Harder for authors to make a living.....

[Barcey]

Originally Posted by silverraven

I'm really really good at laying on a nice warm sandy beach, reading good books, while cool drinks are delivered by a really good looking cabana boy . Think I can make a living at it??

S

If you can also cast mocking glances at your neighbor trying to read on an iPad then you might get a job doing Kindle commercials. Dare to dream.

[Ken Maltby]

Forsooth ... I could write the great Anglican Novel, if only I didn't have to write all these stupid plays to keep the Globe running.

It's too bad that I'm stuck here in Florence, painting portraits of noble chicks with stupid smiles, instead of real art, but it pays the bills, sigh...

Luck;
Ken

[Pangolin]

Ach well, little ole me, I disagree with, I think, aaaall of you

Popularity is no judgement of quality. Art for art sake (like science for science sake), is, I feel, vital if you want to keep cultural input innovative and I personally would be prepared to pay a bit more across the cheap ebooks I buy if I thought, some how, that would make it possible for someone to 'make art' - whether I liked it or not. If people focus too much on bringing in the dosh they can get formulaic and their out put 'tired' - 'Son of .......' type titles.

And if there is no safety net for artists who are producing work that isn't blockbuster but that does have healthy critical acclaim, we are saying that you either need to be popular, Dan Brown anyone? (Sorry if anyone finds that offensive insert your own pulp fiction writer there if you love him.) Or have a private income. That's got to be wrong.

As for the fact that they should have known better, planned better: well the article is about the goalposts shifting and catching people unawares as they approach late middle age.

Sure, we can all face getting fired in our fifties or whatever, but I personally do feel that someone who is creating something that is valued by a panel of judges whose opinions as critics I personally value, deserves some slack.

And, as someone said earlier when being exasperated that someone can publish 'just' six books in a lifetime, they have devoted their lives to writing books that have a proven track record, if not a multi million turnover, so no, they probably can't just go and find another job in an office or whatever. And if I had to choose between Hanif Kureishi as a secretary or whatever, let's say PR and journo (I'll take my own job as an example) or as a writer of sound, quality fiction, I'd prefer him to stay a writer.

Fiiiinally, but to the person who mentioned only 6 books at 60: sorry but that means you don't approve of Donna Tartt either? Or is that ok if she has a private income? After all, one of the contributors is a journalist to bring in some dosh. So how privately wealthy should someone be if they are planning to devote time to creating something worthwhile? Something that will demand time and focus. That has, for years, been enough to live on and put a little by?

Tartt's average seems to be a decade between titles. There are some people who take time to produce a new book. Is that a bad thing? At what point should people be churning out stuff to secure their old age? Or should they be producing work that will stand the test of time and add an original voice to our culture? And how far should we support them in that, by paying enough on the titles to reach both them and their publisher.

Hanif Kureishi was ripped off by some one recently and lost all his savings. What is more naive, trusting a dodgy financial advisor or believing that an industry that you have known to function in a certain way for 30 years, and in which you could keep your head above water, undergoes a seismic shift, leaving you high and dry?

Just to say if anyone gets cross with me I'll not be drawn in. Disagree by all means, but no aggressive stuff - how could there be on Mobile Read, we're all far too nice.... Oh well, here goes....

[latepaul]

Pangolin,

You make some excellent points. One of the problems with the article is that because of its choice of examples and tone it undermines what could be an interesting argument - the consequences of the change in the book market.

However what it comes down to for me is: if you're not going to let the market decide which writers "deserve" to make money, then how are you going to do it?

So let's say you set up a body - let's call it the Committee for Supporting the Literary Arts (CSLA) - which has a fund from which it can provide grants to authors it considers are making good art but not making money by simply selling books. The problem is whose definition of "good art" are we going to go with. Even if we argue that there's an objective standard, in effect the judgement looks subjective to everyone that doesn't share that standard. In other words a lot of people don't agree with CSLA's decisions (and if they did CSLA wouldn't be needed).

Also where does CSLA get its money? Either it's a charitable organisation, in which case it's competing for donations with a lot of other causes and possibly other similar organisations with a slightly different definition of "good art" that some donors may prefer - or it's government funded, meaning tax-payers.

So ISTM you end up with either a less efficient, more convoluted version of a market-driven process or you have to have people prepared to pay for something they personally don't think is good.

