Friedrich --

Another posting in my very occasional series concerning the rules of thumb that people in the arts work by but almost never get around to articulating. Today: writing a book.

Isn't it interesting how many people dream of writing a book? It's sweet, and it's (mostly) harmless, and I guess I once semi-shared that dream, and I guess one or two brain cells still make room for the possibility that I will someday write a book (fat chance). But, but, but ... Then I followed the book-publishing industry for 15 years.

Fact #1: Millions of people are working on books, or believe that they could write a book, or are planning to write a book.

And I'll bet that for many of them a part of that fantasy is the making - a - living-as-a-freelancer -doing-something-interesting-rather- than-working-as-a- flunky-in-a-boring- job element. But how many people in the country actually manage to make a living writing books? A couple of hundred.

Millions would like to do it. A couple of hundred actually manage it.

In other words, your chances of making a living writing books are perhaps better than are your chances of ever playing in the NBA. But not all that much better.

Technical pause here: there's an important-to-understand distinction that needs to be made between "book publishing" generally and "trade book publishing," which is what most of us think of when we think of book publishing -- ie., the biz that creates the books that fill up the local bookstore. Book publishing generally is a fairly substantial industry, and most of the money in the field -- 2/3, if I remember right -- doesn't come from "trade book" publishing. It's generated by the sales of products many of us almost never think of as books: medical reference books, atlases, textbooks. This end of the biz operates in the semi-rational way many businesses do, with similar profit margins and incentive structures. There's real money to be made here, other words. You can get rich writing and/or publishing textbooks, for instance, even if it's a very competitive industry.

Trade-book publishing, the wing of the industry that fills up your local chain store, is a very modest subset of book publishing. And it's got a quite different texture. It's rather irrational, makes very modest profits, is full of well-meaning ex-English majors, and is forever being invaded (and wreaked havoc on) by conglomerates that think they can run it like a conventional business, and who always fail to turn the trick. Despite the celebrated star authors and the occasional celeb execs and agents, there's rather little money to be made here. And most of that money is as flukey and moody as the money that sloshes around the moviebiz. You'd be surprised by how many name authors don't manage to make a living at their trade.

Fact #2: Most people who write "serious" trade nonfiction actually lose money on their projects.

Biographies? Serious travel books? Moneylosers for most of their authors. How so? Well, say you're lucky and your agent nails a $100,000 contract for you for a biography you're dying to write. Sounds good, huh? But run the math: First, subtract the agent's fee (10-15%), and then subtract taxes. You've got to write the book on the, say, $55,000ish that remains. Keep in mind that almost all books take longer to write and publish than expected. But, heck, you're a fast worker -- it'll only take you 3 years. That means you'll be living on $17,000 a year. And wait: you've gotta do some research -- what's a biography without research? Visiting some archives, interviewing whoever's still alive ... Guess where the money for these travels and adventures comes from? Your own pocket.

As a consequence of these sorts of realities, most serious-nonfiction writers either hold down fulltime day jobs (healthcare!) and do their writing during the evening and on weekends (whoops, there goes the private life!), or spend a lot of the time that they'd like to spend writing chasing down grants, fellowships, and stretches at writer's colonies instead. (This bunch is usually very worried about health care. See my posting on health care and the arts here.)

Not long ago, I ran into a woman acquaintance I hadn't seen in years, during which time she'd written a first-class biography of a famous man. We bumped into each other shortly after her book had been released, and I assumed she was basking in the good reviews, and exultant about the way her publisher was promoting the book. "This must give you a great feeling, as well as a great platform into your next book, no?" I said.

She rolled her eyes and told me emphatically that she was never going to write another book. "What I'm looking for now is a nice little not-too-demanding job with an office, regular hours, a health plan, and a regular paycheck," she said.

Fact #3: The people in trade-book publishing who make the money generally aren't the authors.

For years I attended the annual books convention, now known as BEA -- the get-together where publishers present their upcoming books to booksellers. It's a lot of fun, as many conventions are, but it's also an eye-opener. I remember walking through the doors at my very first books convention and stopping dead-still. There before me was an immense floor full of what might have been an electronics-industry get-together, or a travel-industry convention -- a July 4th-style parade of booths, suits, smiles, posters, and business cards. I remember thinking, "Hey, my English profs didn't tell me about this!"

There were a couple of thousand booths, most of them manned by a several people, and perhaps 10-20,000 visitors moving through the displays. Many of these people, it occurred to me, were making a living from trade publishing in one way or another. I pinched myself: And how many writers of trade books make a living from what they do? (Reminder: A couple of hundred.) In other words, very few of the people who create the products that these tens of thousands of trade-publishing-world people are making a living from manage themselves to wrest a living from the business.

What a bizarro field, eh? I can't offhand think of another industry such a thing could be said to be true of. Can you? Which leads me to conclude, if hesitantly, that the trade-book publishing industry runs largely on the dreams of readers and writers.

Fact #4: Writing a book isn't fun.

If it doesn't make a lot of sense to write a book for money, how about doing it for satisfaction? Many people imagine that they'd "fullfill themselves" (whatever that means) if they wrote a book; or that they'd get a deep pleasure out of the craft elements of the job. In fact, writing a book is a lot of work, and often work of a very tedious kind. It's heavy labor, more akin to building a house than puttering in your basement. (And no one builds a house purely for the pleasure of it.) It's certainly possible to write for pleasure and satisfaction, but seldom at that scale. Poetry, short stories, blogging -- all of these can deliver fun, satisfaction, and the pleasures of craft. But writing a book isn't something that can be done in a week or a month. It weighs on you; it's a bear to wrestle into submission, and it's followed by the (generally) no-fun publishing process. And then you've got to endure the almost inevitable commercial disappointment. Imagine going to all the trouble of building your dream house (by hand, naturally) -- and then people ignore it.

So why do people do write books? I come up with these possible explanations:

• Some hope to hit the jackpot despite the odds.
  
• Some have a dream about being an author, or taking part in "literature."
  
• Some are obsessed lunatics -- ie., they feel they just gotta.
  
• Some don't know better (these usually never write a second book).
  
• Some have other ambitions, and writing a book is a step along the way.
  
• A handful are determined to be trade-book authors as a career, and know what the game consists of, and have (or think they have) the tenacity, toughness, talent, luck and energy to succeed.

All of which leads me to a Blowhardish musing. It's such a pain to write books, it's such a bother to go through the publishing process -- what kind of person is willing to put him/herself through this? Answer: a very narrow demographic -- the obsessed and the ambitious. Exceptions allowed for (hi Hugo!), this would seem to mean that most of the books we've interacted with over the years have been written by people who are nuts. Let's grant that a few of these nutcases have talent and brains -- still: funny, no?

And this is a big part of why I generally celebrate digital media -- because the new tools give people from the non-nuts range of humanity a better chance to contribute and take part in the conversation that is "culture." How many such "normal" voices have really been heard in this conversation before? But these days, if you write and publish a blog, for example, the publishing part of blogging is trivial, at least once you've set the blog up (or in the especially inept case of the Blowhards, paid a good webteam to do the hard stuff). You can say what you have to say, press a button -- and what you have to say flies right out there and becomes part of the ongoing culture-thing. Never before in the history of blah blah blah. Very cool, in any case, and I'm going to follow how this affects the tone of the culture-conversation with interest. Blogs have already had quite an impact on journalism. What kind of impact will they have on the cultural world? (Huge, I hope.)

Over the years, a few people have asked me for advice about writing books -- fools! Still, I tell 'em what I really believe: Since you probably won't make money on your project anyway, why not do it in a way that minimizes your trouble and results in something that pleases you? How to do this? Publish your book yourself. (Self-publishing is a growing and happening thing.)

