authors and the truth about money
March 21, 2016 12:58 PM Subscribe
It is clear that authors, like other creative people looking to make a living doing what they love and are good at (bringing joy to many people in the process), are going to have to look to new ways of supporting themselves. But self-publish? No way.
Write novels that are Hollywood bait.
Was just hearing from Ed Brubaker that in comics at least if your (self owned) property makes it to TV or movies then the biggest bump in money you get from that is likely tine from increased sales - so you're going to need a functional way to make money from sales for that to work anyway.
posted by Artw at 1:11 PM on March 21, 2016 [2 favorites]
Was just hearing from Ed Brubaker that in comics at least if your (self owned) property makes it to TV or movies then the biggest bump in money you get from that is likely tine from increased sales - so you're going to need a functional way to make money from sales for that to work anyway.
posted by Artw at 1:11 PM on March 21, 2016 [2 favorites]
An interesting thing in the first link, as he does his math, is that I can remember listening to successful writers talk about their royalties 20 and 30 years ago, and giving "a dollar for a hardback sale, 50 cents for a paperback sale" as a rough rule-of-thumb. Book prices have gone up but the amount passing on to the author hasn't.
I am interested to learn that writers in the UK get a pittance when their book is checked out of the library.
posted by not that girl at 1:12 PM on March 21, 2016
I am interested to learn that writers in the UK get a pittance when their book is checked out of the library.
posted by not that girl at 1:12 PM on March 21, 2016
God, self publishing is not the answer, but a "90-MINUTE LIVE TRANSFORMATION SESSION" is? You're not against huckstering, you're just against the wrong type of huckstering.
posted by zabuni at 1:15 PM on March 21, 2016 [27 favorites]
posted by zabuni at 1:15 PM on March 21, 2016 [27 favorites]
Well, good luck with that, Ros.
posted by Naberius at 1:16 PM on March 21, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Naberius at 1:16 PM on March 21, 2016 [1 favorite]
You get a pittance either way. Authors need to find new ways of gaining audiences. The system of fiction, for instance is stuck in a rut, and going your own way frees up an author to create a new audience. I tackle this problem a lot. The system can be archaic and it needs to change, but authors have to create new venues by creating new structures.
It is not easy, and the article does not even take basic issues into account.
posted by Alexandra Kitty at 1:16 PM on March 21, 2016 [3 favorites]
It is not easy, and the article does not even take basic issues into account.
posted by Alexandra Kitty at 1:16 PM on March 21, 2016 [3 favorites]
As for self publishing, it appears to have upsides and downsides, maybe a lot more attractive as an alternate model than it was in years past, but is in no way a magic bullet. Same goes for crowd funded variants.
posted by Artw at 1:17 PM on March 21, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Artw at 1:17 PM on March 21, 2016 [1 favorite]
Ros Barber is a woman.
The thing about self-publishing is it depends ENORMOUSLY on what kind of book you're writing and whether or not you already have an audience who might be interested in that book. What exhausts me about this conversation is the ways in which people often act as if there's a single answer for everyone. Barber is a writer of literary fiction, and would probably have a tough time making a living as a self-published author. Writers who specialize in romance or erotica or SFF, and creators of more visual media like comics, might have much better luck with self-publishing than they would have at a traditional publisher.
The question is always "Are the right people excited about your book?" And sometimes those people are the publicists at a big publishing house, and sometimes those people are the folks who used to read your sexy fanfiction.
Like I hate to be all "shrug" about this but. S-SHRUG...?
posted by Narrative Priorities at 1:24 PM on March 21, 2016 [25 favorites]
The thing about self-publishing is it depends ENORMOUSLY on what kind of book you're writing and whether or not you already have an audience who might be interested in that book. What exhausts me about this conversation is the ways in which people often act as if there's a single answer for everyone. Barber is a writer of literary fiction, and would probably have a tough time making a living as a self-published author. Writers who specialize in romance or erotica or SFF, and creators of more visual media like comics, might have much better luck with self-publishing than they would have at a traditional publisher.
The question is always "Are the right people excited about your book?" And sometimes those people are the publicists at a big publishing house, and sometimes those people are the folks who used to read your sexy fanfiction.
Like I hate to be all "shrug" about this but. S-SHRUG...?
posted by Narrative Priorities at 1:24 PM on March 21, 2016 [25 favorites]
Barber is a writer of literary fiction, and would probably have a tough time making a living as a self-published author.
That's hardly universal, sales of my e-book Pounded in the Butt by Bittersweet Reflections on My Failed Marriage have been great this quarter.
posted by prize bull octorok at 1:27 PM on March 21, 2016 [57 favorites]
That's hardly universal, sales of my e-book Pounded in the Butt by Bittersweet Reflections on My Failed Marriage have been great this quarter.
posted by prize bull octorok at 1:27 PM on March 21, 2016 [57 favorites]
I hope you'll all buy the Metafilter-only edition of my upcoming book, Becoming a Science Fiction Writer: The Mid-Life Crisis That Didn't Destroy My Marriage. Yet.
posted by RakDaddy at 1:33 PM on March 21, 2016 [16 favorites]
posted by RakDaddy at 1:33 PM on March 21, 2016 [16 favorites]
Pounded in the Butt by Bittersweet Reflections on My Failed Marriage
lol?
A friend of mine just self-published his book... and yeah, he's on a social media blitz right now, and the other stuff she said is right, too. But... he's always wanted to be a novelist, and he sat down and wrote a book, and now some people are going to read it. So good for him.
posted by Huck500 at 1:35 PM on March 21, 2016 [7 favorites]
lol?
A friend of mine just self-published his book... and yeah, he's on a social media blitz right now, and the other stuff she said is right, too. But... he's always wanted to be a novelist, and he sat down and wrote a book, and now some people are going to read it. So good for him.
posted by Huck500 at 1:35 PM on March 21, 2016 [7 favorites]
I think the best advice is still write non-fiction, or, if you must, write in the romance, mystery or spec fic genres in decreasing order of desirability. As Ros Barber notes, the lit fic genre is a small market and hard to make a living at.
posted by bonehead at 1:36 PM on March 21, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by bonehead at 1:36 PM on March 21, 2016 [1 favorite]
Or just find new locations to casually mention that my new novel will be available March 30th.
posted by dances_with_sneetches at 1:39 PM on March 21, 2016 [7 favorites]
posted by dances_with_sneetches at 1:39 PM on March 21, 2016 [7 favorites]
Obviously it's time to turn the page and try some kind of novel approach.
posted by Kabanos at 1:45 PM on March 21, 2016 [6 favorites]
posted by Kabanos at 1:45 PM on March 21, 2016 [6 favorites]
I saw the Guardian article linked in another place that's frequented by self publishers and of course they were pretty scathing about it... probably justifiably so.
There's always the odd breakout book to catch the eye but it's always is / was going to be hard to make any sort of money with lit fiction. With conventional pub you can at least pretend to be a 'proper author' even if they only give you a pittance.
To make money, esp if self-publishing, you've got to write fast, write short, write exciting/hooky, write genre and write series... or just be lucky.
posted by fearfulsymmetry at 1:46 PM on March 21, 2016 [1 favorite]
There's always the odd breakout book to catch the eye but it's always is / was going to be hard to make any sort of money with lit fiction. With conventional pub you can at least pretend to be a 'proper author' even if they only give you a pittance.
To make money, esp if self-publishing, you've got to write fast, write short, write exciting/hooky, write genre and write series... or just be lucky.
posted by fearfulsymmetry at 1:46 PM on March 21, 2016 [1 favorite]
Metafilter: Pounded in the Butt by Bittersweet Reflections on My Failed Marriage
posted by palbo at 1:53 PM on March 21, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by palbo at 1:53 PM on March 21, 2016 [3 favorites]
The comment above about royalties is incorrect. Today the rule of thumb is that an author earns about $3 on a hardback book (10-15% escalating scale on ~$25 cover price) and about $1 on a paperback (7.5% on $12-18 cover price).
posted by twsf at 2:05 PM on March 21, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by twsf at 2:05 PM on March 21, 2016 [2 favorites]
Speaking as someone who has published both ways, I think that self-publishing works at two ends of the spectrum: for beginners who can't get a foot in the door, and for very well established people who have a way to reach their audience (e.g. Chris Brown with the Smart Football series).
The best way to get a publishing deal (or an agent) is a successful self-published book, or 100,000 social media followers.
Also, if you do self-publish at least get a name for your press, real ISBN numbers and find a way to get carried by Ingram (the book distributor). Nobody carries books that aren't in Ingram, not even indies such as Moe's or City Lights.
posted by msalt at 2:16 PM on March 21, 2016 [20 favorites]
The best way to get a publishing deal (or an agent) is a successful self-published book, or 100,000 social media followers.