[QuantumIguana]

While being popular does not necessarily that a book is great, neither does a book being unpopular mean that a book is great. If people want to become patrons for those authors who produce great, but unpopular books (that is, great in the opinion of the patron), they are free to do so. But this doesn't mean that authors are entitled to a patron. There always going to be far more authors who think themselves great than there are available patrons. Why should an author expect not to have a day job, or expect to be able to live in an expensive neighborhood, even if their books don't sell? What's wrong with having a day job? Authors are free to write as rapidly or as slowly as they wish. But if they want to sell more books, they might want to consider writing more. It's their choice.

[Namekuseijin]

when everyone is a writer, who has the time to read?

[pl001]

Originally Posted by Katsunami

As soon as a hobby becomes work, making one do it day in, day out, 8 hours a day, years on end, many people stop enjoying it.

That is part of the problem, yes. But there is more to it than that.

Employers are generally treating employees like dirt since 2007. 6+ years of declining benefits and increased expectations takes its toll.

Jobs change as time goes on. My job in IT today is very different from what it was 14 years ago when I started, and not in a good way.

Family also has a big impact on job satisfaction. When you're fresh out of college your job is typically the most important aspect of your life. Once you are married and have kids it becomes secondary, a means to support the things you want for your family. With increased responsibilities at home it becomes difficult to put forth the effort required to advance or change your career and a rut can develop.

[cfrizz]

Originally Posted by Pangolin

...As for the fact that they should have known better, planned better: well the article is about the goalposts shifting and catching people unawares as they approach late middle age.

Just to say if anyone gets cross with me I'll not be drawn in. Disagree by all means, but no aggressive stuff - how could there be on Mobile Read, we're all far too nice.... Oh well, here goes....

I'm sorry but the Goal Posts have NOT moved. They have always been there for writers, painters, musicians etc.

My father was a professional musician, who knew he couldn't support himself and his soon to be wife by playing his violin in clubs or wherever. So he went and got a job that could and give him benefits & a pension BEFORE he married her. This was all the way back in the 50s! He kept that job until the day he died, but he also pursued his dream and got a Masters in music and taught music in public schools in Watertown for the last few years of his life. The pension he got from his first job is what allowed my mom to retire early a few years after he died.

Both of my brothers could have been professional musicians but both of them realized that they couldn't survive on it, so they got real jobs so that they could live. NOTHING has changed from then to now. You need a full time job and do your "art" in your spare time and pray to get "discovered."

Originally Posted by pl001

That is part of the problem, yes. But there is more to it than that.

Employers are generally treating employees like dirt since 2007. 6+ years of declining benefits and increased expectations takes its toll.

Jobs change as time goes on. My job in IT today is very different from what it was 14 years ago when I started, and not in a good way.

Family also has a big impact on job satisfaction. When you're fresh out of college your job is typically the most important aspect of your life. Once you are married and have kids it becomes secondary, a means to support the things you want for your family. With increased responsibilities at home it becomes difficult to put forth the effort required to advance or change your career and a rut can develop.

Right on the money pl001

[SteveEisenberg]

I thought Robert McCrum's Guardian article presented an excellent slice of hard reality.

As for the article advocating that the government subsidize literature to make up for declining advances, I missed that. It presented a problem that probably has no solution. There are far worse problems in the world, but the same newspaper can do a good job covering war in the Congo while also reporting on the declining incomes of award-winning literary novelists.

Originally Posted by QuantumIguana

Authors are free to write as rapidly or as slowly as they wish. But if they want to sell more books, they might want to consider writing more. It's their choice.

Right. And it's my choice to act accordingly after reading signed reviews and finding out the author hasn't reworked dull passages.

It's trite to say that one key to good writing is re-writing. It's also true.

[crich70]

Originally Posted by bgalbrecht

I'm not a writer, but I attend science fiction conventions, and it's my impression that for every writer who makes enough to quit his/her day job, there's another 5-10 who can't unless they have a working spouse that makes enough to take care of the mortgage, health care, etc. I don't know whether the numbers are up or down, but I know that this was true 20-30 years ago, just as it's true now. Two published authors (one Fantasy, one mystery) work at my current employer.

Giving away free books sounds really tough, and it is if you don't have many published books, but if an author has written several series, it may be worth it to give away the first book in the series just as advertising.

Yep that's my impression as well. Way back when writer's like Issac Asimov were starting out it was just the same. The only difference was that there were more markets for short stories back then than there were later.

[latepaul]

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

I thought Robert McCrum's Guardian article presented an excellent slice of hard reality.

