Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Writing books is not really a good idea

ellegriffin.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

391–400 of 630 posts

Re: Writing books is not really a good idea

#391

Post by ellegriffin »

akiselev wrote: post #349
ellegriffin wrote: post #285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think I'm greedy for trying to see if a 100k salary would be possible. I've made that as a writer and editor throughout my career, why not hope for it as a novelist? (or at least try for it!). It might not turn out that way in the end, but better to reach high than low!

I disagree with the GP's characterization that it's greedy and you should definitely try for it, but I'm going to rephrase your statement thus: > I've made that as a pitching coach and umpire throughout my career, why not hope for it as a pitcher? Writer/editor are fundamentally different roles than novelist. In the former, the people with the up front capital already know what they want, at least in a more concrete…

This is certainly valid, but it also assumes the current publishing model (as in, how could I, one writer, make $100,000 of the $28 billion pie). Which also assumes that I would need to reach mass appeal (re: sell lots of copies) as an author to be successful in that paradigm.

What I am asking is, is it possible for me, who already has a niche audience for my writing, to have those followers support me as a writer? Can I add enough value to that small audience, that they want to pay to subscribe to my work? Would 1,000 people pay $100/year? Or 2,000 people pay $50/year?

This is different from selling books. It's selling a platform.

It STILL might not work. And I STILL might never reach that income. But it's an entirely new way to think about books and publishing and I'm curious to see if there's still a path for fiction writers in there somewhere....

Re: Writing books is not really a good idea

#392

Post by runevault »

bluGill wrote: post #380
runevault wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, but more specifically, large retailers track the way books sell and order authors based on prior success. So if an author has a down book it can trigger a spiral where the big stores order less and less. Amazon isn't impacted by this in the same way because technically everything is on their shelves, but the B&Ns and the like of the world it does (and before they went under Borders as well).

On the other hand B&N had a lot more books. The small bookshop was typically filled with the same trash that I'd never read. (that is the definition of trash book: one the person making that claim would never read - those retailers stocked them because that is what most people read)

Small bookstores can be more driven by personal taste of someone, be it a book buyer if they have one or the staff. Like the way a lot of indie bookstores will have tagged books recommended by the staff in each section, sometimes the normal big names (Game of Thrones) but sometimes by far less big name authors they are passionate about.

Re: Writing books is not really a good idea

#394

Post by bluGill »

paulpauper wrote: post #177

>The New York Times caused a stir recently when, in an article about pandemic book sales, it disclosed that “98 percent of the books that publishers released in 2020 sold fewer than 5,000 copies.” this is somewhat misleading. It includes tiny publishers, niche publishers, niche non-fiction, and so on. Such as "top 100 hiking trails in the Bay Area" and niche stuff like that. Fiction debuts by top publishing houses te…

Perhaps, but most aspiring authors are in the 98% that don't get significant sales. Once you get into the big publishers they will throw the marketing you need behind you - but they won't touch you unless they believe Opera will love you (or whatever the big promotion they needs)

Re: Writing books is not really a good idea

#395

Post by ellegriffin »

asdfasgasdgasdg wrote: post #274
jimbob45 wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You two make excellent points. Although the author seems greedy for wanting a 100k salary, that 100k is going to feel closer to 50k for reasons outside of their control.

To be clear, I never said that it was greedy to want a $100k salary. It's a perfectly rational and ordinary thing to want. I wondered about how reasonable to was to expect to attain that level of financial success in writing.

Well reasonable is a whole other thing. And I'm definitely not being reasonable! :)

Re: Writing books is not really a good idea

#396

Post by munificent »

JKCalhoun wrote: post #91

> perhaps it’s time to face the music and realize that writing books—like knitting or playing the harp—is nothing more than a hobby I've approached every creative endeavor in this way. I see no reason writing should be any different. I'm not trying to be overly cynical, I'm just not surprised that writing is any different than music, painting, etc.

I look at the question of money and art at two levels:

1. As an individual, what is the right mindset to have about my creativity? At this level, I agree with you. Looking at the economic trends, the only sane way to create and feel good about it is to do it in my free time, focus on the intrinsic reward and have some other job that pays the bills. I'm very fortunate in that my other job takes good care of me.

But there is another level I think about a lot:

2. At the cultural level, is it good for a society if people can only make art in their leisure time? I consider art to be (among other things) the mechanism by which we define, share, and propagate our culture. Our artworks teach each generation what we value and how we think one should live. They show us what it means to be human.