Also, if you do self-publish at least get a name for your press, real ISBN numbers and find a way to get carried by Ingram (the book distributor). Nobody carries books that aren't in Ingram, not even indies such as Moe's or City Lights.
posted by msalt at 2:16 PM on March 21, 2016 [20 favorites]
Don't ever publish or do anything after 35 or you will be pigeonholed as doing it as some kind of midlife crisis fantasy even if you've been working steadily on the same projects most of your life.
I've known successful authors who started out either openly or sneakily self-publishing, so it's absurd to me anyone would write it off completely, but to be honest, I need to shut up and read the FPP before I say more...
posted by saulgoodman at 2:28 PM on March 21, 2016 [3 favorites]
I've known successful authors who started out either openly or sneakily self-publishing, so it's absurd to me anyone would write it off completely, but to be honest, I need to shut up and read the FPP before I say more...
posted by saulgoodman at 2:28 PM on March 21, 2016 [3 favorites]
I don't think it's impossible to work full-time and write. Say you write 500 words each Saturday and 500 each Sunday, you could have a novel in two years.
posted by rubber duck at 2:30 PM on March 21, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by rubber duck at 2:30 PM on March 21, 2016 [1 favorite]
I think the best advice is still write non-fiction,
So it is said, but non-fiction, depending on the subject matter, involves a whole new set of problems on the production side (research, footnotes, research) and, again depending on the subject matter, addresses as small a market as lit fic.
For self-publishing non-fiction, the built in audience becomes even more crucial, as libraries seem to prefer real world publishing houses. Ditto Library Journal and other organs of the librarians' trade. Still working down the (small) advance on my last one, so if anyone is looking for an uncle book....
Don't ever publish or do anything after 35
If you care what other people think you won't do much of anything. For later bloomers, off hand I'm thinking Raymond Chandler, Wallace Stevens, Alexander McCall Smith - no doubt there are many more. Better advice might be to hold off publishing anything until you are at least 35. Build some chops, get some life perspective - that sort of thing.
But then, I'm over 35
posted by BWA at 2:39 PM on March 21, 2016 [4 favorites]
So it is said, but non-fiction, depending on the subject matter, involves a whole new set of problems on the production side (research, footnotes, research) and, again depending on the subject matter, addresses as small a market as lit fic.
For self-publishing non-fiction, the built in audience becomes even more crucial, as libraries seem to prefer real world publishing houses. Ditto Library Journal and other organs of the librarians' trade. Still working down the (small) advance on my last one, so if anyone is looking for an uncle book....
Don't ever publish or do anything after 35
If you care what other people think you won't do much of anything. For later bloomers, off hand I'm thinking Raymond Chandler, Wallace Stevens, Alexander McCall Smith - no doubt there are many more. Better advice might be to hold off publishing anything until you are at least 35. Build some chops, get some life perspective - that sort of thing.
But then, I'm over 35
posted by BWA at 2:39 PM on March 21, 2016 [4 favorites]
I have a "Creative Writing" degree. It seemed to me at the time (25 years ago) that most writers support themselves by teaching university as tenured profs. The sessionals I think had and continue to have a tougher row to hoe.
I think things have actually improved over the past 25 years, mostly because of self-publishing. But you need to be a savvy marketer and self-promoter.
I always thought that getting a book published and actually making money from it was like winning the lottery, anyway.
It's not really a career. It's a calling.
But the first rule of writing is to always be paid for what you write (crowd-sourced MetaFilter content excepted). If someone will not pay you for what you write you should not be writing, or you should be self-publishing.
posted by My Dad at 2:46 PM on March 21, 2016 [3 favorites]
I think things have actually improved over the past 25 years, mostly because of self-publishing. But you need to be a savvy marketer and self-promoter.
I always thought that getting a book published and actually making money from it was like winning the lottery, anyway.
It's not really a career. It's a calling.
But the first rule of writing is to always be paid for what you write (crowd-sourced MetaFilter content excepted). If someone will not pay you for what you write you should not be writing, or you should be self-publishing.
posted by My Dad at 2:46 PM on March 21, 2016 [3 favorites]
>Don't ever publish or do anything after 35 or you will be pigeonholed as doing it as some kind of midlife crisis fantasy even if you've been working steadily on the same projects most of your life.
Anyone who, after the age of 35 gives a shit what other people think, especially about being "pigeonholed as doing it as some kind of midlife crisis fantasy" is likely headed for a midlife crisis.
posted by My Dad at 2:47 PM on March 21, 2016 [9 favorites]
Anyone who, after the age of 35 gives a shit what other people think, especially about being "pigeonholed as doing it as some kind of midlife crisis fantasy" is likely headed for a midlife crisis.
posted by My Dad at 2:47 PM on March 21, 2016 [9 favorites]
You shouldn't be writing. Fiction has now achieved the condition that destroyed poetry: The number of writers vastly exceeds the number of readers. If you feel the urge to write a novel, resist it. You are not a very good writer (this is not me talking, it's the overwhelming odds), and your bad writing is helping to drive good writing into obscurity.
posted by Modest House at 2:50 PM on March 21, 2016 [7 favorites]
posted by Modest House at 2:50 PM on March 21, 2016 [7 favorites]
I never liked the snootiness of authors who think they're too good for any kind of self-publishing. There is no reason that giving up 90% of your revenues to a publishing company should magically make your book good.
But, then again, a friend of mine just self-published a book, and it's utterly terrible. Like, unimaginably bad. Like I think he should take his name off it or people will laugh at him. So ... yeah, I can see both sides of this.
I think the "lean publishing" model where you write a couple of chapters, and see if people are willing to pay for you to finish the book is actually pretty promising. At least that way you don't waste a year of your life writing something no one reads.
posted by miyabo at 3:09 PM on March 21, 2016 [4 favorites]
But, then again, a friend of mine just self-published a book, and it's utterly terrible. Like, unimaginably bad. Like I think he should take his name off it or people will laugh at him. So ... yeah, I can see both sides of this.
I think the "lean publishing" model where you write a couple of chapters, and see if people are willing to pay for you to finish the book is actually pretty promising. At least that way you don't waste a year of your life writing something no one reads.
posted by miyabo at 3:09 PM on March 21, 2016 [4 favorites]
I think I need a couple of things, re:books, that self publishing cannot provide: an excellent editor, and the gravitas that a press imparts--when you write esp. marginalized categories, the realness matters.
posted by PinkMoose at 3:13 PM on March 21, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by PinkMoose at 3:13 PM on March 21, 2016 [2 favorites]
I self published, and had an editor. Not a good one. So my first try sucked donkey balls. But I get to say I wrote a book, and that's one more thing off the bucket list. And for those who would laugh at me- well, what have you done?
posted by LuckyMonkey21 at 3:22 PM on March 21, 2016 [10 favorites]
posted by LuckyMonkey21 at 3:22 PM on March 21, 2016 [10 favorites]
your bad writing is helping to drive good writing into obscurity.
counterpoint: no it's not
posted by Hoopo at 3:38 PM on March 21, 2016 [30 favorites]
counterpoint: no it's not
posted by Hoopo at 3:38 PM on March 21, 2016 [30 favorites]
I wrote a movie that was self-released (by the filmmaker, not me). That was cool. You will never find it anywhere and I will never tell you what it's called.
posted by teponaztli at 3:45 PM on March 21, 2016 [7 favorites]
posted by teponaztli at 3:45 PM on March 21, 2016 [7 favorites]
I don't think it's impossible to work full-time and write. Say you write 500 words each Saturday and 500 each Sunday, you could have a novel in two years.
This is effectively what I do, albeit I write comics so word count isn't so much of a valid metric. So it can work, since I'm building a fair old body of work that way, but on balance of say it's very limiting, absolutely precludes me from anything that needs heavy self promotion, and I kind of hate it.
On the other hand the money from having a real job is nice.
*shrugs*
posted by Artw at 3:45 PM on March 21, 2016 [7 favorites]
This is effectively what I do, albeit I write comics so word count isn't so much of a valid metric. So it can work, since I'm building a fair old body of work that way, but on balance of say it's very limiting, absolutely precludes me from anything that needs heavy self promotion, and I kind of hate it.
On the other hand the money from having a real job is nice.
*shrugs*
posted by Artw at 3:45 PM on March 21, 2016 [7 favorites]
You shouldn't be writing. Fiction has now achieved the condition that destroyed poetry: The number of writers vastly exceeds the number of readers. If you feel the urge to write a novel, resist it. You are not a very good writer (this is not me talking, it's the overwhelming odds), and your bad writing is helping to drive good writing into obscurity.
