|
MoeJoe, Elfwreck, as an outside observer, y'all seem to be talking at cross purposes. I'd like to throw in a clarifier, so y'all can unite and throw brickbats at me...
The entertainment business is structured with an extremely few enormous successes at the top, and order of magnitude more scraping along at a marginal wage, and a whole sea of people trying to get to #1, making nothing from the business. It doesn't matter it you are talking writing, acting, music, or professional sports. The same dynamic is at work.
If you compare that with skilled labor, ignoring the travails of off-shoring for the moment, you have nobody making a huge success, but the vast majority of the working skilled labor making a good wage. Depending upon the particular skill, it could be a very good wage. This include everything from plumbing to programming to pathology.
So the question is as follows, do you want to make money as your primary goal, with creativity as your secondary goal, or do you want to creativity your primary goal with money making your secondary goal. And don't tell me both. The world doesn't work that way.
If money is #1, then a skilled trade is your best ticket, and has been for a couple hundred years.
If creativity is your #1 goal, go ahead, but expect poverty from those efforts for a long time, perhaps forever.
But, (and here's what I think MoeJoe's trying to get across), the odds are probably 10,000 to 1 against you hitting the economic big leagues in a creative effort. And it doesn't matter which creative field you are dealing in, the odds are the same. Yes, lightning does strike regularly, but will you be the recipient? And many of those lightning strikes occurred only after years of unrenumerated creative toil. Lord of the Rings took 15 years of spare time work, without a dime, and then another 8 years of modest pay before it tore the roof off economically.
|