But why turn your urge to create into "writing a book" in the first place? You say you've got a story to tell? Well, why does it have to be a book? You'll burden your life with a tedious project for a couple of years, you'll probably overstretch your material, and then no one will read the results. Why not realize your project in a manageable and pleasureable way instead? Put in a month of writing, keep it to a compact length, and post it to the Web. (There really aren't many stories that need more than 50 pages.) It's certainly true that no one may pay attention to your work despite its being out there on the Web. But at least you'll have told your story, enjoyed the process, made your work available -- and you won't have ruined your life, or broken your heart.

No one listens to me, of course, and it's probably better that way. I confess that The Wife berates me (lovingly and charmingly, of course) when I go on like this. She says I'm being a killjoy. Lots of people dream of writing books. What a harmless dream -- why kill it? And she's certainly got a point. I, on the other hand, feel that my point isn't to crush anyone's dreams. Why not make this basic information available? But maybe The Wife is right. It's certainly true that, after 15 years of following the book publishing world, I do sometimes wish people would be a bit more realistic in their thinking and talking about books. But is that an awful wish? Where books and publishing are concerned, maybe it is, I don't really know for sure.

Best,

Michael

UPDATE: Please be sure to read the comments thread on this posting, which is full of lively thinking and reacting. Aaron Haspel adds a lot to the conversation in his new posting on the subject here.

UPDATE UPDATE: Alan Sullivan shares his thoughts and stories about writing and publishing here.

Tempted as I am to quibble with some of the asides and things like, "There really aren't many stories that need more than 50 pages." I must commend the overview you have presented. Which I think might give pause to those naysayers and malcontents who insist on trashing those people who have embarked on such quixotic ventures and lo and behold have a book in their hand to show for it.

I spoke to Michael Lewis the other day about his wonderful book Moneyball (which started off as a NYT Magazine article) In answering my inquiry about what he was going to do next, he offered, "There are enough books in the world. You want to write the ones that are good. The minute you write books because you need the income not because you think you have a good subject you should just stop. There are 60000 books published in this country every year and most of them are crap. You are making someone make a serious commitment, not the money but the time, to sit down with a book and enter this world. You want it to be good. You want the book to be special and they are not always going to be special but at least you want that to be the ambition."

The issue remains the same though, doesn't it? We would agree that most of the 60,000 books are crap but not which ones…

One more thing, I am happy to view what I find coming through my monitor as signaling a brave new world. The promise of this radiant has not so far replaced the great comfort and ineffable pleasure I have when I sit down with a book and turn its pages. And when I put it down I find it more than reassuring that the book is available to me when I am ready to pick it up. It may not turn out to be that way for my five-year old but it is hard for me to imagine that it will not be…

Posted by: Robert Birnbaum on June 7, 2003 05:56 PM

While in general I am sure you are right, there MIGHT just be one more category: the very talented and high-energy writer who can do several things at once. A fellow alum of my university is James B. Stewart, who went to Harvard Law, founded American Lawyer magazine, won a Pulitzer as the front page editor of the Wall Street Journal in the late eighties, wrote books such as "Den of Thieves" on Wall Street and "Blood Sport" on the Clintons and Whitewater, is now the editor of Smart Money magazine and a contributing writer at the New Yorker, and published "Heart of A Soldier" about 9/11, which was named one of the ten best books of 2002 by "Time" Magazine. He also makes time to read to the kiddies at the library in smalltown Indiana where his sister is the head librarian. Obviously, he is not giving up the whole rest of his life to just producing a book, even when he does produce one. Phew...now let me go do something else to feel completely inadequate....

Posted by: annette on June 7, 2003 07:11 PM

Michael,

Some years ago, I wrote a book--a picaresque humorous fantasy novel. I really did write it for fun; I'd always wanted to do it, and my wife Jane enjoyed having me read her the new bits. And I was marginally serious about getting published. I subscribed to Writer's Digest, I bought books on writing, I joined a writer's group. I sent the manuscript to Tor Books, as I respect their output, and I waited. The manuscript came back a week later, probably by return of post. And I thought to myself--none of the other big publishers really like to get stuff over the transom. And I could submit this to a hundred agents, over and over, and maybe one of them would bite. And maybe, just maybe, I'd get published. Do I really want to put up with that kind of hassle?

I decided (after just a little more hassle) that I didn't. I wasn't going to make any money writing books, and anyway I have a good job that provides for my family. So I put the manuscript in the proverbial bottom drawer.

Since then, I've begun four more novels, two of which I dropped after a couple of chapters, one of which I finished, and one of which I'm currently working on. Why? Because, while it's work, it's also fun. I like telling stories, and Jane likes what I write. And finally, just a few weeks ago, I did what you suggested in your post today--I put that first novel up on the web. (Or, rather, the first installment; I'm publishing it in installments.) It costs me nothing but a little time, given I've already got the website. Most people will ignore it, but that's OK; a few more will get to see it than would have otherwise, and one or two them will be entertained.

Posted by: Will Duquette on June 7, 2003 07:18 PM

I just to put in a plug for Will's book--I've read it in it's entirety and it's a stitch!

Posted by: Deb on June 7, 2003 07:31 PM

Very interesting commentary, Michael. I agree fairly strongly with you, and also with Robert Birnbaum. There is an awful lot of crap published every year, that really ought not to see the light of day. Every word of poor prose is painstakingly written by hand, by someone. A pity, really. The author has wasted their time offering a work to the world that should not have been written, and I perhaps have wasted my time by picking up the book and attempting to read it. It is a waste. Isn't it?

In my own (ex-)line of business, I see some parallels. Professional (performing) classical music offers a reasonable living to a small number of people in the world. In order to get good enough, and compete with the small handful of world-class players, a musician will have to spend many thousands, often hundreds of thousands of dollars achieving that goal. A starting spot in a major orchestra, is currently about $60,000 a year. Starting spots in the average minor orchestra is about $15,000 - $20,000 a year. Professional grade (string) instruments start at about $15,000. The instruments are merely the competitive edge. First class players have probably been paying for instruction and instruments (some of them) since they were five or six. Most practice (without pay) for many hours a day. Conservatories in the US turn out some 10,000 to 20,000 excellent players a year. There are 6 top grade symphonies in the country (in the SF Symphony class). Each orchestra has some 100+ players, who will probably remain with the orchestra for at least a couple of decades. What sort of person goes into the professional classical music performance industry, expecting to make a reasonable living? Sounds like the same sort of person that sets out to make a living as an author... Of course, unlike authors, it is very hard to convince an orchestra to hire you, if you are an untalented player.

Posted by: Felicity on June 7, 2003 11:34 PM

Michael,

A bracing and interesting overview, but I wonder...

Where do you get this number of "a few hundred"? Obviously, one can define some category of books for which there are only a few hundred authors, but I'd like to know exactly what that category is. Does this really include _all_ the novels out there, _all_ the nonfiction that's not an atlas, a medical reference, etc.?

I'm sure a lot of people dream of making their living as a fancy novelist. But probably a good fraction of them is practical enough to settle for dreaming of writing pulpy police procedurals, or something else a bit more commercial. Are you counting these people?

The thing is, I feel like there's a certain positive relish in your naysaying, which makes me suspicious....

Posted by: alexis on June 8, 2003 09:08 AM

Hey Alexis, You' ve got good instincts, and The Wife would agree with you about the "relish" thing, although I remain convinced (deludedly, apparently) that I'm just performing a public service. But glad to see you doubting my motives ....

Anyway, the "couple of hundred" figure was given to me by the guy who runs one of the big authors' organizations, so the figure's trustworthy even if I'm not. I can't imagine anymore more quaified to make a decent guesstimate than he.

I said to the guy, How many people in this country make a living from writing books? He said, Do you want to include all kinds of books? I said, No, just bookstore-type books. No textbooks, and let's not include people who write computer-instruction books. And he said, Oh, in the low couple of hundreds.

So yeah, the figure would include sci-fi writers, mystery authors, self-help authors, literary people, etc. The authors of all the stuff at the local Barnes & Noble, minus the computer section.