Life isn't fair and I'm sorry your good writing isn't getting noticed. The solution isn't to try to get everyone else to quit. Try to focus on what you can control about the situation.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 3:49 PM on March 21, 2016 [22 favorites]
Life isn't fair and I'm sorry your good writing isn't getting noticed. The solution isn't to try to get everyone else to quit. Try to focus on what you can control about the situation.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 3:49 PM on March 21, 2016 [22 favorites]
your bad writing is helping to drive good writing into obscurity.
Oh boo hoo. Someone who isn't "good" sells books and people enjoy them, but what the world really needed was less choice, fun and creativity?
Should I stop playing open mics and posting the occasional track on MefiMusic just because I'm not that good? Should I stop making models and dumb installations that make people laugh sometimes because I'll never be a professional visual artist?
Or should we get over the idea that the world owes "true artists" a living, and just deal with the fact that most people won't get to be remunerated for their work, because their aren't enough people who want to pay them for it? Those are the breaks, and it seems ridiculous to prize the notional rights of the potential "great artist" over those of actual creators who enjoy sharing their work, and consumers who enjoy that work.
posted by howfar at 3:52 PM on March 21, 2016 [13 favorites]
Oh boo hoo. Someone who isn't "good" sells books and people enjoy them, but what the world really needed was less choice, fun and creativity?
Should I stop playing open mics and posting the occasional track on MefiMusic just because I'm not that good? Should I stop making models and dumb installations that make people laugh sometimes because I'll never be a professional visual artist?
Or should we get over the idea that the world owes "true artists" a living, and just deal with the fact that most people won't get to be remunerated for their work, because their aren't enough people who want to pay them for it? Those are the breaks, and it seems ridiculous to prize the notional rights of the potential "great artist" over those of actual creators who enjoy sharing their work, and consumers who enjoy that work.
posted by howfar at 3:52 PM on March 21, 2016 [13 favorites]
Any good writer who would be dissuaded from writing by Modest House's advice is not a good writer.
posted by prize bull octorok at 3:55 PM on March 21, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by prize bull octorok at 3:55 PM on March 21, 2016 [5 favorites]
Modest House: "You shouldn't be writing. Fiction has now achieved the condition that destroyed poetry: The number of writers vastly exceeds the number of readers. If you feel the urge to write a novel, resist it. You are not a very good writer (this is not me talking, it's the overwhelming odds), and your bad writing is helping to drive good writing into obscurity."
Corollary: you are not nearly as good at satire as you think.
posted by scrump at 3:56 PM on March 21, 2016 [5 favorites]
Corollary: you are not nearly as good at satire as you think.
posted by scrump at 3:56 PM on March 21, 2016 [5 favorites]
My biggest fear of being a writer is the thought of having to hustle to get anywhere. I know writers and they were able to keep going despite uncertainty that they'd ever get something tangible from it. I don't know if I have that in me. Self-publishing (at least according to the Guardian link) just seems to make the need to hustle even worse.
It's tough, because on the one hand I'll read terrible copy somewhere and think "I could do so much better than that," but it's not all about the actual writing. It's about getting yourself into a position where you can get paid to write, and that's an entirely different thing altogether. We hear those inspiring stories, like that guy on Reddit who started writing a story about Romans or something, and ended up getting a screenplay deal out of it. It makes it sound like all it takes is just a little recognition and you'll go far, but those are the rare cases. E.L. James famously went from Twilight fanfiction to the bestseller list, but she hustled hard from the very beginning.
It made me get a different kind of respect for people who write stuff like romance novels, because they know it's not high art, but they've got an audience and they probably have a good time writing it, too. On the other hand, there was the guy who wrote the Hardy Boys novels, who hated every second of it. But it's a living, right?
posted by teponaztli at 4:00 PM on March 21, 2016 [5 favorites]
It's tough, because on the one hand I'll read terrible copy somewhere and think "I could do so much better than that," but it's not all about the actual writing. It's about getting yourself into a position where you can get paid to write, and that's an entirely different thing altogether. We hear those inspiring stories, like that guy on Reddit who started writing a story about Romans or something, and ended up getting a screenplay deal out of it. It makes it sound like all it takes is just a little recognition and you'll go far, but those are the rare cases. E.L. James famously went from Twilight fanfiction to the bestseller list, but she hustled hard from the very beginning.
It made me get a different kind of respect for people who write stuff like romance novels, because they know it's not high art, but they've got an audience and they probably have a good time writing it, too. On the other hand, there was the guy who wrote the Hardy Boys novels, who hated every second of it. But it's a living, right?
posted by teponaztli at 4:00 PM on March 21, 2016 [5 favorites]
Also, for all the blogger talks about looking for other revenue streams, her Patreon is currently bringing in $40 a month. Maybe she'll double it one day? Meanwhile, Ken & Robin Talk About Stuff is pulling in $1500 in a similar timeframe, and also helping both authors maintain the well-deserved goodwill they enjoy among their community, and just won a Golden Geek award. In short, I guess if you make things that people actually like, you'll probably get a bit of money however you go about it, and get awards too.
But I don't really like most modern literary fiction so I think my prejudices may be showing. Good luck to all makers of anything apart from weapons and stuff like that, I say.
posted by howfar at 4:04 PM on March 21, 2016 [5 favorites]
But I don't really like most modern literary fiction so I think my prejudices may be showing. Good luck to all makers of anything apart from weapons and stuff like that, I say.
posted by howfar at 4:04 PM on March 21, 2016 [5 favorites]
I've been doing the whole day-job, writing-on-the-side thing for the last ten years or so, and I'm done with it. It IS possible. But between anxiety which makes it terribly hard to start writing, and things normal people have to do like go to the laundromat and eat food, it always feels like I'm giving my writing short shrift, or my life short shrift, or usually both. You spend all your time getting angry/envious of writers whose careers are racing forward while you're trying desperately to finish that next book and just failing. (I admit being angry/envious of other writers is a hazard of being a writer in general). There is an attitude, at least in the genre writing internet community, that real writers are people who write 1500 words or 2000 words every day, and every so often I get convinced that it's a personal flaw if I only get 500, when -- if you're a slow writer with a day job, you might be working awfully hard for those words.
Anyway, I suspect this isn't a thing that any particular publishing model or industry shift will fix. I might try self-publishing one day (right now I can't, because of contractual obligations), though my stuff isn't the kind of stuff that typically does well in self-publishing.
But I'm going to go to the laundromat and then I'm going to work some more on the 3rd draft that only has about 35 pages left in it, and I feel pretty good about that.
posted by Jeanne at 4:27 PM on March 21, 2016 [10 favorites]
Anyway, I suspect this isn't a thing that any particular publishing model or industry shift will fix. I might try self-publishing one day (right now I can't, because of contractual obligations), though my stuff isn't the kind of stuff that typically does well in self-publishing.
But I'm going to go to the laundromat and then I'm going to work some more on the 3rd draft that only has about 35 pages left in it, and I feel pretty good about that.
posted by Jeanne at 4:27 PM on March 21, 2016 [10 favorites]
Self publishing is a lot of work. And I'm not looking forwards to running another Kickstarter for my third graphic novel. But I'd rather be building an audience and having fun than having my comics just molder in a drawer.
I also submit that "SF action about a queer lady" has a much more enthusiastic audience than "literary fiction". I wouldn't touch that genre with a ten foot pole as a reader or creator.
posted by egypturnash at 4:38 PM on March 21, 2016 [3 favorites]
I also submit that "SF action about a queer lady" has a much more enthusiastic audience than "literary fiction". I wouldn't touch that genre with a ten foot pole as a reader or creator.
posted by egypturnash at 4:38 PM on March 21, 2016 [3 favorites]
I would do that patronage thing. I mean not her for a dollar a month, but I'm envisioning something like this: A cooperative web site. People can sign up to sponsor artists via the web site and pledge how much they want to patronize. Say $20/month or whatever. Artists sign up to be listed. Patrons check the names of artists they want their patronage money going to or maybe even get a pie chart to divide their money up between their patronized artists.
Now the problem is the massive inequality we could see here where some people never make enough to even buy a monthly cup of coffee and some people (say the Stephen King;s of the world, who write a lot and get read a lot) rake it in. So I propose that the patronage rate max out at some point -- people can still sponsor you but now your "bill" is covered by more people. So say the maximum point is $500,000 and 7 million people want to sponsor Stephen King, then the max they can assign to him is 7 cents per year, each. That allows them to patronize an artist they like, but still frees up more of their money for less well-known artists.
Somebody set up the kickstarter and I'll sponsor.
posted by If only I had a penguin... at 4:53 PM on March 21, 2016 [4 favorites]
Now the problem is the massive inequality we could see here where some people never make enough to even buy a monthly cup of coffee and some people (say the Stephen King;s of the world, who write a lot and get read a lot) rake it in. So I propose that the patronage rate max out at some point -- people can still sponsor you but now your "bill" is covered by more people. So say the maximum point is $500,000 and 7 million people want to sponsor Stephen King, then the max they can assign to him is 7 cents per year, each. That allows them to patronize an artist they like, but still frees up more of their money for less well-known artists.
