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…
Recently in Boswell's Journal of a Tour to the Hebrides , I noticed the passage He asked me whether he had mentioned, in any of the papers of the Rambler, the description in Virgil of the entrance into Hell, with an application to the press; 'for,' said he, 'I do not much remember them'. I told him, 'No.' Upon which he repeated it: Vestibulum ante ipsum, primisque in faucibus orci, Luctus et ultrices posuere cubilia…
Writing books is not really a good idea
321–330 of 630 posts
Re: Writing books is not really a good idea
#322Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Many books that were written 30 years ago are still immensely enjoyable today I'd argue that there's a large amount of books that don't age out of their value. There's a lot of good material out there written over a hundred years ago that's more enjoyable that the average modern book. Even books which are tightly coupled to their time period are all still relevant and valuable today. A funny example, I was reading…
> Even books which are tightly coupled to their time period are all still relevant and valuable today As an example of this I would cite "Mr Britling Sees It Through" [0] which was written by HG Wells during World War 1. It was published in 1916 and describes in a novel the public reaction to the early stages of the war - and Wells had no idea how the war was actually going to pan out when he wrote it. I read it in A…
1. Everyone ignores it since it's "not serious" 2. People play it down for political reasons 3. People start dying 4. People lock down 5. Alcohol sells out
At least where I am, this is exactly what happened.
Re: Writing books is not really a good idea
#323Earlier quoted context omitted.
750 dollars in 1949 is about $9,000 in 2021. Vonnegut had to convince at least two gatekeepers: his own agent and the editor at Colliers. I spent a large chunk of time a few years back looking into the questions OP is asking, and the ultimate truth I came to is this: whether you're self publishing or going the traditional route, you're going to need some established gatekeepers to support you if you're going to make…
Yep, in almost every industry it was always been 50% how good you are and 50% who you know. Over time, who you need to know to be successful has changed, and new artists need to adapt, as they always have. Getting an audience is easier than ever in history. That is amazing for hobbyists who just want some readers and recognition, and not great for those who want to earn a living while writing.
Re: Writing books is not really a good idea
#324It 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…
> Did it used to be easier to make a living as an author? One of the dominant subjective experiences of living today is the sensation that any possible amazing kind of life is right there and it is only up to us to reach out to pluck it. You go on Instagram and see people living blissful lives of travel in gorgeous locales while talking about how affordable it is. That random dude who wrote a series of posts on some…
Re: Writing books is not really a good idea
#325It 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…
If you have a scalable product there is usually no middle ground. Either you are getting rich or just getting by, or even not getting by (last one the most likely one)
Re: Writing books is not really a good idea
#326> Even on the high end, there were only 11 books that sold more than 500,000 copies—which is paltry when you consider that the 10 best-performing Netflix films saw more than 68 million views. So, this really means that the problem is not with writing, but the medium (book). Because all these Netflix films were written by someone. Instead of concentrating on the 11 books, the writer who wants to make money should conc…
The medium (movie) requires getting someone to spend millions on crew and actors to shoot your script This is not necessarily any easier to achieve than writing a bestselling book, especially for a first-timer, and by the time the Hollywood accountants have finished calculating your share of the revenue, not necessarily any more lucrative.
Re: Writing books is not really a good idea
#327Writing a good book is hard.
Writing a good book and getting it packaged well is harder.
Writing a good book and getting it packaged well and marketed well is really high effort.
I've published a novel. It's part of a series (#2 is being proof-read; link in my profile). Of the time I've spent on this project, writing is the smallest. I've found I can churn out ~20k words a week if I put my mind to it, so a 60k-80k novel is doable in a month. But then it needs to go through an editor (and you need to spend money on a decent one), and a proofreader, and a cover designer (no, unless you're an artist with some design flair your self-designed cover will rarely cut it for fiction), and then you need to market it, including putting in high effort into getting people to review it (but caution: soliciting reviews is a minefield - Amazon does allow you to offer a free copy, but you must be careful not to influence the reviews).
All that, and you still will very likely not sell very much at first (irrespective of quality; and of course part of the challenge with self-publishing is that there's a lot of self-delusion about writing quality going on). Charlie Stross mentioned on Twitter a while back that it took many years (10?) before he made more than 5k/year from his writing. That was with building up a back catalog.
So if you want to write for money, you need to decide whether you see this as buying a lottery ticket (write and submit to traditional publishers and hope you have the next Harry Potter etc.), or if you're ok with being paid per word (submit queries to magazines).
Or if you want the long, hard slog to build up a back catalogue and fan base. People do manage to build serious income streams that way even with small sales per book, but it takes time and a focus on writing fast and churning out as many books as you can. My favourite example is Kjell Hallbing, who under the pseudonym Louis Masterson wrote 100+ western pulp books - the most well known is Morgan Kane (the books were released from the 60's onwards; warning: the originals are very pulpy and dated to start with, but the recent English translations are apparently particularly bad).
He sold ~20 million plus during his lifetime - an astonishing number for a Norwegian author (given the Norwegian market is only 5m).
The key was the number of books, and getting translated to 20+ languages, and time. On average each book only sold about 10k per language - some more, some less, of course - over a period of decades. But write enough and sell it over many enough years in many enough markets that are not as saturated, and it adds up.
(Or maybe you don't really care about the money, in which case you can do exactly as you please.)
For my part, the writing is a hobby. If it starts to accumulate income over time, then it'll be a great bonus. I'm writing pulp-y, short sci-fi novels in part because I like reading that, in part because it's easy to write as a part-time/hobby project compared to some 250k word monstrous volume.
The TL;DR is that writing a book is a really great idea if you like writing, but if you do it because you want to make money, you need to realise from the start that the writing will be a relatively small part (doubly so if you're planning to self-publish), and that short of figuratively winning the lottery you'll need to write a lot of a long period of time for it to start paying off. If you want a get-rich-quick scheme, writing books is probably a bad idea.
Re: Writing books is not really a good idea
#328As an example of that middle ground mentioned in the article, I spent 2 weeks writing a short technical book about AWS, self-published it, and sold 6,587 copies and $133,030 in sales in 1.5 years.
Re: Writing books is not really a good idea
#329I don't know where she gets the idea that serial publishing isn't done currently. Pirateaba, creator of wanderinginn.com has 4342 patreons (10k per month at least). At that point who cares about the NYTimes bestselling list?