Live data from Hacker News

Writing books is not really a good idea

ellegriffin.substack.com

71–80 of 630 posts

Re: Writing books is not really a good idea

#71

It would be interesting to have a timeseries plot of this sort of information. Did it used to be easier to make a living as an author? Presumably there was some point at which the ease of making a living as an author peaked. This article suggests that time is in the past, but how far in the past? Has the absolute number of people who can make it as an author decreased, or just the relative fraction of the human popul…

I know offhandedly that at one point it was possible to live on one's short fiction but now that's been entirely squeezed out. (Unless you're Ted Chiang.)

Re: Writing books is not really a good idea

#72
One thing that has bound to affect new book sales, especially on the tail, is the increasing ease of buying used books online. It's kind of like the way that eBay altered the music store instrument business.

Pirated e-books probably have chiseled away some of the business.

Having said that, the book business looks to have been in a slow decline for some time. I don't doubt that social media and internet reading generally have made people less able to read long-form work. I'd add that it looks like authors have been falling down a slide of lessening language complexity over the decades.

Re: Writing books is not really a good idea

#73
> As the going wisdom states: it only takes 1,000 true fans spending $100/year for a creator to earn a salary of $100,000/year—and there are 83,397 books every year that have at least 1,000 true fans. Theoretically then, an author could release a new chapter every week, charge subscribers $8 or $9 a month, and earn $100,000 a year—from only 1,000 readers.

She's basically proposing an episodic model for books, with each chapter being released individually.

I don't think this'll work. Authors tend to have phases of inspiration, and lulls in between. The pressure of the next episode would lead to 'phoned in' chapters. Or long delays. Episodic gaming was a big hype in the game industry for a while but it suffered really heavily from these issues and it's now pretty much defunct. A few companies like telltale made it work but even telltale is now out of business. The 'early access' model was also tried there but is failing for similar reasons: There is no incentive to ever finishing a game, in fact the incentive is to never finish it.

It also means you'd be spending $100 on a single book. In this model you pay $8-$9 a chapter, normally this is the price you'd pay for an entire book. I also wouldn't want to wait for the next chapter every time. I don't see this working out at all.

I don't know what the answer is. But I don't think this is it.

Edit: As many people have pointed out this model has been around much longer, even before the internet... I didn't know that and thanks for pointing it out! I still don't think it will work for me as a reader though. I view a book as a unit, and having reading sprints of a few hours per month will dilute the story for me.

Re: Writing books is not really a good idea

#74
I was curious about the oft cited quote "x% of Americans never read another book after high school" and I found this interesting StackExchange post with links to older studies by the National Endowment of the Arts [1]. It shows that reading rate has droped 16.5% from 1982-2002 for high school graduates from 54.2% to 37.7%. The trend is higher education::more reading, but it is dropping across the board.

[1] https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/9446/do-33-of-h...

Re: Writing books is not really a good idea

#75
post #68
post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm always surprised when people talk about rereading books. I get absolutely nothing out of books I've already read. Do you also rewatch TV series?

Re-reading Pop-Psy and Airport literature is not the recommended reading. How about reading Hayek, Strauss for second time? How about reading man's search for meaning for the third time? You re-read great works, not NYT best shiller! (sic).

Why would you re-read them when you could read something new? Do you find you're actually getting a significant amount of value or joy from it the second time around?

I ask because I think a good portion of the reason I enjoy software development is the absolute and total hatred I have for repetition in my life.

Re: Writing books is not really a good idea

#76
post #7

Is there somewhere to find the names of the 268 books?

Bookstat didn't share the list of 268 books with me, but they did share the one book that sold more than a million copies in 2020: it was a Kindle-exclusive Thomas & Mercer title called “If You Tell” by Gregg Olsen…

Wouldn’t have guessed! Thanks, and really interesting article :)

Re: Writing books is not really a good idea

#77

> As the going wisdom states: it only takes 1,000 true fans spending $100/year for a creator to earn a salary of $100,000/year—and there are 83,397 books every year that have at least 1,000 true fans. Theoretically then, an author could release a new chapter every week, charge subscribers $8 or $9 a month, and earn $100,000 a year—from only 1,000 readers. She's basically proposing an episodic model for books, with ea…

Some authors seem to chop up their novels into 3 or more novellas. Vandermeer's Southern Reach was all released around the same time and could have been one book from the outset. He would probably deny it, but w/e. Can't say I blame authors.

Word is that people on average don't read more or less than in the past. If that's true I wonder what's responsible for disparity. Are there more authors than before?

Re: Writing books is not really a good idea

#78

> As the going wisdom states: it only takes 1,000 true fans spending $100/year for a creator to earn a salary of $100,000/year—and there are 83,397 books every year that have at least 1,000 true fans. Theoretically then, an author could release a new chapter every week, charge subscribers $8 or $9 a month, and earn $100,000 a year—from only 1,000 readers. She's basically proposing an episodic model for books, with ea…

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serial_(literature)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Dickens

> His novels, most of them published in monthly or weekly instalments, pioneered the serial publication of narrative fiction, which became the dominant Victorian mode for novel publication.[4][5] Cliffhanger endings in his serial publications kept readers in suspense.[6] The instalment format allowed Dickens to evaluate his audience's reaction, and he often modified his plot and character development based on such feedback.[5] For example, when his wife's chiropodist expressed distress at the way Miss Mowcher in David Copperfield seemed to reflect her disabilities, Dickens improved the character with positive features.[7] His plots were carefully constructed and he often wove elements from topical events into his narratives.[8] Masses of the illiterate poor would individually pay a halfpenny to have each new monthly episode read to them, opening up and inspiring a new class of readers.

Re: Writing books is not really a good idea

#79
post #59

Is this the natural outcome of having larger retailers? In the era of small local book stores, the store owner had large discretion on what to stock. Different book stores would naturally stock different books and cater to different preferences. The customer would have options to discover new books, but would also have popular books sometimes "hidden" by the book sellers preference. If every book reader is hooked int…

On the other hand the large retailers can stock huge amounts of books. There is no limit anymore.

That said, I tend to pick my books from the top lists. But I'm not a frequent reader.

Re: Writing books is not really a good idea

#80
post #75
post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Re-reading Pop-Psy and Airport literature is not the recommended reading. How about reading Hayek, Strauss for second time? How about reading man's search for meaning for the third time? You re-read great works, not NYT best shiller! (sic).

Why would you re-read them when you could read something new? Do you find you're actually getting a significant amount of value or joy from it the second time around? I ask because I think a good portion of the reason I enjoy software development is the absolute and total hatred I have for repetition in my life.

For some highly complex books, a reread is more like a re-analysis of the text based off of ones existing knowledge. There will be nuances and details that were missed the first go around, that is uncovered the second time around, making the understanding of the piece richer. It’s like mathematics- everything is built on fundamentals.

(Some people also derive comfort in familiar stories.)

Post reply on HN