Somebody set up the kickstarter and I'll sponsor.
posted by If only I had a penguin... at 4:53 PM on March 21, 2016 [4 favorites]
In another ten years, robots and automation are going to put a lot of people out of work. Bus drivers, food prep, pilots, farming day laborers, some lawyers, train conductors, bricklayers...
Hopefully most authors will still be humans. If there's an upside to this giant wave of obsolescence, it may include that there will be a lot of people who will have a lot more time to be consumers of entertainment and the arts.
posted by newdaddy at 5:02 PM on March 21, 2016 [1 favorite]
Hopefully most authors will still be humans. If there's an upside to this giant wave of obsolescence, it may include that there will be a lot of people who will have a lot more time to be consumers of entertainment and the arts.
posted by newdaddy at 5:02 PM on March 21, 2016 [1 favorite]
There's also this -
E.L. Doctorow: “Writers are not just people who sit down and write. They hazard themselves. Every time you compose a book your composition of yourself is at stake.”
posted by newdaddy at 5:18 PM on March 21, 2016 [4 favorites]
E.L. Doctorow: “Writers are not just people who sit down and write. They hazard themselves. Every time you compose a book your composition of yourself is at stake.”
posted by newdaddy at 5:18 PM on March 21, 2016 [4 favorites]
Hmmm, I get it. I'm a composer working in the classical modernist tradition. This is the best analogue to literary fiction except about 1000 times less popular. I have devoted my life to my music. Years ago I came to realize that it was about 80/20 or 70/30 selling myself vs selling my music. I do this alone and do not ever expect a publisher to publish my sheet music nor a label to release my music.
If you self-publish your book, you are not going to be writing for a living. You are going to be marketing for a living. Self-published authors should expect to spend only 10% of their time writing and 90% of their time marketing.
So? I mean yeah, it sucks, but so? You do what you have to. Suck at marketing? Great, so do the vast majority of artists out there. Who are the ones who become famous? The ones who market themselves in some manner anyway. Yeah, there are the few who get discovered and are made into stars but that's a very small minority.
Whether you're selling your book or selling yourself (in order to sell your book), if you're an artist then that's part of the deal even if you have a publisher/agent!
I don't get why being a writer means you should expect to not have to self-market. For an industry that is suffering badly it's a strange kind of attitude to hold onto that self-publishing is beneath you.
The interesting thing is that I've heard this exact thing from two other writers whom I greatly admire and are still trying to get published. They both have agents but are unable to get a deal and refuse to self-publish. Again, I don't get what's so special about books, even literary fiction, but I guess that's just how things are.
posted by bfootdav at 5:39 PM on March 21, 2016 [7 favorites]
If you self-publish your book, you are not going to be writing for a living. You are going to be marketing for a living. Self-published authors should expect to spend only 10% of their time writing and 90% of their time marketing.
So? I mean yeah, it sucks, but so? You do what you have to. Suck at marketing? Great, so do the vast majority of artists out there. Who are the ones who become famous? The ones who market themselves in some manner anyway. Yeah, there are the few who get discovered and are made into stars but that's a very small minority.
Whether you're selling your book or selling yourself (in order to sell your book), if you're an artist then that's part of the deal even if you have a publisher/agent!
I don't get why being a writer means you should expect to not have to self-market. For an industry that is suffering badly it's a strange kind of attitude to hold onto that self-publishing is beneath you.
The interesting thing is that I've heard this exact thing from two other writers whom I greatly admire and are still trying to get published. They both have agents but are unable to get a deal and refuse to self-publish. Again, I don't get what's so special about books, even literary fiction, but I guess that's just how things are.
posted by bfootdav at 5:39 PM on March 21, 2016 [7 favorites]
What gets me is that MOST of her objections to self-publishing absolutely apply to trad pub writers as well.
I'm making a decent living through largely self-published writing (some got picked up for trad pub later...by Amazon Publishing, if you count them as trad pub). Not rich, not famous, but I'm making a living doing a thing that I truly love, and last I looked that's something people aspire to. I know others doing the same. And the thing is, yeah, you can say to us, "But you're outliers!" and that's true -- just like everyone who manages to make it through the trad pub obstacle course.
If you're good enough to get your book published (because hey, traditional publishers never put out crap, right?), then you're an outlier there, too.
(And did I commit the sin of mentioning my books in this comment? Sure. Just like every author does when they write something that relates to their books. It's a thing you do, trad or indie.)
posted by scaryblackdeath at 5:52 PM on March 21, 2016 [9 favorites]
I'm making a decent living through largely self-published writing (some got picked up for trad pub later...by Amazon Publishing, if you count them as trad pub). Not rich, not famous, but I'm making a living doing a thing that I truly love, and last I looked that's something people aspire to. I know others doing the same. And the thing is, yeah, you can say to us, "But you're outliers!" and that's true -- just like everyone who manages to make it through the trad pub obstacle course.
If you're good enough to get your book published (because hey, traditional publishers never put out crap, right?), then you're an outlier there, too.
(And did I commit the sin of mentioning my books in this comment? Sure. Just like every author does when they write something that relates to their books. It's a thing you do, trad or indie.)
posted by scaryblackdeath at 5:52 PM on March 21, 2016 [9 favorites]
The moral of this thread appears to be "You're in the arts? Sucks to be you."
posted by Thorzdad at 5:59 PM on March 21, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by Thorzdad at 5:59 PM on March 21, 2016 [2 favorites]
>The moral of this thread appears to be "You're in the arts? Sucks to be you."
Actually I think the moral of this thread is, "If you think that it 'sucks to be you' if you're in the arts in 2016, then it sucks to be you."
Thanks to Patreon and Kickstarter there are all sorts of cool art and culture projects out there, many of them supporting the writer or the artist.
The lesson, as always, is "be entrepreneurial." Artists have always been entrepreneurial.
posted by My Dad at 6:05 PM on March 21, 2016 [7 favorites]
Actually I think the moral of this thread is, "If you think that it 'sucks to be you' if you're in the arts in 2016, then it sucks to be you."
Thanks to Patreon and Kickstarter there are all sorts of cool art and culture projects out there, many of them supporting the writer or the artist.
The lesson, as always, is "be entrepreneurial." Artists have always been entrepreneurial.
posted by My Dad at 6:05 PM on March 21, 2016 [7 favorites]
self publishing cannot provide: an excellent editor, and the gravitas that a press imparts--when you write esp. marginalized categories, the realness matters.
The other thing is effective promotion. I get that all of these things are not guaranteed at a traditional publisher either, but they are possible. I got a very good editor who helped me reshape my second book into something completely different, and better, for example.
And for promotion, I know two excellent writers who have recently gotten tremendous publicity and marketing support for their new books. One (Margaret Malone) went with a small indie publisher, Ateleier 26. The other (Steve Silberman) had a blockbuster nonfiction release on Avery/Penguin Random House that made his career.
These are rare cases, but they clearly still happen, and that's why some of us still pursue traditional deals.
posted by msalt at 6:08 PM on March 21, 2016 [3 favorites]
The other thing is effective promotion. I get that all of these things are not guaranteed at a traditional publisher either, but they are possible. I got a very good editor who helped me reshape my second book into something completely different, and better, for example.
And for promotion, I know two excellent writers who have recently gotten tremendous publicity and marketing support for their new books. One (Margaret Malone) went with a small indie publisher, Ateleier 26. The other (Steve Silberman) had a blockbuster nonfiction release on Avery/Penguin Random House that made his career.
These are rare cases, but they clearly still happen, and that's why some of us still pursue traditional deals.
posted by msalt at 6:08 PM on March 21, 2016 [3 favorites]
These are rare cases, but they clearly still happen, and that's why some of us still pursue traditional deals.
I really think it's a matter of asking yourself what you want out of writing. Both paths have completely valid, significant benefits and significant drawbacks. Like a lot of arts, writing is one of those things you either need to do on a deep, compulsive level regardless of financial reward, or you don't. And either way, don't fool yourself into thinking you'll be rich and famous. Again, if you're lucky enough to make a living doing that thing you love, you've already won. The rest is a matter of degrees.
I'm not one to say one approach is inherently better than the other. Traditional publishing isn't dead or irrelevant, and indie publishing isn't a fad. I only roll my eyes (so hard they hurt) whenever anyone tells me that one approach or the other is living on borrowed time, 'cause that just ain't true.
posted by scaryblackdeath at 6:13 PM on March 21, 2016 [5 favorites]
I really think it's a matter of asking yourself what you want out of writing. Both paths have completely valid, significant benefits and significant drawbacks. Like a lot of arts, writing is one of those things you either need to do on a deep, compulsive level regardless of financial reward, or you don't. And either way, don't fool yourself into thinking you'll be rich and famous. Again, if you're lucky enough to make a living doing that thing you love, you've already won. The rest is a matter of degrees.