If that art can only be produced by people wealthy enough to have sufficient spare time (books, poetry, and painting) or giant corporations (film, TV), then you place complete control over your culture in the hands of the rich. Do you remember in the 80s and 90s when it seemed like almost every movie had an anti-corporate angle to it? Did you notice that they all stopped doing that? What should we expect when huge corporations are producing almost every film we see.

Should we be surprised to see that our society is failing to solve inequality when most books are written by the wealthy, about the wealthy, for the wealthy? How are those at the top supposed to understand and care for those at the bottom when those at the bottom don't even have the time to share their stories with them?

I think a just society needs art-makers to be able to focus on their art without worrying about money because it's the only way to ensure that everyone at every economic level gets to participate in defining our culture.

Re: Writing books is not really a good idea

#397

Post by ineedasername »

asdfasgasdgasdg wrote: post #47

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 used to work in the industry. At least when it comes to fiction, it has always been hard to make a living as an author. A very large number of first-time authors never earn out their advance and therefore aren't able to get another book published. A reasonable portion of a publisher's authors are "mid-list", which consistently turn out books that earn out the advance plus a decent amount on top, and each new book also gives a slight boost to that author's back catalog. Long-term, this is how the average author earns a decent living: Output is maybe 3 books every two years. Early on, the advance might only be $15k to $30k per book, though once they earn out the advance they begin getting royalties. Once they have 6-8 books published, they have an audience and enough of a back catalog that they may earn up to $50k/book with royalties from the back catalog adding on a healthy bit on top. However "mid-list" encompasses a wide range, so this can also be lower or higher, especially because a mid-list author with 20+ books, turning out 3 books every two years, may still only get $40k advances based on new book sales, but with so many books in their back catalog even selling only 1000 copies of each book each year can add another $30k on their annual earnings. More if they're popular enough to get audiobook deals as well.

These are the authors that basically keep the lights on for the publisher. Overall though, profitable publishing is a business of breakout hits, the authors that sell 50,000+ copies and hit the best seller lists. Failed first-time authors and mid-list authors may mostly cancel each other out on profit, and it's those few hits that push publishers into the black.

Re: Writing books is not really a good idea

#398

Post by kingsuper20 »

MisterBastahrd wrote: post #313
kingsuper20 wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Good point. More than a few I would wager. It's also a way to pay a politician in a backdoor way. Having said that, I'm amazed that so many of those titles are actually bought, they do appear to be at least somewhat popular. Any thrift store has piles of Presidential biographies and outraged-about-a-President books, they're over by the microwave cookbooks.

Yeah, for example, the Republican National Committee spent over $300K on Donald Trump Jr.'s book, which it then turned around and gave to donors, and $100K more on one of his other books. It spent over $400K on Dan Crenshaw's book and almost $100K on Tom Cotton's book. When Herman Cain was running for President, his campaign committee bought up pallets of his book that happened to be on sale at the same time as his p…

There's probably a book in this history of books as payoff, from Grant's memoirs on up.

There is some value to these ridiculous autobiographies (not so much for the I-hate-the-President-books). In 100 years, some future historian can draw from 'The Art of the Deal', 'Dreams From My Father', and probably some biography of Millard Fillmore to reach a conclusion. In the long run, they are all non-entities.

Re: Writing books is not really a good idea

#400

Post by ellegriffin »

gnulinux wrote: post #281
CapmCrackaWaka wrote: post #254

Unlike movies/TV shows, books tend to 'age' relatively slowly. Many books that were written 30 years ago are still immensely enjoyable today. Not only that, but there are a literal ton of books out there that have been read by hundreds of thousands of people and reviewed extensively. I have found my personal enjoyment of a book to be loosely correlated with the goodreads / B&N scores. This gives me at least some sign…

When I read books, I enjoy it a lot more when I read a "known great" book. It's easier to just pick up a Dostoyevksy, Kafka, Saramago, or Murakami or whatever. Chances are I'm gonna like it, or it'll be entertaining enough. When I try to explore my own likes, it ends up being frustrating because it takes a lot of trial and error. Consequently, I have no insensitive to read books that are recently published. It makes…

ME TOO. I pretty much only read classics. They are just so philosophically complex! I wish that we read now, like we read then. But I suppose television and video content are an art in their own way, and I could adapt my writing preferences to the screen. But I just have no interest there. Perhaps I'm just stuck in another century!
Post reply on HN