Live data from Hacker News

Writing books is not really a good idea

ellegriffin.substack.com

211–220 of 630 posts

Re: Writing books is not really a good idea

#211

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…

> Did it used to be easier to make a living as an author? I suspect there is now a middle ground that didn't exist before: In the 1970s you were either selling >10,000 copies, or you weren't a published author. 'Self-publishing' had a reputation as a scam to extract money from naive would-be authors. (I'm not sure what the academic book market was like at the time) It's only with the rise of ebooks and print-on-deman…

I don't think this is true. Niche and vanity presses have existed for a long time (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vanity_press#History)

Academic presses are also mostly very low volume. But academics don't expect to make a living from selling books (at least not directly - books help to establish reputations which can help you in the academic job market).

Re: Writing books is not really a good idea

#212

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…

> 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 story-telling Reddit ends up getting it optioned by Hollywood and is now a major screenwriter. The sea shanty Tik-Tok'er is a major label recording artist.

Our culture's positive values of egalitarianism and opportunity say that whatever you want your life to be can be, if only you work hard enough to get it.

The dark side of this is that many of us won't. And, in particular, in many areas, the total number of brass rings is relatively fixed and we can't all get them. A hundred years ago, most people didn't even think of becoming an author. It was a rarefied activity done by people who went to college and moved to New York City. For more, authors felt like an Other. It's not that their personal dreams of authorship were crushed by the lack of opportunity, it's like they never thought to dream it in the first place, any more than people dream of being howler monkeys or velour sofas.

But today, media is more than happy to show us all possible dreams. Our social media aggregators filter out all of the lives you're likely to lead and show you only the best ones.

So I think today many many more people consider and try to become authors than ever before. But the total amount of time spent reading isn't growing enough to accommodate that. While some will find success (for however they choose to define that), the end result is probably a much greater number of dreams thwarted than attained.

I love this TED talk by Alain de Botton on success: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MtSE4rglxbY

He says:

"It is probably as unlikely nowadays that you would become as rich and famous as Bill Gates as it was unlikely in the 17th century that you would exceed to the ranks of the French aristocracy. But the point is it doesn't feel that way. It's made to feel by the media and other outlets that if you've got energy, a few bright ideas about technology, a garage, you too could start a major thing."

Re: Writing books is not really a good idea

#213

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 gener…

> Pirated e-books probably have chiseled away some of the business. Not just that but also licensing. I live in Europe and it happens a LOT that I can't get a book I want here. Either it's not yet released because it's released in phases. I read English only, however publishers tend to wait to release the English version until the local translation is out, so they don't lose potential sales of the translated version.…

If you can't get a book legally or conveniently, there isn't really any sales to be "lost" because you wouldn't buy it. There is no real injury if you can't acquire something otherwise. You're not stealing a book from a store to cause a loss.

So, it's either do without or find a way to get it. And then, you might make an extra effort to acquire it if it's really good and encourage others to find it too. Not as a rationalization but as a human habit: pirating some content, within reason, leads to increased sales overall rather than a decrease.

Re: Writing books is not really a good idea

#214
post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

a great book can have much more social impact than any movie, tv show, or other medium. Books allow for detail and development that is unrivaled by other mediums

I think this is very open to debate. How many people in the world have seen Star Wars? I would argue that no book short of the Bible has had a higher impact.

but what is the social impact of star wars besides spawning sequels?

Re: Writing books is not really a good idea

#215

In the month it will take me to finish reading Storm of Swords, I will watch ~10 movies. Plus, I'm reading Storm of Swords, which needs no additional support from readers to be discovered or validated--though I still want to read it. Plus, I digitally loaned it from my local library. I own a number of books (~200) and have probably owned x4 that total in my lifetime. Maybe 1/3 of those I paid full price for new. The…

I've been an Audible paid subscriber for 10 years. I have 138 audiobooks in my library. At $10/month, that means I've paid Audible $1200 for ~2000 hours of "reading". Using the 25% royalties mentioned in a child comment (no idea if that's accurate) I've paid authors only $300 for all of that. That seems super low! And I imagine I'm in the top quintile in terms of paying for "books".

