I know many writers, and not a single one of them makes enough money to live from their writing.
The article is a long read and I'm doing it in segments, but it's hard to read - agonizing to see the struggles.
All writers I know do it for love of writing, because they have the urge to write. There are so many gates: I have written a novel, but I'm at the agent gate right now, trying simply to get someone to represent it. Self-publishing is common, but requires a lot of self-marketing which is not something I feel capable of doing myself, in the tiktok/booktok sense. (Blogs, talks, book events, sure; marketing with a publisher, absolutely; trying to get a self-published novel noticed on booktok, not by myself.) It's not like coding where you can publish a library on github or get involved in a community and your work becomes visible. I've done that. This is another game.
After all this -- the writing, the gates, the publishing -- you won't make enough to live.
The article really seems to be that the story of writing is a lie, that our culture has a picture of authors living from their writing and it's false.
The hidden work and jobs that subsidize being able to write make writing something of a side gig when it should be the main work, and I cannot help but think of all the cultural value we have lost by not letting writers focus more on writing. Some countries have small stipends, small support. We need more.
Being a full-time writer has always been a tough gig unless it is attached to an institution (but that can corrupt the writing). I'm not sure why anyone would think it wasn't tough. The author/poet/painter starving in a garret was a well known stereotype. Just like most of the arts there is a supply and demand imbalance; lots (claim to) want to write, only a few will actually write to completion, and only a few of those will have written something someone else wants to read. And that's before the traditional publishing funnel.
On the other hand, I've known writers who make it work. Larry Correia has a lot of useful thoughts about it, he used to be an accountant before he got into writing and brings those skills to his analysis.
I would like to see an analysis including "non-traditional" publishing options, and how different kinds of writing sell. I suspect genre fiction is different from "literary" from non-fiction, etc.
Making a living through art is such a strange thing to wish for. I always imagine a prehistoric hunter telling tales around the campfire. Should the hunter think of hunting as his day job? Should he wish for a life where he'd spend all his time perfecting his tales, while other people would feed him? If he spends his life hunting in the days and telling tales in the evenings, is he a failure?
> Should the hunter think of hunting as his day job? Should he wish for a life where he'd spend all his time perfecting his tales, while other people would feed him?
Funny thing how bards/poets/musicians/storytellers are a fixture in every society that has figured out how to produce more calories than each individual personally needs to consume
Funny thing how you didn't answer the questions. Probably you didn't even understand them. Should the hunter dream about stopping hunting? Should he think of himself as a failure if he can't? Is this way of thinking good for his soul or his art? It's not about caloric surplus.
You suggest that the only reason he shouldn't, is that others might have to support him if he stops hunting. I'm saying that the arts (and especially oral traditions in a pre-literate society) are a net benefit to society that do in fact warrant collective investment to support
I know many writers, and not a single one of them makes enough money to live from their writing.
The article is a long read and I'm doing it in segments, but it's hard to read - agonizing to see the struggles.
All writers I know do it for love of writing, because they have the urge to write. There are so many gates: I have written a novel, but I'm at the agent gate right now, trying simply to get someone to represent it. Self-publishing is common, but requires a lot of self-marketing which is not something I feel capable of doing myself, in the tiktok/booktok sense. (Blogs, talks, book events, sure; marketing with a publisher, absolutely; trying to get a self-published novel noticed on booktok, not by myself.) It's not like coding where you can publish a library on github or get involved in a community and your work becomes visible. I've done that. This is another game.
After all this -- the writing, the gates, the publishing -- you won't make enough to live.
The article really seems to be that the story of writing is a lie, that our culture has a picture of authors living from their writing and it's false.
The hidden work and jobs that subsidize being able to write make writing something of a side gig when it should be the main work, and I cannot help but think of all the cultural value we have lost by not letting writers focus more on writing. Some countries have small stipends, small support. We need more.
Being a full-time writer has always been a tough gig unless it is attached to an institution (but that can corrupt the writing). I'm not sure why anyone would think it wasn't tough. The author/poet/painter starving in a garret was a well known stereotype. Just like most of the arts there is a supply and demand imbalance; lots (claim to) want to write, only a few will actually write to completion, and only a few of those will have written something someone else wants to read. And that's before the traditional publishing funnel.
On the other hand, I've known writers who make it work. Larry Correia has a lot of useful thoughts about it, he used to be an accountant before he got into writing and brings those skills to his analysis.
eg. "Analyzing My Royalties" https://monsterhunternation.com/2022/02/08/analyzing-my-roya... he breaks down how the system works. Claims to be making Doctor/Lawyer level money as of 2022.
I would like to see an analysis including "non-traditional" publishing options, and how different kinds of writing sell. I suspect genre fiction is different from "literary" from non-fiction, etc.
Making a living through art is such a strange thing to wish for. I always imagine a prehistoric hunter telling tales around the campfire. Should the hunter think of hunting as his day job? Should he wish for a life where he'd spend all his time perfecting his tales, while other people would feed him? If he spends his life hunting in the days and telling tales in the evenings, is he a failure?
> Should the hunter think of hunting as his day job? Should he wish for a life where he'd spend all his time perfecting his tales, while other people would feed him?
Funny thing how bards/poets/musicians/storytellers are a fixture in every society that has figured out how to produce more calories than each individual personally needs to consume
Funny thing how you didn't answer the questions. Probably you didn't even understand them. Should the hunter dream about stopping hunting? Should he think of himself as a failure if he can't? Is this way of thinking good for his soul or his art? It's not about caloric surplus.
You suggest that the only reason he shouldn't, is that others might have to support him if he stops hunting. I'm saying that the arts (and especially oral traditions in a pre-literate society) are a net benefit to society that do in fact warrant collective investment to support
Funny position from someone not hunting but telling stories
As an answer, a question could be: why should a hunter need to hunt in the day and only tell tales in the evening?
Why could a society not have a role for bards as well as hunters, as their day job, as their purpose?