As I say, one of the surprises of the field is how many even very big names can't and don't get by on what they make from their books.

Can anyone think of a similar industry -- where the people who produce the product don't generally make a living doing so? I can't, but maybe I'm overlooking something obvious...

Posted by: Michael Blowhard on June 8, 2003 10:10 AM

Actually, I can think of one right off the bat.
Child care workers. I know this because I am currently doing a child care survey analysis on wages and benefits in Dane County, WI. The average salary for an inhome child care worker is roughly 15k--that's gross. She will work 13-15 hours a day, have no benefits (healthcare!), and getno paid vacations. And the corker is that it doesnt matter if you have a Masters in Early chidhood or are Mrs Joeblow off the street with only a high school education. Workers who care for kids in centers have it only marginally better--they may get paid holidays. Still no healthcare etc. And unlike authors or musicians, these are the folks who are taking care of the majority of the children in this country.

Posted by: Deb on June 8, 2003 10:19 AM

What a great comparison, fascinating. Thanks, Deb.

Posted by: Michael Blowhard on June 8, 2003 10:28 AM

I think some of this commentary is pretty darn harsh. "The author has wasted their time offering a work to the world that should not have been written, and I perhaps have wasted my time by picking up the book and attempting to read it. It is a waste. Isn't it?" Whew---that's quite a facial, Felicity. If I happen to not like one of your paintings, does that mean you should not have painted it and it is worthless? (A) There just might be people with other tastes than yours or Robert's in the world, and that taste just might even have value and (B) I think the process is as important as the result. Generating the book might have been a life-changing event for the author in some emotional way. I think it's rather cavalier for anyone professing to be a fan of the arts to give any effort quite such a brusque back of the hand, if that is what you meant to do. It's sure how it sounded.

Deb--those childcare worker stats are really sobering.

Posted by: annette on June 8, 2003 11:07 AM

I've posted a few thoughts on this matter.

Posted by: Aaron Haspel on June 8, 2003 02:28 PM

Another industry: acting.

Only about 1 in 20 professional actors support themselves entirely by acting. This at first occasions rather sad but heartfelt discussions as people struggle to make sense of the idea that they are "really" actors even if they can't support themselves acting.

I wonder if Wallace Stevens worried that he wasn't "really" a poet since he made no money at it.

Posted by: alexis on June 8, 2003 05:08 PM

Having just about completed the revised edition of a book (never another book! but maybe another edition, though that has been bad enough) I would like say that this is one of the most intelligent things I have _ever_ read about publishing, books & communicating ideas.

Even though I could offer lots of "buts" and "ifs" from personal experience, I would also suggest that anyone who wants to write a book should first carefully ponder Michael's "Read This First."

Posted by: David Sucher on June 8, 2003 10:22 PM

Good point, Annette. However, I don't try to publish (for money) either my drawings or my writing. I blog them instead, which gives me great pleasure, some artistic thrill, and costs me virtually nothing. If I write, it is there, if I don't, no worries, either. Nobody is going to my blog (unlike the bookstore) expecting anything (I'm pretty sure they don't; any more than I do visiting anothers site).

How about this scenario, though? Let's say, I like novels by William Gibson - a lot. I am in a hurry, I go to the bookstore, I see a new work by him. I plunk down my money. I start reading the book. It's dreck! It reads like something written to pay the bills. The plot is some weak pathetic clone of another work he wrote. I really wish he had not written it - I am really disappointed, I have wasted my money and a few hours of my time. Phooey!

You are right, though. That is a reactionary standpoint, of which I am not entirely proud. But it is mine. Yes, it might have been meaningful to the author. Yes, someone else might have thought it was amazing. But perhaps if the general quality level of published books were higher, people might develop higher standards of expectation. I may be talking totally out of my rear, and I should just appreciate that people read at all anymore.

Posted by: Felicity on June 9, 2003 12:44 AM

Over the years, I've hung out in the furthermost reaches of publishing and talked now and then with writers who are rather more in the thick of things. So I've wanted to comment knowledgeably on Michael Blowhard's initial posting, and even made a couple of attempts that I ended up deleting. I think MB said it all pretty well the first time. Even so...maybe I can add a few odds and ends after all...
1. Felicity said something above that may have put a finger on a major factor. That people read at all any more. It seems as though more people want to write a book than actually read books. The perception endures of the successful writer as the wealthy fellow who stays at home all day and makes lots of money by sharing his imagination with his legions of adoring fans. The fans are actually watching TV and the writer is in competition for a share of the declining audience that still reads for pleasure with a lot of other would-be writers who want in on this sweet deal, too. Did something like this happen to poetry, another field where there seem to be more people who want to write it than to read it?
2. Because I seem to have connections with the publishing world (I'm a translator in a very narrow niche market -- I know just enough about the publishing world to have some idea of the problems, but not enough to know how to get around them), friends and acquaintances sometimes approach me for advice on getting their mighty works published. Somebody I knew in college 30 years ago recently tracked me down for advice. He wanted to get rich and proposed to do this by writing techno-thriller novels in the manner of Tom Clancy. Though as far as I know my friend had never published one single paid-for word of fiction to date, he seemed to anticipate no particular problem in overcoming this hurdle. I could think of a lot of potential difficulties here, but decided to let it go at wishing him luck and declining to offer advice on the grounds that if I knew how to make big bucks writing techno-thriller novels just like Tom Clancy, I'd be doing it myself. But I don't think my old college chum is exactly alone in his perceptions of publishing...
3. At least in the science-fiction field, the theory used to be that success was cumulative. You'd write part-time in addition to your day job for some years, building up a following of loyal readers as well as a backlog of novels in print. Eventually, the continuing royalties from your previously published novels added to increasing advances for your latest works would add up to enough of a steady income that you could quit the day job and write full time. As I understand it, there have been changes in how publishers do business that have undermined this model for all but the most successful writers: books aren't kept in print as long, books aren't allowed to sit on booksellers' shelves as long, and as a result there's been a virtual elimination of what used to be called the "mid-list" -- the slow but steady selling titles that were an author's bread and butter. It seems to be getting more to the point of "Best-Seller or Die" for any given book. A working writer could probably explain all this better than I can.
4. Subsidy (or "vanity") publishers have long battened on the flesh of writers desperate to see their works in print. Self-publishing is an option if you know what you're doing, but it's generally thought that editors often serve a useful function as gatekeepers in seeing that incompetent works are kept out of public view. There is a woman in my area who has caused several of her own novels to be published, and she has managed to get them distributed into local supermarkets. I may be the only person who buys them. The novels are so hilariously inept that I send them to my literate friends as ... well, horrible examples of novels written by someone so tone deaf to how her writing sounds that she has a kind of charming innocence. The novels also make great fodder for dramatic reading at parties attended by science-fiction fans. (Imagine, if you will, a block of dialogue consisting of eight long sentences and covering nearly a page, and it's only after all that, at the very end, do you get to the "Joe said smilingly," and the answer to the question of who's been talking for all this time, not to mention the added detail that Joe was doing his talking while maintaining a grin on his pan.)
So, Michael (und der gute alte Friedrich auch), that's what I have to say about that...

Posted by: Dwight Decker on June 9, 2003 02:38 AM

Hi Robert -- Glad to hear you semi-approve of the posting, thanks for your thoughts. Like you, I'm touched by the quixotic quality in many writers, though I may be more annoyed by the dark side of it than you are.

Hi Annette -- Thanks for the reminder that giants still roam the earth. Where do they get their energy and concentration? Amazing, isn't it?

Hi Will, Wow, I'm in awe. I've met very few people who are able to write novels for pleasure. Plus you seem so level-headed about the activity. One of the cliches about writing that I've always thought had some validity was that part of what makes writing hard is that, unlike many of the other arts, it delivers no sensory feedback. Painting, music, cooking -- all feed the senses. Writing can be a gas, but it does starve the senses. (One of the consequences seems to be that, while painters, musicians, cooks, etc are often creatively active until very late in life, many writers feel that their powers start to go at about 60 years old...) Has this non-sensuality been a challenge for you?

