[sirbruce]

Originally Posted by Moejoe

I'd have to respectfully disagree. Just take Boyd Morrison, who you seem to reference a lot. I've read his novel 'The Ark' and I can say, hand on heart that it's better than most of the best-selling Thrillers I read last year (including the ridiculously hyped Dan Brown).

Yes, now take a look at 99.9% of the other stuff on the Internet. It's the exception that proves the rule.

Originally Posted by Moejoe

This is patently laughable. Selling has nothing to do with good writing.

Sorry, but unless you believe in an infallible God, and we can go ask him which book is really better than another, we can never know, objectively, the difference between "good" writing and not. All we know is what is popular. Yes, we sometimes see writing that is "bad" sell better than writing that is "good", but the majority of the time, writing has to reach a sufficient level before it will sell at all, and the good generally outsells the bad if all other factors are equal. But the other factors (genre, marketing, etc.) are usually NOT equal.

It's a lot like business. Good business ideas are more likely to succeed than bad ones. But you still have to execute, and plenty of good ideas have failed, and plenty of bad ideas have succeeded. So yes, maybe you're that rare good writer who simply can't get published, like Boyd Morrison. Again, the point is IF YOU COULD GET PUBLISHED, YOU'D STILL MAKE MORE MONEY. You keep letting your personal feeling distract you from that simple fact.

Originally Posted by Moejoe

And yet again you bring up the NOW of all this, when as writers we should at least be looking toward the FUTURE of our creative endeavors.

Irrelevant, since your idea of the future may not be the correct one. You're drifting FAR from the original point you disputed, which is whether or not successful authors should expect to make a living off writing.

Originally Posted by Moejoe

He did make that point, not overall, but he made that point exactly in the sentence that I quoted. That was a great deal of his argument, that writers don't make much money. The rest of his argument, as you pointed out, is solid, but he most certainly did say that the majority of writers don't make enough to earn a living. And if you think that's going to get any better over the next few years, well, I don't know what I can say to you.

That's because the majority of writers ARE NOT GOOD ENOUGH to make enough to earn a living, or DO NOT WRITE ENOUGH to do so, etc. There's nothing wrong with that. I might even venture to say that the majority of writers DO NOT TRY TO EARN A LIVING FROM WRITING, and so it's no wonder that they do not. The majority of actors do not make a living from acting; that doesn't mean that the top actors should not or that all those aspiring actors should start acting for free.

Originally Posted by Moejoe

Actually I believe that writers will cease to be paid in traditional methods, and that all creative products will be free in the first instance (supported possibly by donation or value-added products in the near-term) And I very much doubt anybody (except DIE HARD fans) would pay Eric Flint when they get their reading material free elsewhere, especially newer, web-savvy audiences that are growing up now on FREE and ZERO COST culture.

Yeah, well, we'll wait 5 years and see if Eric is still getting paid.

Originally Posted by Moejoe

Your assumption is always leaning toward the PAID writer, as though that's what a modern writer wants or needs from his writing. As though payment is THE BE ALL AND END ALL of writing. It's not, it never was.

Your assumption is always leaning toward the UNPAID writer, as thought that's what all a modern writer should want or need from his writing. As though writing for free was THE BE ALL AND END ALL of writing. It's not, it never was.

Originally Posted by Moejoe

But yet again you bring up Boyd, who can write the pants off most stuff in the best-seller charts. Do you honestly think Boyd had any more or less fun writing his thrillers than someone who's paid to do the same?

It's not just about "fun". It's about the fact there's 24 hours in a day, and unless you live on a hippie commune you need to spend some of those hours making money. Any ability to have fun doing something during those working hours is a bonus. Beyond those working hours, there are LOTS of fun things to do, so just because writing may be one of them does not mean that's all writers should expect from their time writing. Instead, I'd rather have some of my writing count as "work" time, and do other fun stuff in the "fun" time.

Originally Posted by Moejoe

I have no doubt that he'd love to get paid and make an income for his writing, but you know what, by offering up his work and that work being good enough, now he has fans - like me - who WILL buy his work, who will follow what he's doing on his blog and his webpage.

Again, Boyd would still be better off if he was actually published, which is why he's TRYING to get published.

Originally Posted by Moejoe

And the vast majority, pardon my french, is unutterable shite. Bland, insipid, paint-by-numbers, bottom-line, dull mass-produced crap. If money is the measure of success, then I don't want any success at all thanks very much.

And that's your preference. STOP PROJECTING YOUR PREFERENCE ON OTHER WRITERS AS IF WHAT THEY ARE DOING IS WRONG.