I'm not one to say one approach is inherently better than the other. Traditional publishing isn't dead or irrelevant, and indie publishing isn't a fad. I only roll my eyes (so hard they hurt) whenever anyone tells me that one approach or the other is living on borrowed time, 'cause that just ain't true.
posted by scaryblackdeath at 6:13 PM on March 21, 2016 [5 favorites]
I'd still say it's akin to winning the lottery (although there is somewhat more still involved than purchasing lottery tickets).
Silberman I believe worked on his book for about nine years. He also did a fair bit of "marketing", which is to say that he participated in his community, and became well-known as a commenter on issues relating to autism-spectrum. That's marketing.
While things might be tougher for "star" writers (who often deserve the success they achieved; as an aspiring writer I cannot help but be impressed by and proud of the success of *any* writer), writing has become more democratized now.
posted by My Dad at 6:16 PM on March 21, 2016 [4 favorites]
Silberman I believe worked on his book for about nine years. He also did a fair bit of "marketing", which is to say that he participated in his community, and became well-known as a commenter on issues relating to autism-spectrum. That's marketing.
While things might be tougher for "star" writers (who often deserve the success they achieved; as an aspiring writer I cannot help but be impressed by and proud of the success of *any* writer), writing has become more democratized now.
posted by My Dad at 6:16 PM on March 21, 2016 [4 favorites]
I do think there are significant differences between the economics of publishing genre fiction and literary fiction that make self-publishing a more complicated proposition. Literary fiction depends on NPR, on indie bookstores, on literary journals, on the tiny number of newspapers that still do book reviews, on publishing trade journals like Kirkus and Publishers Weekly; genre fiction, you can sell to at least some people based on an appealing premise or an appealing subgenre, but with a lot of literary fiction you find yourself going "Okay, I know it sounds like it wouldn't be good, but actually, it is!" -- so mainstream press reviews are more important, and you don't get those if you're self-published.
And most of the people I know who've been successful self-publishing have been successful because they have a dozen books, all written fairly quickly, and each of those dozen books acts as an advertisement for the others. Most literary fiction writers just don't write that fast.
(I also suspect there may be a lot of literary fiction readers who strongly prefer print books over ebooks, but I don't have data on this.)
I'm sure there'll be a huge self-publishing literary fiction success story one of these days -- but for now, I can definitely understand anyone who calculates that they've got a better shot with the major publishers, trying to be the next Chad Harbach or Hanya Yanagihara, than trying to follow in the footsteps of Andy Weir or Amanda Hocking.
posted by Jeanne at 6:39 PM on March 21, 2016 [5 favorites]
And most of the people I know who've been successful self-publishing have been successful because they have a dozen books, all written fairly quickly, and each of those dozen books acts as an advertisement for the others. Most literary fiction writers just don't write that fast.
(I also suspect there may be a lot of literary fiction readers who strongly prefer print books over ebooks, but I don't have data on this.)
I'm sure there'll be a huge self-publishing literary fiction success story one of these days -- but for now, I can definitely understand anyone who calculates that they've got a better shot with the major publishers, trying to be the next Chad Harbach or Hanya Yanagihara, than trying to follow in the footsteps of Andy Weir or Amanda Hocking.
posted by Jeanne at 6:39 PM on March 21, 2016 [5 favorites]
I follow writer Neal Pollack on Facebook and he's also discussing these very issues (in his own unique and highly entertaining way).
posted by My Dad at 6:45 PM on March 21, 2016
posted by My Dad at 6:45 PM on March 21, 2016
The moral of this thread appears to be "You're in the arts? Sucks to be you."
It is pretty much every time.
posted by Artw at 6:45 PM on March 21, 2016
It is pretty much every time.
posted by Artw at 6:45 PM on March 21, 2016
Meanwhile, Ken & Robin Talk About Stuff is pulling in $1500 in a similar timeframe, and also helping both authors maintain the well-deserved goodwill they enjoy among their community, and just won a Golden Geek award.
Also you can discuss it on FanFare. (Seriously their numbers are remarkable.)
posted by graymouser at 7:00 PM on March 21, 2016
Also you can discuss it on FanFare. (Seriously their numbers are remarkable.)
posted by graymouser at 7:00 PM on March 21, 2016
I'd still say it's akin to winning the lottery (although there is somewhat more still involved than purchasing lottery tickets).
Like a lot of success, I think it's a combination of talent, years of hard work, good luck and timing.
Silberman I believe worked on his book for about nine years. He also did a fair bit of "marketing", which is to say that he participated in his community, and became well-known as a commenter on issues relating to autism-spectrum. That's marketing.
Yep, and obviously his timing was good with his topic, which he "owned" by the time his book came out. But as you note he worked his ass off during all that time building relationships, which helped him not only get the stories for the book but market it afterwards. And I mean marketing in the best sense - where people have met you personally and know that you know your stuff backwards and forwards.
That kind of nonfiction is also build on magazine articles on the subject, and he learned his chops as a staff writer for Wired for years.
Margaret Malone also worked on her short story collection for many years, work-shopping it, getting fellowships and residencies, getting stories published in prestigious journals, etc.
posted by msalt at 7:07 PM on March 21, 2016 [2 favorites]
Like a lot of success, I think it's a combination of talent, years of hard work, good luck and timing.
Silberman I believe worked on his book for about nine years. He also did a fair bit of "marketing", which is to say that he participated in his community, and became well-known as a commenter on issues relating to autism-spectrum. That's marketing.
Yep, and obviously his timing was good with his topic, which he "owned" by the time his book came out. But as you note he worked his ass off during all that time building relationships, which helped him not only get the stories for the book but market it afterwards. And I mean marketing in the best sense - where people have met you personally and know that you know your stuff backwards and forwards.
That kind of nonfiction is also build on magazine articles on the subject, and he learned his chops as a staff writer for Wired for years.
Margaret Malone also worked on her short story collection for many years, work-shopping it, getting fellowships and residencies, getting stories published in prestigious journals, etc.
posted by msalt at 7:07 PM on March 21, 2016 [2 favorites]
I complain about my self-publishing income, to myself, all the time. Reading these articles... well, ouch, I'm doing way better than she is.
I mention it only because her reasons against self-publishing, though probably valid for literary fiction, could be bad advice for other writers out there.
posted by zompist at 8:12 PM on March 21, 2016 [3 favorites]
I mention it only because her reasons against self-publishing, though probably valid for literary fiction, could be bad advice for other writers out there.
posted by zompist at 8:12 PM on March 21, 2016 [3 favorites]
Fiction has now achieved the condition that destroyed poetry: The number of writers vastly exceeds the number of readers.
But you are mistaken in your implied assumption that the driving force in that ratio was a vast increase in the number of poetry writers. People stopped reading poetry (although they certainly haven't stopped listening to it). There has been no comparable decline in the number of people who read books.
posted by straight at 9:02 PM on March 21, 2016 [2 favorites]
But you are mistaken in your implied assumption that the driving force in that ratio was a vast increase in the number of poetry writers. People stopped reading poetry (although they certainly haven't stopped listening to it). There has been no comparable decline in the number of people who read books.
posted by straight at 9:02 PM on March 21, 2016 [2 favorites]
Thanks, howfar - you just inspired me. Which I've been in need of.
posted by Fibognocchi at 9:37 PM on March 21, 2016
posted by Fibognocchi at 9:37 PM on March 21, 2016
Interestingly, Canadaland, a podcast about media in Canada hosted by Jesse Brown, talks about the general malaise of the arts in Canada.
What I found interesting (and infuriating) about this particular podcast was that Jesse Brown's guest, David Silcox, himself a longtime part of the Canadian arts establishment, argues that there is a hierarchy or "pyramid" of talent, and that "not everyone can reach the top."
He also seems to argue that there are "natural elites" in the world, such as doctors and engineers, or, in this sphere, successful artists.
The malaise in the Canadian arts scene that Jesse Brown, as a Gen Xer, expresses in this podcast has to do with the fact that cultural programs started 50 years ago by Pierre Trudeau's government, that were intended to foster a vibrant and dynamic Canadian arts scene, have ossified into a bureaucratic establishment, where some artists get the grant money, and other do not, and there is no accountability about how that money gets spent.
And then you have Silcox, with his bland, neutral, monochromatic comments, praising the status quo, stating that "there are natural elites."
The brilliant Canadian writer Timothy Findley, who himself existed at the very core of the Canadian arts scene, used to write about the creeping Fascism of the Canadian establishment, and now I know what he was getting at.