Hi Felicity -- Great info and facts about the classical-music world, thanks. Wouldn't it be great if some good, open-minded sociologists and economists waded into the arts worlds and tried to make a little sense of them?

Hey Alexis -- Ah, acting, absolutely, thanks. Another crazy world and life that runs on dreams, naivete, delusions, hope. Talk about an activity that's really fun when it's happening, and a life that'll make you want to put a bullet in your head. On the other hand, having a little acting experience -- even if only a couple of years of acting class -- seems to be a great experience for many people. Dis-inhibits them, helps them learn some basic reading-behavior skills. Don't you find?

Hey Dwight -- Fab stuff, and oh so true, many thanks. I especially love the tale about the college friend with the techno thriller. I've had a couple of experiences like that myself -- people (often businesspeople) who are breezily confident that nothing's going to stop them from making zillions in the book biz. They just need a tip or an address or two, and they know they'll be on their way. So true as well about how few books people are reading these days. I've got friends who teach creative writing classes who tell me that the people in the classes don't read books! The publishing biz is having a hard time right now -- apparently almost nothing is selling really well at the moment. Just part of the general economic malaise? Or a reflection of some larger societal changes.

Sorry to say that since I got broadband, my own consumption of books has gone down. For an evening's reading, I'm as likely these days to sit at the computer and surf sites and blogs as I am to work my way through a book. I say I'm sorry that this is the case, but I'm not really sure I'm sorry. I've been thinking about it for a few months. When I've been doing mostly surfing, I'll start to miss the coherence and focus and depth of a good book. On the other hand, lordy it's fun to surf the web, and it can be mighty nourishing in its own way.

Does anyone else have reflections about reading books vs. surfing the web? Do you find one is better, one is worse?

Posted by: Michael Blowhard on June 9, 2003 03:33 AM

Surfing blogs is like having several separate conversations going with diverse friends all at the same time (time being relative) Some are grumpy (me!), some are genial (you!), some take a long time to get responses, some are pretty snappy.

Reading a newspaper or magazine is sometimes solitary, sometimes social: "Dear! Listen to this! What is the world coming to? This is remarkable!"

Reading a book out loud is not so much reading as it is performing. I understand what I am saying, but I am concentrating on clarity of speech, nuance of voice level, drama.

Silent reading, for me, is my entry into an alternate universe. I want to forget where I am, I want to be in the world of the writer. It is best accomplished in solitude, with or without coffee/tea/wine/food. I can read anywhere, but prefer to read where I will not be interrupted. I can get pretty irritable when I am shaken loose from my book. Reading is like a drug for me.

Posted by: Felicity on June 9, 2003 10:19 AM

Michael,

You said: "One of the cliches about writing that I've always thought had some validity was that part of what makes writing hard is that, unlike many of the other arts, it delivers no sensory feedback. Painting, music, cooking -- all feed the senses. Writing can be a gas, but it does starve the senses."

To begin, I rather expect that my writing isn't particularly sensual to begin with. (In the Meyers-Briggs world, I'm an "NT".) But in terms of sensory feedback, I get two kinds. Some history: I've been reading books aloud to Jane for many years now. I like to read aloud, and after all this time I've got reasonably good idea of what reads aloud smoothly. And if it reads aloud smoothly, it reads smoothly. (The converse is not necessarily true.) So I read any fiction I write to Jane as I go along. I get the aural feedback from reading it aloud, and I know from Jane's reaction whether it's working for her. In fact, I often make slight changes in wording as I'm reading it aloud, just so that it works better.

So I'm entertained while writing it, and while reading it aloud. And these days, Deb is getting to read stuff as it comes along, too, so that's additional feedback.

Posted by: Will Duquette on June 9, 2003 12:21 PM

Some notions that have gone unexamined in this polylogue are that "every one can write" and "every one has a story to tell" which translates to lowered regard for the craft (except by the people who attempt it). Then, of course, there are Writers— Ernest Hemingway, Norman Mailer, Truman Capote, Jacqueline Susan, Jon Franzen that Jack Paar or Dick Cavett or Jay Leno or Oprah or Katie chat up. Lot's of misdirected cues about writing…but that's another digression.

Consider this view of writing from Dutch Leonard in Get Shorty:

You asking me," Catlett said, "do I know how to write down words on a piece of paper? That’s what you do, man, you put down one word after the other as it comes in your head. It isn’t like having to learn how to play the piano, like you have to learn notes. You already learned in school how to write didn’t you? I hope so. You have the idea and you put down what you want to say. Then you get somebody to add commas and shit where they belong, if you aren’t positive yourself. Maybe fix up the spelling where you have some tricky words. There people that do that for you. Some, I’ve even seen scripts where I know words weren’t spelled right and there were hardly any commas in it. So I don’t think it’s too important. You come to the last page and you write in 'Fade out' and that’s the end and you’re done." -

Anyway, asking to reflect on reading books and web surfing seems to beg for categorical transgressions. I do not think anything is like reading books.

The Web, well, its noisy anarchical urgency has a high entertainment quotient and great research value. And it certainly provides the purest information out of the informational shit stream that an increasingly smaller corporate elite commands . And personally I appreciate, as a dialogist, the opportunity to engage in an anachronistic pursuit and actually find an audience for it. Who knew?

Posted by: Robert Birnbaum on June 9, 2003 01:02 PM

Are there other industries that have a ratio of paid creators to paid sellers comparable to book publishing? Yes, several that I have worked in:

Game design - Thousands of designers, perhaps as many as a few dozen who make a living (this neglects role-playing game designers, of which more later.) There are thousands of stores in the US alone that sell games, each of which has at least a few employees. There are more hundreds of people employed in printing, assembling, and distributing games. As for the designers, a distributor of my acquaintance used to tell prospective game designers: "Take $50,000 in cash and put it in a suitcase. Go to the middle of the highest bridge you can find and throw that suitcase as hard as you can. At the end of this process, you will not be worse off financially, you won't have a garage full of unsalable games, you won't have suffered the pains of trying to sell your game, and you'll be done years earlier."

Role-playing game design - Again, a few dozen people making a living, hundreds of others spending nights and weekends (or retirement funds) trying to make a living. Very similar to book publishing in the amount of hard work required, but there are many more self-published authors.

Hobby accessories - Whether model railroad scenery, after-market RC car pieces, or doll-house furniture, this is another garage industry (or set of industries).

The unifying theme seems to be that the people doing this are trying to find a way to have their fun and eat it too. 8-)

From an economic point of view, I'd guess that the combination of expected monetary reward (in the long term) plus the nonmonetary reward of working with your hobby (more illusory than real) result in people entering these industries with wildly inflated opinions of their own prospective success.

Posted by: Doug Sundseth on June 9, 2003 01:52 PM

2¢: While I think an honest look at the trade publishing industry is very useful for setting expectations of successful author wannabes, I'm glad that Stephen King's wife pulled "Carrie" out of the trash for one more submission; and I'm glad that Kurt Vonnegut dabbled in writing while being a chemist; and I'm glad that Alice Sebold was able to take a horrible event in her life an turn it into "The Lovely Bones." I know Michael's post wasn't anti-literature, but I certainly hope the next John Irving, if s/he reads this, thinks "feh" and keeps on smiling and typing. (Though personally I hope it does make the T.S. Eliots of the world to finally submit that job application to Wal-Mart.)

Btw, I've read/heard many times that overall readership of fiction has never actually declined. That it's a perception meme, but it's not backed up by facts. As many people read fiction now as always have (since literacy became common through public education, anyway).