As for the article advocating that the government subsidize literature to make up for declining advances, I missed that.

No one has said that the article did say that. I brought it up because I wanted to explore what the alternative would be to the current system which has led to the current situation. Also Pangolin in his/her response mentioned paying more to support more literary works. I was thinking aloud about how that would work in practice.

But I think I agree with you in essence - the article is not really advocating anything, it's just describing a change that has taken place - publishing boomed in 1980s causing high advances to become common, that has now declined.

By the way, although I made up the CSLA for the purposes of discussion I'm sure such organisations exist. I know that in the UK and other countries there are taxed-funded as well as charitable bodies that give subsidies to the arts in general so I'm sure there are ones that deal with the literary world.

[CommonReader]

Originally Posted by Pangolin

Ach well, little ole me, I disagree with, I think, aaaall of you

Sometimes I do wonder if the people who are going all Ayn Rand about other peoples' jobs and existence take the same cold, hard look at their own jobs.
All the same, I do believe that major advances for authors who aren't in blockbuster territory were a rather recent phenomenon and couldn't be expected to last. Authors are caught in the same development that sees a widening gap between the super-rich and what used to be comfortably middle class.
I also wonder why an author who isn't that well known believed that he should be able to run a separate office in one of the world's most expensive cities.

[latepaul]

Originally Posted by CommonReader

I also wonder why an author who isn't that well known believed that he should be able to run a separate office in one of the world's most expensive cities.

Well because he did, for years. Such was the nature of the advances he was receiving. That has changed in recent years forcing him to adapt. That's basically what the article is about.

[Hitch]

Originally Posted by CommonReader

Sometimes I do wonder if the people who are going all Ayn Rand about other peoples' jobs and existence take the same cold, hard look at their own jobs.
All the same, I do believe that major advances for authors who aren't in blockbuster territory were a rather recent phenomenon and couldn't be expected to last. Authors are caught in the same development that sees a widening gap between the super-rich and what used to be comfortably middle class.
I also wonder why an author who isn't that well known believed that he should be able to run a separate office in one of the world's most expensive cities.

I can't speak for anyone else, but I simply view the authors' jobs though the very same, cold, hard Ayn Rand view that I use on my OWN business. Anyone who thinks that self-employment or having a small business is sitting around in your jammies eating bon-bons while other folks labor hasn't tried it. It isn't. (Or, if they try it, are doomed to fairly quick failure at it.)

Capitalism is, as I have said on these forums in other posts, simply Darwinism played with money. Nobody wants to admit that, because it makes them uncomfortable, for a wide variety of reasons.

It's no different for authors who, even before, were self-employed, had they entered into contracts that gave the illusion of employment by someone else through advances and royalty checks. Like all self-employed/small businesses, they have to work hard for their ducats, budget for lean times, and have realistic expectations as to their future incomes. They have a massive advantage over we of the more plebeian working slobs; they may yet "get discovered" by the masses, sell zillions of books, and apotheose to financial freedom--unlike the rest of us who are not laboring over "creative" that may catch fire. I don't begrudge authors their monies; nor the publishers who stake them (or their own publishers' rewards if they stake themselves). I just have an issue with the tone of the article.

As I said: it's the same boat in which most of us find ourselves, and we are, generally, not so lucky as to have the luxury of doing something we love for those ducats. Everybody, generally, is having harder times. Period.

Hitch

[bgalbrecht]

I finally read the article, and it's hard not to knock Rupert Thomson for having unreasonable expectations. This is a guy who has written 9 novels and a memoir in 26 years, and he's complaining about it being too hard to make a living. I'm not sure what he considers a comfortable living, but let's say £50,000/year. If all of his books are still in print, and are past the 20K copies sold (likely for books in print more than a year or so), and the web page that I found that said 12% was typical rate for over 20K copies sold, that means that for him to live on the royalties alone, he'd need to have those ten books sell about 50,000 copies per year (looking at Amazon UK prices around £8 per book), or have a contract for a book with expectations to sell at least 50K copies the first year. Maybe as an acclaimed award winning author, he can command higher royalties and advances, but only if his books are expected to sell higher volumes.

I mainly read SF and fantasy, and between my acquaintances with SF/F authors and the SF/F author autobiographies I've read, the fact of the matter is that very few authors sell enough books that they only have to come out with a new book once every 2-3 years. Most authors have to write at least one new book a year, or rely on other forms of income, and my guess is that rarely do they have anything but a home office.