So there's all the more reason for artists of any kind, especially in Canada, to strike off on their own, and leave the hierarchy behind.
posted by My Dad at 9:56 PM on March 21, 2016 [2 favorites]
What I found interesting (and infuriating) about this particular podcast was that Jesse Brown's guest, David Silcox, himself a longtime part of the Canadian arts establishment, argues that there is a hierarchy or "pyramid" of talent, and that "not everyone can reach the top."
He also seems to argue that there are "natural elites" in the world, such as doctors and engineers, or, in this sphere, successful artists.
The malaise in the Canadian arts scene that Jesse Brown, as a Gen Xer, expresses in this podcast has to do with the fact that cultural programs started 50 years ago by Pierre Trudeau's government, that were intended to foster a vibrant and dynamic Canadian arts scene, have ossified into a bureaucratic establishment, where some artists get the grant money, and other do not, and there is no accountability about how that money gets spent.
And then you have Silcox, with his bland, neutral, monochromatic comments, praising the status quo, stating that "there are natural elites."
The brilliant Canadian writer Timothy Findley, who himself existed at the very core of the Canadian arts scene, used to write about the creeping Fascism of the Canadian establishment, and now I know what he was getting at.
So there's all the more reason for artists of any kind, especially in Canada, to strike off on their own, and leave the hierarchy behind.
posted by My Dad at 9:56 PM on March 21, 2016 [2 favorites]
I make a living from writing and podcasting and I alternate between self-publishing and freelance work for hire. I work in the tabletop RPG industry, which is very niche, but I seem some general trends for surviving as a creative:
1. Marketing and self-promotion are essential to any creative. Traditionally this meant moving to one of a few specific cities and networking with specific companies, plus sending out countless query letters and submissions. Now it means social media. Regardless, you have to spend a lot of time outside of writing in order to get anyone to look at your work.
2. People shouldn't think of themselves as makers of just one type of creative endeavor. Being a novelist is fine, but why not try some other things? The creators of Welcome to Night Vale made a successful podcast then wrote a novel based on it. There are a lot of new art forms being created right now and older forms are being invigorated. Try multiple types of projects and collaborate with others.
3. There's nothing inherently superior about traditional publishing versus self-publishing and vice versa. You can get screwed in traditional publishing. Aside from being possibly cheated out of money, you can have the novel subtly rewritten or edited. The publisher can lock you into a contract and then ignore you. They can mismarket you. Any number of bad things can happen to you and are out of your control.
In self-publishing, you have to do everything. You need to pay for cover art, layout, editing, and marketing or do all of it yourself. A lot of people are biased against you because they still associate it with vanity publishing and amateur quality. A lot of things can go wrong, but you have more control over it than you do with traditional publishing.
Making art is difficult but it is possible to do it either way. Try a mix! If you do well in self-publishing, you might be able to leverage a good deal with a publisher.
posted by clockworkjoe at 12:16 AM on March 22, 2016 [8 favorites]
1. Marketing and self-promotion are essential to any creative. Traditionally this meant moving to one of a few specific cities and networking with specific companies, plus sending out countless query letters and submissions. Now it means social media. Regardless, you have to spend a lot of time outside of writing in order to get anyone to look at your work.
2. People shouldn't think of themselves as makers of just one type of creative endeavor. Being a novelist is fine, but why not try some other things? The creators of Welcome to Night Vale made a successful podcast then wrote a novel based on it. There are a lot of new art forms being created right now and older forms are being invigorated. Try multiple types of projects and collaborate with others.
3. There's nothing inherently superior about traditional publishing versus self-publishing and vice versa. You can get screwed in traditional publishing. Aside from being possibly cheated out of money, you can have the novel subtly rewritten or edited. The publisher can lock you into a contract and then ignore you. They can mismarket you. Any number of bad things can happen to you and are out of your control.
In self-publishing, you have to do everything. You need to pay for cover art, layout, editing, and marketing or do all of it yourself. A lot of people are biased against you because they still associate it with vanity publishing and amateur quality. A lot of things can go wrong, but you have more control over it than you do with traditional publishing.
Making art is difficult but it is possible to do it either way. Try a mix! If you do well in self-publishing, you might be able to leverage a good deal with a publisher.
posted by clockworkjoe at 12:16 AM on March 22, 2016 [8 favorites]
The lesson, as always, is "be entrepreneurial."
It's tragic if great books fail to find their audience through a lack of entrepreneurialism, as has often happened. But equally if we say that only entrepreneurs can publish, we're not only going to miss some of the best authors, we're going to encourage terrible cookie-cutter books, a wave of awful amateur "marketing", and acute depression among all those people who spent hours on selling, damaged some of their friendships, wasted time on shitty blogs and social media, subjected themselves to probable public humiliation, and inevitably found that in spite of all that, nothing on earth would shift their book.
I don't know what the answer is. There's a tendency to treat everything now as business; your whole life must be in the service of making contacts, gaining exposure, monetising your content. One cannot fart in private without regretting the missed opportunity to make a viral video of it. I understand the aspiration to be realistic about what sells. The problem is that treating the whole of life as business misses the real point of everything. It positions writing as simply arid labour whose only intelligible motive is profit, not as a challenging intellectual project that is in any way rewarding in itself. It threatens to swamp the market with terrible books written only to appeal to a demographic, ones that might eventually kill the whole publishing business, because those books aren't ultimately why people read.
posted by Segundus at 12:31 AM on March 22, 2016 [6 favorites]
It's tragic if great books fail to find their audience through a lack of entrepreneurialism, as has often happened. But equally if we say that only entrepreneurs can publish, we're not only going to miss some of the best authors, we're going to encourage terrible cookie-cutter books, a wave of awful amateur "marketing", and acute depression among all those people who spent hours on selling, damaged some of their friendships, wasted time on shitty blogs and social media, subjected themselves to probable public humiliation, and inevitably found that in spite of all that, nothing on earth would shift their book.
I don't know what the answer is. There's a tendency to treat everything now as business; your whole life must be in the service of making contacts, gaining exposure, monetising your content. One cannot fart in private without regretting the missed opportunity to make a viral video of it. I understand the aspiration to be realistic about what sells. The problem is that treating the whole of life as business misses the real point of everything. It positions writing as simply arid labour whose only intelligible motive is profit, not as a challenging intellectual project that is in any way rewarding in itself. It threatens to swamp the market with terrible books written only to appeal to a demographic, ones that might eventually kill the whole publishing business, because those books aren't ultimately why people read.
posted by Segundus at 12:31 AM on March 22, 2016 [6 favorites]
Hey, people want to pay for their fiction, just not more than they pay for their music.
posted by spitbull at 2:51 AM on March 22, 2016
posted by spitbull at 2:51 AM on March 22, 2016
On a related note, Les Misérables: gloomy French writers face crisis as incomes plummet (‘French writers have never felt more badly paid, undervalued or under pressure, according to a new survey that shows more than half of established authors earn less than the minimum wage’).
posted by misteraitch at 4:37 AM on March 22, 2016
posted by misteraitch at 4:37 AM on March 22, 2016
not that this will make you rich, but i recently had a great experience with an indie press. Yeah, I got a lot of pushing to do x y and z like getting reviewers on amazon, but with 20 authors in the anthology, it was really sort of a cool group project.
yeah, i'll always be poor though. god, I hate selling myself.
posted by angrycat at 5:35 AM on March 22, 2016 [2 favorites]
yeah, i'll always be poor though. god, I hate selling myself.
posted by angrycat at 5:35 AM on March 22, 2016 [2 favorites]
Hey, people want to pay for their fiction, just not more than they pay for their music.
Actually, I do enjoy paying for fiction and for music, but it's hard for me to discern the best way to do so.
For music, I listen to playlists on Spotify and when I find an artist I really like, I'll go to their webpage (or to Music Notes) and buy the sheet music. I feel pretty good about that; most of my money is going to the artist (with just a little overhead for PayPal).
For books, I haven't yet figured out what to do. I'm shocked at the $0.75/book royalties that these writers earn; that's ridiculously low. I'd totally be willing to pay a dollar or two for a good on-line genre book (noir mystery or space opera, for example) but my ventures into patreon leave me lost in graphic novels and drum solos (both worthy of support but neither really float my boat). What's the best on-line guide to on-line genre fiction, with some promise of halfway-decent quality?
posted by math at 6:03 AM on March 22, 2016
Actually, I do enjoy paying for fiction and for music, but it's hard for me to discern the best way to do so.
For music, I listen to playlists on Spotify and when I find an artist I really like, I'll go to their webpage (or to Music Notes) and buy the sheet music. I feel pretty good about that; most of my money is going to the artist (with just a little overhead for PayPal).