Posted by: Yahmdallah on June 10, 2003 10:47 AM

Sorry Feleicity---I think my own comment was pretty harsh, too. I was in a bad mood on Sunday!!

Posted by: annette on June 10, 2003 11:14 AM

Hey all, it's sometimes hard to balance discussions of the actual economics of art with an appreciation of the art itself. Yet I find that understanding the economic (and psychological) realities actually help my understanding of and enjoyment of the arts. Seems to clear out some of the underbrush.

But maybe others don't feel this way. Dreams, romanticism, fantasies and even delusions seem to play an awfully big role for many people in how they experience art and culture, and I certainly don't mean to claw away at anyone's enjoyment. (An example: For some people, reading and enjoying a novel is necessarily or inevitably accompanied either by hero-worshipping the author, or by fantasies about being an author yourself. And why not?)

As I say, I've found my own enjoyment of the arts enhanced (and by no means destroyed) by becoming aware of the realities of the culture world -- the business, the character types, how things actually work, the conditions in which (and out of which) culture gets made. The clearer-headed I am, the deeper my appreciation.

I'm tempted to be self-denigrating here and say "but this could just be me." But it isn't, really. It's an example of the Classic point of view in art, something that doesn't get much play in discussions of art these days. It's so underplayed and unfamiliar, in fact, that it's generally assumed -- even unconsciously assumed -- by most people that "art" and "the Romantic point of view" are not just intertwined but more or less the same thing.

It's been one of the fun and helpful discoveries of my bedraggled, loser life that "loving art" and "sustaining a Romantic view of things" can be completely disentwined without doing damage to either. Although many people do tend to squawk when this is attempted -- it hurts them, they feel the magic is being torn from them. (Romantics tend to have a terribly hard time enduring the presence of Classicists. They feel hurt, enraged, affronted.) I'd agree that the Romantic magic is dissipated by Classicism, but I'd argue that the Classical magic is its own groovy kind of thing.

Coming up one of these days: a posting on the Romantic vs. the Classical point of view. But not till I get past my usual vagueness and inertia.

Posted by: Michael Blowhard on June 10, 2003 11:56 AM

Hey Will, That's fascinating, thanks. I've met poets and story writers who keep it alive for themselves via performance -- telling their stuff to their kids, or performing at poetry readings, etc. But I've never met a novel writer who does. There must be others, don't you think? Have you ever seen the John Boorman movie "Hope and Glory," by the way? It's an autogiographical thing he did about being a kid in England during World War II, and how for a kid it was an exciting adventure, and it's got all kinds of mythical and imaginative touches. I mention it because Boorman had been telling his children stories about his childhood during the war for years. And one day he realized, hey, this could be a movie, and then turned it into one. I'd be curious to know how you react to it.

Posted by: Michael Blowhard on June 10, 2003 11:58 AM

Response to Michael's question: Does anyone else have reflections about reading books vs. surfing the web?

I have posted something about this on my blog. Here's part of it:

There is so much to read and to look at online, it's like being in a vast storehouse full of treasures - literally acres and acres full of gold, jewels, and valuable artifacts - and you can only take as much as you can carry in your hands. You don't know what to choose so you just keep looking, briefly examining and laying aside one piece of treasure and then the next and the next and the next. The Internet is like that for me. I find many sites where I want to spend more time reading but instead I just keep on surfing and finding other interesting sites. I always plan to come back to them... "later." ...

I might actually be reading more now; it's only the routine that has changed. Maybe the availability of so much reading matter makes it seem like I'm not reading as much as I should. It has never occurred to me that I should try to read every book and magazine in the public library, but for some reason with the world's biggest library right here in the corner of my dining room I feel guilty about passing over anything I'm the least bit interested in. I feel I have to read it all.

Posted by: Lynn S on June 10, 2003 01:02 PM

Michael,

I've not seen "Hope and Glory"; I'll add it to the list.

I'd very much like to read your take on "classicism vs. romanticism"; I strongly suspect, if I understand how you're using the terms, that with respect to novel writing I fall on the classic side of the fence.

There's a school of writing that recommends that you keep a journal, and every day you should write in your journal. You should write anything that comes into your head, and make no attempt to edit it. The point is to shut down your "internal editor", that little voice that says, "This is garbage," so that you can truly express yourself. Then, so the theory goes, when you go to write something in earnest you'll write beautiful things and can go back later to edit out the grammatic infelicities.

I tried this, and it doesn't work for me. One doesn't write prose that flows effortlessly by writing without effort. I don't spend hours (or even minutes) stressing over every sentence, but I do strive to make my prose clear, easy flowing, reasonably concise, as well as consistent with the voice I'm using. And I do that as I go along. That's not to say that I catch everything, or that I insist that everything be utterly perfect the first time. But I find diarrhea of the brain to be a bad foundation for telling a story.

Posted by: Will Duquette on June 10, 2003 02:31 PM

Re: books vs blogs--

Books are the meat, pototoes and vegetables of my internal intellectual life. Reading blogs on the web is like coffee and dessert--ok for a treat but not something I expect to nurture or sustain me. Plus, the computer is SO limiting--you cant haul it around to read at the doctor's office, waiting to pick up the kids or on your lunch hour at work. I have yet to figure out how to snuggle up with one on the couch during a snowstorm and I will never be able to read one to my kids aloud. They're great tools and fun toys but that is it.

Posted by: Deb on June 10, 2003 06:31 PM

Deb,
I think they make gadgets now that enable you to do all that. ;-)
I know what you mean though. It's not the same as holding a book and turning pages.

Posted by: Lynn S on June 10, 2003 08:15 PM

Thanks for starting this conversation, Michael. I too have commented on my blog. Here's a link.

Posted by: Alan Sullivan on June 10, 2003 08:50 PM

Lynn,
I like feeling the heft of the book move from right to left as I read thru it. I like the smell of new books. I like their weight in my hands. I dont want to take a gadget to bed (no cheeky comments, guys!)--it's not the same as the real thing, ya know? :0)

Posted by: Deb on June 10, 2003 09:47 PM

Deb, I have that visceral thing with books, too. I always mourn the first crease I put in the cover. I tend to like to buy used books because of that, as they are pre-ravaged.

I read an e-book recently on my laptop, and what a pain and unhappy experience. Batteries draining. Balancing the thing on my lap or leg. Couldn't read in the sun. Bookmarks were a pain. Feh. Gimme paper.

My life is not complete unless I have a book to read at any given time.

Posted by: Yahmdallah on June 11, 2003 11:05 AM

I thank the lord every single time I get on a plane with a lightweight gadget, instead of 40 freaking pounds of damn books.

Posted by: j.c. on June 12, 2003 05:42 PM

Great discussion -- I read it through going yes, yes, yes, all the way. You have summed up the current dismal state of publishing perfectly.

Despite which: I am a well reviewed and utterly ill- paid writer (mostly "creative non-fiction" -- nature/travel/bio for lack of a better definition) with 4 or 5 books in print, and I can't think of anything else I'd rather be. I should add I haven't had a "real" job in close to 30 years, and have no independent income. I do write an awful lot of magazine work, from well- paying (Atlantic) to stuff that pays $125 a pop (newspaper book reviews).

You have to do it because you love it; you must -- otherwise it's really pointless. If you do, you do it because you must, and do on some level enjoy it.

One alternative to job versus starvation may be to live somewhere off the beaten track that is very cheap. I have lived for 22 years in a small New Mexico village 75 miles by air from the nearest city, and in a determinedly un-chic part of the state.
I live in a 100 year old stone house with 4 main rooms ( a nice piece of "Alexandrian" vernacular architecture) that cost me less than a cheap new car does today. My newest car is 13. My wife currently works part- time in the local post office. At times she has worked full- time, and often had no job at all. Our main expenses are books and travel.

