior engineers. If one doesn't keep subsidising opportunities for the up-and-comers in every field, one quick runs out of experienced candidates.
Why could a society not have a role for bards as well as hunters, as their day job, as their purpose?
Or in modern times, replace "hunter" with "working class".