For books, I haven't yet figured out what to do. I'm shocked at the $0.75/book royalties that these writers earn; that's ridiculously low. I'd totally be willing to pay a dollar or two for a good on-line genre book (noir mystery or space opera, for example) but my ventures into patreon leave me lost in graphic novels and drum solos (both worthy of support but neither really float my boat). What's the best on-line guide to on-line genre fiction, with some promise of halfway-decent quality?
posted by math at 6:03 AM on March 22, 2016
For some reason, the publishing & writing world seems to be experiencing (over the last few years, say) a kind of disembiggening similar to that which occurred in the music world 8-10 years ago. I fairly regularly attend AES (a moderately high-end meetup of the nerdier, tech side of the pop music biz, more or less), and 8 years ago you could see what I later came to understand were traces of a kind of post-traumatic stress written on many of the faces, that sort of slightly shock-y dazedness. Livelihoods, whole industries, had been devastated, or simply wiped out, and well, tech changes, sink or swim, yadda yadda. Ingenuity seems to be in high demand, which isn't entirely a bad thing....
Just to say, there are all kinds of practical, monetary ramifications, but a nice heaping helping of psychological ones, too. A lot of the same basic arguments then as well. These days, the faces seem to have relaxed somewhat, which is a bit cheering in spite of all the other grim news. There's some sense that more of the people who remain are something like the true believers, the "genuinely" devoted, or something like that...but then that could just be yet another psychological defense as we process the shockwaves....
posted by Empty Planet at 6:45 AM on March 22, 2016
Just to say, there are all kinds of practical, monetary ramifications, but a nice heaping helping of psychological ones, too. A lot of the same basic arguments then as well. These days, the faces seem to have relaxed somewhat, which is a bit cheering in spite of all the other grim news. There's some sense that more of the people who remain are something like the true believers, the "genuinely" devoted, or something like that...but then that could just be yet another psychological defense as we process the shockwaves....
posted by Empty Planet at 6:45 AM on March 22, 2016
writing has become more democratized now.
Publishing has become more democratized. Writing, like all arts, is still as cruelly stratified according to talent as ever before.
posted by IndigoJones at 6:48 AM on March 22, 2016 [6 favorites]
Publishing has become more democratized. Writing, like all arts, is still as cruelly stratified according to talent as ever before.
posted by IndigoJones at 6:48 AM on March 22, 2016 [6 favorites]
But equally if we say that only entrepreneurs can publish, we're not only going to miss some of the best authors, we're going to encourage terrible cookie-cutter books, a wave of awful amateur "marketing",
Yes, I agree with you. The stereotypical barefoot kid selling cigarettes or flowers or whatever in some megacity in the Global South is "entrepreneurial," but shouldn't have to be. Artists have to avoid the low-rent economy.
Marketing and being entrepreneurial is essential for any artist. But at the end of the day, there has to be an audience for the art, and if there isn't the artist has to look long and hard in the mirror and *decide for themselves* (you know, take some personal responsibility) and determine if they are making the best use of their time on planet Earth.
But that's a question every adult human being must ask themselves.
But we can't blame crappy blogs and crappy Twitter accounts on some failing of the publishing industry.
posted by My Dad at 11:22 AM on March 22, 2016
Yes, I agree with you. The stereotypical barefoot kid selling cigarettes or flowers or whatever in some megacity in the Global South is "entrepreneurial," but shouldn't have to be. Artists have to avoid the low-rent economy.
Marketing and being entrepreneurial is essential for any artist. But at the end of the day, there has to be an audience for the art, and if there isn't the artist has to look long and hard in the mirror and *decide for themselves* (you know, take some personal responsibility) and determine if they are making the best use of their time on planet Earth.
But that's a question every adult human being must ask themselves.
But we can't blame crappy blogs and crappy Twitter accounts on some failing of the publishing industry.
posted by My Dad at 11:22 AM on March 22, 2016
>Writing, like all arts, is still as cruelly stratified according to talent as ever before.
Actually, no, that's not true. The problem with writing is that anyone thinks they can do it. There is no barrier to entry.
This is why I think the "Fuck you, pay me!" mantra / chant / rant is absolutely ridiculous. If no one is going to pay you for your writing, and if you need to get paid to write, then don't write.
Or figure out what kind of writing people *will* pay for. In terms of losing out on "great works of literature" etc etc etc consider the fact that Jane Austen wrote her novels on a little side table in the family living room.
If you don't think writers should be entrepreneurial, consider who sponsored most of Shakespeare's writing.
posted by My Dad at 11:26 AM on March 22, 2016 [3 favorites]
Actually, no, that's not true. The problem with writing is that anyone thinks they can do it. There is no barrier to entry.
This is why I think the "Fuck you, pay me!" mantra / chant / rant is absolutely ridiculous. If no one is going to pay you for your writing, and if you need to get paid to write, then don't write.
Or figure out what kind of writing people *will* pay for. In terms of losing out on "great works of literature" etc etc etc consider the fact that Jane Austen wrote her novels on a little side table in the family living room.
If you don't think writers should be entrepreneurial, consider who sponsored most of Shakespeare's writing.
posted by My Dad at 11:26 AM on March 22, 2016 [3 favorites]
"Writer" is not a respectable profession. Don't try and make it one.
posted by Bob Regular at 11:27 AM on March 22, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by Bob Regular at 11:27 AM on March 22, 2016 [2 favorites]
This is why I think the "Fuck you, pay me!" mantra / chant / rant is absolutely ridiculous. If no one is going to pay you for your writing, and if you need to get paid to write, then don't write.
The purpose of the mantra is to discourage artists from undervaluing their work. If you place little to no value on the work you do, you will be paid accordingly, even if you could get paid more. Not everyone is good at placing a value on their work, but a certain amount of education and experience will help in determining a fair price.
posted by krinklyfig at 2:30 PM on March 22, 2016 [3 favorites]
The purpose of the mantra is to discourage artists from undervaluing their work. If you place little to no value on the work you do, you will be paid accordingly, even if you could get paid more. Not everyone is good at placing a value on their work, but a certain amount of education and experience will help in determining a fair price.
posted by krinklyfig at 2:30 PM on March 22, 2016 [3 favorites]
I think the best advice is still write non-fiction, or, if you must, write in the romance, mystery or spec fic genres in decreasing order of desirability
It's totally fine to write fiction and call it non-fiction, so long as you don't go on Oprah and admit until after you've cleared your advance. There is a fine line between "literary memoir" and "semi-autobiographical novel." Likewise "novelistic historical non-fiction" and "well-researched historical fiction." Right now, publishers pay much better for the former and the lines have grown even narrower. Hence what should be an utter lack of surprise when so much non-fiction ends up being at least partway bullshit.*
*Not that there's anything wrong with bullshit. Bullshit pays my bills. Bullshit is quite often what makes life worth living. And really high-quality bullshit? Why that's a rare gift indeed.
posted by thivaia at 2:58 PM on March 22, 2016
It's totally fine to write fiction and call it non-fiction, so long as you don't go on Oprah and admit until after you've cleared your advance. There is a fine line between "literary memoir" and "semi-autobiographical novel." Likewise "novelistic historical non-fiction" and "well-researched historical fiction." Right now, publishers pay much better for the former and the lines have grown even narrower. Hence what should be an utter lack of surprise when so much non-fiction ends up being at least partway bullshit.*
*Not that there's anything wrong with bullshit. Bullshit pays my bills. Bullshit is quite often what makes life worth living. And really high-quality bullshit? Why that's a rare gift indeed.
posted by thivaia at 2:58 PM on March 22, 2016
If no one is going to pay you for your writing, and if you need to get paid to write, then don't write.
I would turn this around as a brutally objective form of self-criticism. If no one wants to pay you for your writing, why do you think anyone wants to read it? And if no one wants to read it, what's the point?
You have two choices as a writer if you aren't getting paid:
1) write something that people enjoy more
2) figure out how to reach the people who would enjoy your words, but aren't aware of them.
posted by msalt at 3:01 PM on March 22, 2016 [3 favorites]
I would turn this around as a brutally objective form of self-criticism. If no one wants to pay you for your writing, why do you think anyone wants to read it? And if no one wants to read it, what's the point?
You have two choices as a writer if you aren't getting paid:
1) write something that people enjoy more
2) figure out how to reach the people who would enjoy your words, but aren't aware of them.
posted by msalt at 3:01 PM on March 22, 2016 [3 favorites]
You have two choices as a writer if you aren't getting paid:
1) write something that people enjoy more
2) figure out how to reach the people who would enjoy your words, but aren't aware of them.
Or just write for fun!
The thing I've always found odd about the dialogue surrounding art, and writing in particular, is that we are simultaneously told that "real" writers are driven to write by some deep and powerful force (which is nonsense, I've read loads of fun, interesting and moving stories by utter dilettantes) and that the only real artists are professionals who can do it so they pay their bills (again, nonsense, sometimes great art comes from people no-one really wants to publish - Kafka, for example).