And travel itself can help pay the bills. We have in the last decade spent time in London, France, Zimbabwe, traveled twice to Mongolia, and are heading for Kazakhstan in the fall. All trips were at least work-related, and the last 3 paid for up front. What other life would give me freedom to do what I like and write about it? A job that paid for a month here and there would take all my time...expensive!

Isolation was more of a problem 20 years ago. Now, with blogs, e-mail, and internet it's not even a factor. I "talk" every week with people in England, New York, Latvia, Finland, Russian, Kazakhstan and more. There is more info a click away than you could have had in, say, Victorian London.

Blogs (and websites, etc.) ARE dessert -- "Mmmm--bllooggs!" -- but also the best news and culture source there is. I can't imagine a week or even a day without Glenn, you, Roger Simon, Chris Muir, Fred Turner, and many more. Maybe I should start one -- though I fear total addiction..

I have written one novel – enjoyed writing it immensely, and couldn't get it published. But almost a half has gradually appeared in everything form glossy mags to an anthology to lit quarterlies.

Still, you are right -- it's no way to make money. But if you love it, and are any good, you will write and even be published, even in today's godawful publishing climate. I expect doing such things as "putting it on the web" will make a difference, and new and interesting alternatives will emerge. (Look at Andrew Sullivan's current pledge drive).

Thanks for letting me put up these slightly disjointed thoughts.

Posted by: Stephen Bodio on June 12, 2003 06:04 PM

Actually, I have not one story to tell, but many; some I make up as I go along.
But I tell my stories to whoever will listen (kids as well ad adults) and mostly there are only to happy to do so.I am too indolent to write it all down, but once in a while someone "borrows" my material, or "recycles it" it, occasionally even with attribution. So that is my immortality.

Posted by: nbryna on June 16, 2003 06:44 AM

I think it's okay to leave aside questions of media--print or electronic, it matters little. The only justification for cracking the spine or booting up is the payoff: Is there clarity of thought? Is an incisive aesthetic at work? Does the content supple your mind?

As for losing money, should we hesitate or desist because we fear being taunted as blockheads?

Happy Bloomsday.

Posted by: Adrian on June 16, 2003 07:51 AM

I would agree with the "50 page" theory. I never read books because I don't think there are many subjects out there that deserve book treatment, and I don't have time for somebody to cover their ass and stuff all the facts in a book. I always skim what I read anyway, so why not just chop it down and turn it into a little pamphlet or magazine article?

Posted by: Daoud Aruca on June 16, 2003 09:28 AM

On a somewhat semi-tangential note (*there's* redundancy for you!), some writers produce really engaging works in one genre or style, and much less engaging works in a different genre or style. One of my favourite sci-fi authors is Iain Banks, particularly when he's immersing me in his latest "Culture" tale. His imagination and story-telling are excellent. Curiously, though, when he tries his hand at contemporary fiction, I find his novels disappointing, and they seem to fall flat. His latest book (that I know of) is "Dead Air," about a self-involved, almost hysterically "liberal" radio shock-jock in London who leads a life that's personally quite destructive. Banks claims in an interview I stumbled across that he wrote the book in six weeks.

Yeah, it reads like it, Iain.

I've given up on his contemporary fiction, most of which strikes me as a Gawdawful mess, but I still like his sci-fi. It's almost as if the application of greater imagination for the technical "gee-whizz" side of the story requires him to slow down and think through the actual story structure and logic as well. His "Culture" novels are works of high art (though his most recent, "Look to Windward," felt a bit as if he phoned it in to his publisher after receiving a big advance for promising yet another "Culture" novel; still, it's much better than his contemp stuff).

Garth

Posted by: Garth Wood on June 16, 2003 10:36 AM

I have wished a thousand times that I didn't want to write (well actually I don't want to write, that's why I'm doing this instead of working on the writing I'm supposed to be doing). I have tried to do many other things instead of writing, but unfortunately, I've discovered that unless I am working on some writing project I'm unhappy. I've written enough now to know that there is little chance of making a living at it. I don't write the kind of thing that will ever attract an audience large enough and I'm too stubborn to write things that might. But, I have been ghost-writing and in this way I get to write stuff that isn't horrible (like when I did advertising and public relations) and some people get to have their names on books and feel as if they wrote them. Since I don't write for the name of the cover reason, this seems to work out rather well on both ends.

Posted by: Deirdre on June 16, 2003 10:51 AM

You make some interesting points that anyone who is serious about publishing a novel has already discovered. They're not actually reasons to not write, however. If you think one's ambitions can be reduced to profit centers, you would make a much better accountant than blogger.

Maybe it's time for you to get that CPA you've always dreamed of?

Posted by: flojin on June 16, 2003 10:52 AM

By the way, another real economic setback as well as a lot of work in the off hours (goodbye, private life) is having children. If you're into watching TV and saving cash, don't write a novel and don't have kids. Man, the kids really get ya.

Posted by: flojin (again) on June 16, 2003 10:56 AM

Dear Michael,

Thanks for your inside view of the publishing world. Among that many important things you had to say, the following comment caught my eye:

"Biographies? Serious travel books? Moneylosers for most of their authors. How so? Well, say you're lucky and your agent nails a $100,000 contract for you for a biography you're dying to write. Sounds good, huh? But run the math: First, subtract the agent's fee (10-15%), and then subtract taxes. You've got to write the book on the, say, $55,000ish that remains."

Unfortunately, there are vast numbers of individuals who believe that taxes and the huge government that results from it are good for us. How many authors would be able to suppport themselves if they didn't have to support millions of nonproductive government workers at the same time? How many government workers read? How many of them are so bored with their jobs at the IRS or the CIA that they're writing a novel in the hopes of escaping from their boredom? How many of the government thrillers are competing with other "art" to be published? Think of all the tax accountants and attorneys who make their living by pushing tax-related papers, who never produce any books, cars, houses or products that add any enjoyment to life?

The huge cut that the government sucks out of the markeplace at every level, the author's advance, the agent's salary, the bookstore's income, is money that creative people can no longer use to support creativity. It's time they don't have to write and it's money that they no longer have to buy the books that add value and enjoyment to their lives.

Yes, the money ends up in the hands of others and they will spend it. But what will the recipients of those tax dollars spend it on? Baseball? A wide-screen TV for watching football games? Will they spend it on great stories about the nature of existence and survival when their own survival is guaranteed by the money they can take at the point of a gun from those who produce and sell art?

Nobel Prize-winning ecomonist Milton Friedman noted in FREE TO CHOOSE that taxes distort markets. Once taxed, it is impossible to determine what real value is anymore because the price of something (the price paid to an author for his work or a bookstore for a book) is no longer an accurate measure of its real value to individual consumers. Markets become glutted with useless trash and real value falls by the wayside. Sounds like the book market that you described!

Posted by: Chip Gibbons on June 16, 2003 11:45 AM

As someone who has just finished writing her first non-fiction book, I agree with your economic analysis. I normally earn my living writing freelance articles for magazines and newspapers -- and now face significant debt because I simply stopped "work" to finish the book for 6 months. With only 24 hours in a day and, more importantly, only so many hours before your brain goes dead from thinking, analyzing and writing (and re-writing), something had to give. Oh yeah, making money. Do I expect or hope to get rich from my book. Long loud laugh. Why bother? I think the description of obsessed and ambitious works for me. When you write for a living as a freelancer and most editors now see writing as a commodity -- who can be gotten cheapest? -- a book is one of the few (only?) ways a writer hopes to diferentiate themselves from the gazillion other freelancers out there. In the move from journalist to Author, some hope, among other things, to budge a centimeter up the ladder of editors' estimation (and assignment list and pay scale.)I agree with Steve Bodio that you do it because you love it...I profoundly disagree that researching or writing a book is the intellectual equivalent of breaking rocks. Who's that masochistic?! Broke or not, this past year proved the most pleasurable of my 25 years as a journalist: traveling the country, meeting and interviewing extraordinary people, from FBI agents to felons to politicians, and the deepest, most elusive pleasure of all --- actually having the time (albeit self-subsidized) to think long and hard about a complex issue. (My book is on women and guns.) To those who sneer, "It's only a magazine article", it's not...telling a journalist to forever only stick to 3,000 words is like telling a painter to only use a canvas or paper 3 by 5 inches in size. There are many subjects that reward deeper examination -- and there are writers who wish to do so.
Self-indulgence? Ask Pocket Books. They bought it.