Re: Writing books is not really a good idea

#216

The writer of this article seems to be unaware of existing communities of exactly what they are taking about. They mentioned Jemisin's patreon as if she's invented the idea or is the only one who's had success doing it, which is simply not true. Go to https://royalroad.com , view top rated stories, click on basically anything and you'll see patreon links of authors making thousands of dollars per month/chapter.

Yes, I totally understand that there are authors earning money from their AO3, royal road accounts. But, very few are making a living doing it. Jemisin was an exception. Of the fiction writers that currently have a Patreon account: "only 25 earn more than $1,000/month, only six earn more than $2,000/month, and only one earns more than the $5,000/month (and she’s already a bestselling author)." I hope that there are m…

Hmm, now that I look into it more closely, most of these authors are making less than I expected. I've never actually visited most of their patreons to actually check, but yes most of them aren't making that much from it.

It doesn't actually counter your main point, but I do think I have dug up more than 1 making more than $5000/month.

https://www.patreon.com/RhaegarRRL has 3317 patrons with a minimum donation of $3 per month, so even though the actual number is hidden that should be more than $5000

https://www.patreon.com/user?u=4240617 is similar, but with more patrons and a lower minimum.

https://www.patreon.com/Wildbow is simply at more than $5000 per month.

Where did you get those stats you quoted?

Re: Writing books is not really a good idea

#217
post #173

I feel like the article glosses over a key point: Even on the high end, there were only 11 books that sold more than 500,000 copies. If I can spend two to three years writing a novel and my best case scenario is having it sell a couple hundred copies Isn't the best case scenario here that you are the top -selling author, selling over a million copies? I feel like the author of this post is just assuming that they are…

Selling a million copies would put them in the top 0.00003% of their profession - merely being in the top 1% only puts you in the ramen-eating 1k-10k sales bracket.

Re: Writing books is not really a good idea

#218

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…

Vonnegut I remember writing somewhere that radio and especially TV had killed the market for short stories in magazines, which were a great way for authors to get started. Here's some other things he said on making a living as a writer: https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/vonnegut-writing-i... Note that he got paid $750 for his first short story in 1949! I don't know how many places are paying first time author…

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 it.

In 1949, those gatekeepers were traditional publishers. In 2021, we still have traditional publishers, but we also have content curation algorithms, social media influencers, podcast hosts, and platforms like Substack and Patreon. If you can get any of them to put resources into promoting you, you'll have a real opportunity of making it - that is, if what you're offering is any good.

If you can't or don't want to get the attention of those gatekeepers, it doesn't matter how good your content is, no one will ever find you.

Re: Writing books is not really a good idea

#219
post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Did it used to be easier to make a living as an author? My assumption is almost certainly yes-- provided you made it through the big publisher gatekeepers. (And were able to parlay that into shelf space at the store.) - People probably read more books. There were fewer other demands on attention, whether YouTube, social media, online content generally, etc. I certainly read books far less than I used to. - There was…

>People probably read more books. There were fewer other demands on attention, whether YouTube, social media, online content generally, etc. I certainly read books far less than I used to. I'd imagine the number of books sold per year is strictly increasing.

If it's increasing because of a growing number of readers, then that's a winner take all scenario where Harry Potter sells more and more copies as each new reader hasn't read it yet.

If it's growing because of one extremely voracious reader buying up every book they can get their hands on, that's a scenario that favours more obscure authors.

Re: Writing books is not really a good idea

#220
> Not to mention, an author would have to come out with one book a year to maintain that salary.

Your math looks odd to me. You look at the amount a book earns in a single year and extrapolate that to the author's annual salary, but seem to assume that once the first year is up, the book stops earning. Does books earning passive over multiple years affect the numbers?

For what its worth, my single non-fiction book has generated passive income for about seven years now.

I fully agree with your larger point that earning a living off fiction is exceedingly difficult these days. I hope fiction authors can find new revenue models like you're exploring that are successful. But I fear that fiction will go the way of poetry and theatre where it becomes a niche art beloved by some but rarely lucrative enough to devote yourself full time to it.

Post reply on HN