It's like a very particular and peculiar form of the prosperity doctrine. Art must be both for its own sake and evidenced by worldly goods as well. It's oddly joyless when art is all about the excess, frivolity and profundity of the human spirit.
posted by howfar at 4:04 PM on March 22, 2016 [4 favorites]
1) write something that people enjoy more
2) figure out how to reach the people who would enjoy your words, but aren't aware of them.
Or just write for fun!
The thing I've always found odd about the dialogue surrounding art, and writing in particular, is that we are simultaneously told that "real" writers are driven to write by some deep and powerful force (which is nonsense, I've read loads of fun, interesting and moving stories by utter dilettantes) and that the only real artists are professionals who can do it so they pay their bills (again, nonsense, sometimes great art comes from people no-one really wants to publish - Kafka, for example).
It's like a very particular and peculiar form of the prosperity doctrine. Art must be both for its own sake and evidenced by worldly goods as well. It's oddly joyless when art is all about the excess, frivolity and profundity of the human spirit.
posted by howfar at 4:04 PM on March 22, 2016 [4 favorites]
You can write purely for fun, but if no one reads it, what's the point?
If you can find a way to share your words and get a good audience, but it doesn't pay, that's fine (as a step). But if that consistently happens, it's a good sign you should consider self-publishing or seeking an agent, as you prefer. Your audience is all the proof gatekeepers need to take you on.
Call me crazy, but if no one reads my stuff, I don't find that "fun."
posted by msalt at 4:08 PM on March 22, 2016
If you can find a way to share your words and get a good audience, but it doesn't pay, that's fine (as a step). But if that consistently happens, it's a good sign you should consider self-publishing or seeking an agent, as you prefer. Your audience is all the proof gatekeepers need to take you on.
Call me crazy, but if no one reads my stuff, I don't find that "fun."
posted by msalt at 4:08 PM on March 22, 2016
The reality is that more people want to share than can get paid for it. Huge numbers of them do that to considerable audiences without hope of any real recompense. Fanfic communities are absolutely enormous bodies of writers and readers doing it purely for fun. By all means look to get paid, but don't disparage the value of just making stuff on account of that being a nice and worthwhile thing to do.
posted by howfar at 4:16 PM on March 22, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by howfar at 4:16 PM on March 22, 2016 [2 favorites]
I think I'd have a lot more fun writing if it never occurred to me that there's a way to get paid to do it. That's not to say people shouldn't, and nothing makes me angrier than "people should only make art for the sake of art, not for money." Still, maybe there's something really freeing about deciding early on that you're not going to go anywhere with your work.
OK, now that I've typed that out it feels a little depressing.
posted by teponaztli at 4:45 PM on March 22, 2016
OK, now that I've typed that out it feels a little depressing.
posted by teponaztli at 4:45 PM on March 22, 2016
Honestly, it just seems too hard to me to try to get people to pay me to write. I don't have entrepreneurial brain and financial sense for shit, getting hired to write anything at all is hard, I give up and just do it to amuse myself. Everything I do is easily expendable, so yeah, I don't put a high value on my output. Or any. It's harder work to try to get paid and I'm already tired after my day job.
posted by jenfullmoon at 6:27 PM on March 22, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by jenfullmoon at 6:27 PM on March 22, 2016 [1 favorite]
Thats hardly universal, sales of my e-book Pounded in the Butt by Bittersweet Reflections on My Failed Marriage have been great this quarter. -- prize bull octorokSomeone is pretty clearly getting into Chuck Tingle
posted by ChrisR at 9:07 PM on March 22, 2016
By all means look to get paid, but don't disparage the value of just making stuff on account of that being a nice and worthwhile thing to do.
I agree (for whatever my humble opinion is worth, ha ha), and I hope the comments I made earlier in the thread don't give the impression that the only worthwhile writing is writing that someone pays you to do.
I was making my comments with the title of this FPP in mind, "authors and the truth about money."
posted by My Dad at 11:08 AM on March 23, 2016
I agree (for whatever my humble opinion is worth, ha ha), and I hope the comments I made earlier in the thread don't give the impression that the only worthwhile writing is writing that someone pays you to do.
I was making my comments with the title of this FPP in mind, "authors and the truth about money."
posted by My Dad at 11:08 AM on March 23, 2016
scaryblackdeath: "Not rich, not famous, but I'm making a living doing a thing that I truly love, and last I looked that's something people aspire to."
HOLY SHIT YOU'RE ELLIOT KAY. I love your stuff! And I pay for it! And I don't even know you personally!
Good thing neither you nor I are aware that publishing is a doomed endeavor and that writing is pointless because Reasons. I must not be a real reader, or you must not be a real author. We're just anecdotes, I think. Although we may both be metaphors.
I have no idea what my point is here, but it seems worthwhile to point out that within this actual thread, we have evidence that 1. people write things and 2. other people who don't know them pay actual real money to buy those things.
posted by scrump at 2:48 PM on March 23, 2016 [1 favorite]
HOLY SHIT YOU'RE ELLIOT KAY. I love your stuff! And I pay for it! And I don't even know you personally!
Good thing neither you nor I are aware that publishing is a doomed endeavor and that writing is pointless because Reasons. I must not be a real reader, or you must not be a real author. We're just anecdotes, I think. Although we may both be metaphors.
I have no idea what my point is here, but it seems worthwhile to point out that within this actual thread, we have evidence that 1. people write things and 2. other people who don't know them pay actual real money to buy those things.
posted by scrump at 2:48 PM on March 23, 2016 [1 favorite]
Also, while I'm here, I might as well make the point that every time I see one of these articles, I am forcibly reminded that the perspective is blinkered as hell.
There's an entire industry of people who write for a living. They're called technical writers. I've been one of them for the past 20 years. I've made a fantastic living at it, with benefits and a salary and stock options and all.
Hell, I've even fallen into this mental trap myself: I also write fiction, when I can, and I find myself talking about wanting to get out of this industry so I can try to take a shot at writing for a living. I AM writing for a living. I'm just not writing for a living writing fiction, writing "my books", or whatever.
So I find it valuable to every so often recalibrate my sense of reality and remember that writing for a living is writing for a living. There's no difference between writing and writing: John Scalzi is in the business of producing words for a living, and I'm in the business of producing words for a living. Of course there are huge differences between what he does and what I do, but, indisputably, we're both making a living with words.
I guess my point is this: it's a lot easier to make it sound like there's a crisis in publishing, or that "writing for a living" is this incredibly difficult goal, if you summarily dismiss entire industry segments as not being "real" writing. It's lazy as hell, it's incredibly common, and it's something that grinds my gears every time I see it.
posted by scrump at 2:56 PM on March 23, 2016 [3 favorites]
There's an entire industry of people who write for a living. They're called technical writers. I've been one of them for the past 20 years. I've made a fantastic living at it, with benefits and a salary and stock options and all.
Hell, I've even fallen into this mental trap myself: I also write fiction, when I can, and I find myself talking about wanting to get out of this industry so I can try to take a shot at writing for a living. I AM writing for a living. I'm just not writing for a living writing fiction, writing "my books", or whatever.
So I find it valuable to every so often recalibrate my sense of reality and remember that writing for a living is writing for a living. There's no difference between writing and writing: John Scalzi is in the business of producing words for a living, and I'm in the business of producing words for a living. Of course there are huge differences between what he does and what I do, but, indisputably, we're both making a living with words.
I guess my point is this: it's a lot easier to make it sound like there's a crisis in publishing, or that "writing for a living" is this incredibly difficult goal, if you summarily dismiss entire industry segments as not being "real" writing. It's lazy as hell, it's incredibly common, and it's something that grinds my gears every time I see it.
posted by scrump at 2:56 PM on March 23, 2016 [3 favorites]
Let's reframe this money question then: if there are not people happy to read your words -- eager, even -- then you should reconsider how or what you're writing, instead of blaming the evil economy.
If there are people who love your words, something good will follow, whether it's money or fame or free beers and sex or respect.
posted by msalt at 7:22 PM on March 23, 2016
If there are people who love your words, something good will follow, whether it's money or fame or free beers and sex or respect.
posted by msalt at 7:22 PM on March 23, 2016
There's no difference between writing and writing: John Scalzi is in the business of producing words for a living, and I'm in the business of producing words for a living
Not to mention Scalzi did a fair amount of nonfiction writing himself until his fiction started paying off.
posted by Ber at 10:09 PM on March 25, 2016 [1 favorite]
Not to mention Scalzi did a fair amount of nonfiction writing himself until his fiction started paying off.
posted by Ber at 10:09 PM on March 25, 2016 [1 favorite]
« Older Death by gentrification: the death that shamed San... | It's difficult to convey complex civic problems in... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by sammyo at 1:05 PM on March 21, 2016 [1 favorite]