Caitlin Kelly
www.caitlinkelly.com

Posted by: Caitlin Kelly on June 16, 2003 11:55 AM

Dear Michael, What a rare, truthful, eye-opening article you wrote. Putting money matters aside, as in: pretend that part doesn't even exist, there remain so many traumas in writing a book for publication. I did so, exactly once, and it was hell.

I worked on my non-fiction book with passion, intelligence, but monomaniacal zeal. Gave up all social life. Gave up everything to get it 'out.' This took years and years from my life, for, as you say, for any book has to find its architecture, maybe the hardest part. And every word must be as right as possible.

Then, and this few can predict, since you never know how, as an author, you'll respond to the public view of your work, I obsessed on sales. It's much the way potential parents cannot guess or predict: what kind of parent they'll be--not to mention what kind of kid is coming.

Truth: I had a worse time post-publication than pre. I was a stage mother to my "good enough" book, one that rarely was found in the chain stores, one that did not hit the cultural radar screen. This, even though it was okay, or fine, or better than many that do make it. The ensuing obssessive/ bitterness about that "loss" was the real killer.

So, I would never re-do that crazy period of solitude and re-working, because I didn't know there was nothing at the end. The process of writing, the isolation and intensity was actually better for me than its aftermath. Post-publication was seriously edgy. Or, to use the child analogy again, it was like giving birth to a still- born baby, but not knowing that, not for well over a year. It, the book, did alright only on Amazon.com, where I watched it like a nutcase; I was a number freak. That is: until I just gave up caring.

Your words, true true, do, I think, have to be learned through the doing, and undoing, can't be believed in the abstract. I mean what you say must be viscerally understood. Which means the only people in on the joke have already lived through the pain, yes? no? Anyway, for me, publishing turned me into an ex-writer w/ paranoid/macabre fantasies about WHY I NEVER SAW MY BOOK. Though "good enough, somewhere in that vast, invisible marketing chain, it died.

Sure, it sold okay on the internet, but strange to say: the responses I got from readers never gave me even close to the satisfaction I got from writing little columns, where I knew my readers, got instant responses.

I'm so glad you wrote this article, also glad that Arts&Letters put it up front and easy to find, Michael. Because I did, DID, love writing UNTIL this bizarre non-event of publication. Now, I read less, go to bookstores less, live on internet more. And yet it's so hard to say all this to anyone who hasn't lived it, because many are enviably enconsced in writing their "great" books. Maybe my situation was worse than most: 6 years of research, 6 years from beginning the writing to publication, and then: nothing. Saddest for me?: That nothing can bring back those lost years, lost forever, and lost for what? PS: I was with a major pub house, with a big shot editor. Which meant nothing except how that subliminally fed the fantasies of wide readership, great reviews, which led to my later dismay, that depression and the confusion I wouldn't wish on anyone else. That said, I see some can't NOT write, what used to be true for me. Publishing essentially killed the writing. So I say: Publishing is the worse thing that can happen to most writers. Still: I miss the immersion in the process, strange to say. Thanks for opening this discussion. Hi to all posters here, From, An Ex-Writer

Posted by: Louise on June 16, 2003 12:30 PM

As someone who is contemplating starting (and, of course, finishing) a biography, I have to admit that the possibility that I could be the next Robert Caro has flitted across my mind. But I never dreamt that I could get _rich_ writing, unless I had a steady job as a journalist, columnist, or something similar.

Your comment about "50 pages," however, is--I think--dead wrong. While many fiction books go on too long, many nonfiction books strain to fit into five hundred pages (e. g., Caro)--even though every page is worthwhile, and hardly anything could be left out (although Caro could probably cut a little bit out).

As for the gentleman who wrote "I never read books because I don't think there are many subjects out there that deserve book treatment," might I suggest you think that because you are an unlettered boor?

Posted by: Paul on June 16, 2003 03:55 PM

To the discussion re books vs. blogs:

Not only do I read books and blogs, I also listen to books when I exercise - it can be sooooo boring - and read books on one of those cute little gadgets - pocket PC. I find that the situation determines what type of reading I do.

I find blogs definitely dessert! But am an avid reader of almost any mystery fiction. I've expanded my tastes somewhat, but that is my primary reading.

So, on the bus and at lunch; a favorite mystery. On the exercise machine; listen to lessons on how to enjoy music. Waiting at the dentist's office; my handheld. Early morning, over breakfast; latest pop science, book form. While waiting for a meeting with my boss; blogs.

A book for every occasion and an occasion for every book - yeegods, did I say that? Ow!

Judy

Posted by: Judy on June 16, 2003 04:30 PM

From my blog:

‘Gide dinner. Letters from young writers who ask if they should
go on. Gide replies: “What? You can keep yourself from writing
and you hesitate to do so?” ‘ --Albert Camus, Notebooks 1942-1951 (tr J O’Brien)

Posted by: michael helsem on June 16, 2003 04:37 PM

Obviously, being realistic is a good way to keep one from wasting time, energy, and money on fruitless endeavors. It is also a good excuse to never try in the first place. Here's to the professional musicians, athletes, writers, and entrepreneurs who took the risk, decided to try, and succeeded. While some of your talent is questionable, your devotion is admired. And here's to me and the rest of us who tried, failed, and now spectate, consume, and too often find solace in a mid-afternoon cocktail. Cheers!

Posted by: Carl Jung on June 16, 2003 05:05 PM

Books
Leave the lunatics alone...we need writers. Moby Dick sold only 3000 copies in the USA, and the critics were scornful of it. Jack Kerouac was rejected by every publisher on the east coast when he wrote On The Road...it took five years to find a publisher, and he was forced to make humiliating changes to it.(the ms has recently sold for two million.)But boy am I glad those guys stuck to their writing.
Gerry Evans...on my third book here in New Zealand!

Posted by: Gerry Evans on June 16, 2003 05:08 PM

Professional writer checking in here. Age 70. Been earning living writing since age 18. Do realize that the term "earn a living" is subject to interpretation, and maybe the most important preparation for a writing a career is learning to live on less than most people hope for these days, in return for enjoying your day's work. Which, contrary to some of your statements, is quite possible. Also another motive for writing books, aside from vanity, is that there's never been much else you could do. I earned better money writing for magazines back when magazines were rich and plentiful, and when they tanked I took up books, and now have some 14 to my credit - Endangered Pleasures, Secrets of the Cat, Wasn't the Grass Greener, They Went Whistling, Hail to the Chiefs, Bingo Night at the Fire Hall - next up, Gentlemen's Blood, a history of dueling. My advice on the boredome factor: write only about what you know nothing about and enjoy the discovery, and for the next book, find something else you know nothing about.

Posted by: Barbara Holland on June 16, 2003 06:07 PM

I think it's about time that writers started to realise that their work is a primary industry: it *creates* wealth. So they should action to hold on to more of it. If this means self-publishing/ POD/ vanity presses, then so be it.

Posted by: Simon on June 16, 2003 06:28 PM

Me the first time: Rabbi.

Had a decent, budding career, but thought I had something to say that had not been said yet.

Gave up the career (could not possibly do both) to write the new Jewish theology, "Torah, Tarot & Tantra: a Guide to Jewish Spiritual Growth." (Coventure, 1991).

Got a few dozen wonderful reviews in very obscure publications.

Total copies in print. 5000. Total earnings (advance + royalties): maybe $2500.

Me this time: Technical writer.

Had a flash of insight, knew something no one else had expressed so clearly and laconically. Wrote www.themeaningoflife.org.

Total hits to date: 220,000.

Now self-published by high-tech print on demand. You go to Google, you type "the meaning of life", there I am, number six out of four million.

Total cost to publish: $300. Total royalties to date: $83.

So it goes.

Posted by: Bill Blank on June 16, 2003 06:43 PM

Write and publish a book?
You try being a playwright...

Posted by: Bruce Goodman on June 16, 2003 11:12 PM

Another industry that I'm surprised no one immediately referenced: music. I read somewhere and will now repeat a wholly unverified anecdote about someone who compared a standord major label record contract with the terms of servitude for a 18th century Russian serf. Apparently slavery has rock and roll beat, at least before you factor in the sex and drugs.

Funny, cause I want to write but music is even more important to me than literature.

No matter how few ambitions I tell myself I have, reading this post--6 weeks out of college and two measly stories into my freelance career--has been one of those moments when I suddenly feel like I'm flying forward forty years watching opportunities fade and crises unfurl. But I have to stop and block it all out: I couldn't name many struggling writers that are important to me, but I can name dozens of people who make music, do not get paid enough to live, and to whom I'm eternally grateful. That's gotta count for something when I'm sizing up my own need to write against my rather tempered expectations.

One last thing, Stephen Bodio--4 or 5 books? How is it that you're not sure whether that fifth book is in print or not?

Posted by: Greg Bloom on June 17, 2003 12:29 AM

I guess I have to take offense at the fact that you don't consider computer book writers as Writers. (I write computer books.) We are no less writers than anyone else, and, in fact, there are several hundred people who make there living writing computer books. Like other professional writers, most computer book authors do other things as well: that ranges from writing articles for magazines and web sites to writing white papers for companies.

We have the same constraints and disadvantages as other writers, but these are compounded by the fact that the software or operating systems we write about has a limited shelf-life: usually one to two years. Sure, if a book sells well you'll get to revise it for a new edition - and that's where you make bucks, because you get a "full" advance for the new edition without doing all the work.

Best,

Kirk

Posted by: Kirk McElhearn on June 17, 2003 01:48 AM

Hi Michael,

As one of those "nutcases" who thought that they could write a book I found your article amusing and pretty accurate, although I do agree with Alexis about your motives being perhaps a little suspect. As a journalist who went freelance to write his first novel which is due to be published early next year, I knew what I was up against but I went ahead and did it anyway.

Why? You may ask.

Firstly, for me it is not about the money. I still get a kick out of seeing my byline in a nice glossy magazine. And a female friend who is also an author who has very much been my mentor, told me that when she held a copy in her hand of her first book, the only thing she could compare it to was the birth of her two children. I have read similar comments by other authors - Anna Quindlen is one who springs to mind.b I expect that I will get a similar feeling of pride and accomplishment when I get that box of a dozen complimentary copies fresh off the presses.

I think that for some people - and I put myself in this category - writing a book, or several books, is a way of leaving something behind. I remember listening to a radio interview with Margaret Attwood and she said that even though she enjoyed telling stories and other things about writing, if she was truly honest with herself she wrote because there was a part of her that wanted to be immortal, to go on and never die. When I heard that I got goosebumps, even though I suppose it is incredibly egotistical in a very Freudian way.

Secondly, I happen to believe that I will be one of the lucky ones. I don't expect to be an overnight success but as someone who has made a living from journalism for 17 years, I think I do have what it takes to make it in the long run. It is like the soldier going into battle thinking it will be someone other than him who doesn't make it. But even if I don't I have enjoyed the process and I will still have that book with my name on the cover to show for it.

I am also all too familar with the people who want to write because they think they can make money out of it and add insult to injury by admitting they don't read much themselves. I have got to the point where I think twice before telling someone outside of my immediate circle of friends and acquaintances that I am a writer. But I must admit that I have got great satisfaction out of taking the wind out of their sails by telling them the paltry amount I got as an advance for my first book. The crestfallen look on their face is, without exception, highly comical.

And of course, I must be a total nutcase because in Australia, where I live, the situation is even worse than that which you so ably portray. Australia has a population of about 19 million and an Australian writer not only has to contend with all the things you mentioned but also the fact that the market is saturated with English language books from other countries - although from a literary perspective there is nothing wrong with that at all.

We don't have Barnes and Noble but we do have Borders and a typical large chain bookshop will be stocked with books from other English speaking countries - the US, the UK, Canada, India, South Africa, the list goes on, as well as Australian books. And that's not to mention translations. Of course, Australian authors are not guaranteed publication in the US and UK markets although it does happen.

As a result, there would be less than 20 or 30 Australian authors making a decent living from writing and I am including those writers who have written a couple of books and used that to get into a university teaching creative writing.

But as I said. I am not really in it for the money. If I have to, I'll spend the rest of my life freelancing so I can spend that precious hour or two every morning on my latest novel. And you never know, one day I might just make the New York Times bestseller list and Steven Spielberg might give me a million dollars for the rights...

Lastly, to change subject coompletely. I know what you mean about getting broadband and spending time you'd normally have spent reading books reading bloggs etc. I have been there done that, but in my experience it doesn't last. When I first got broadband I spent a lot of time on the Net, but after a few months I realised that I hadn't read a book for months and that I missed it. So I started reading again and now it is a pretty rare night that I don't read for an hour before bed and I feel much better for it. There is a certain sense of satisfaction I get from reading a book that I don't get from keeping up with my favourite blogg, or even Salon.com for that matter.

Posted by: Darren on June 17, 2003 04:30 AM

Interesting discussion.

I adored Michael's post, mostly because it made me want to retreive my back-burnered manuscript and rededicate myself to my Fiction Project. This has to do with my being a perverse, stubborn cuss.

There are so many creative endeavors that simply provide no assurance of Actual Pay. This is the reason our parents and teachers kept repeating that wretched phrase, "someting to fall back on."

BTW, Yamdallah--T.S. Eliot worked at a bank. The members of the Bloomsbury group kept talking about taking up a collection so that he could quit that job--but they never quite got around to it. And how on earth can you argue with "The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock"?

I did, FWIW, give up writing poetry because I absolutely WAS NOT INTERESTED in participating in a media in which FULLY 100% of the consumers these days are also producers. I blog because only about 90-95% of blog readers also have their own blogs.

And I sing in a band because I cannot take it seriously. It's just for fun.

I like to read at night, but I'm also pretending to myself at night that I plan on sleeping soon. This used to mean looking through/reading magazines. These days it means blog surfing.

I will read non-fiction and occasionally some mainstream fiction. But I am very careful about actually picking up a murder mystery, because if it's good enough I will *not* put it down until it's done. Which is usually around dawn the next morning.

I try to get the flu a few times a year so I can read mysteries without guilt. Failing that I go to bed with a book and tell my husband I've fallen into a well for the next 8-10 hours, and to cope without me.

I'm a passionate-though-selective consumer, which might qualify me to produce. It might.

Posted by: Little Miss Attila on June 17, 2003 06:34 AM

Interesting discussion.

I adored Michael's post, mostly because it made me want to retreive my back-burnered manuscript and rededicate myself to my Fiction Project. This has to do with my being a perverse, stubborn cuss.

There are so many creative endeavors that simply provide no assurance of Actual Pay. This is the reason our parents and teachers kept repeating that wretched phrase, "someting to fall back on."

BTW, Yamdallah--T.S. Eliot worked at a bank. The members of the Bloomsbury group kept talking about taking up a collection so that he could quit that job--but they never quite got around to it. And how on earth can you argue with "The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock"?

I did, FWIW, give up writing poetry because I absolutely WAS NOT INTERESTED in participating in a media in which FULLY 100% of the consumers these days are also producers. I blog because only about 90-95% of blog readers also have their own blogs.

And I sing in a band because I cannot take it seriously. It's just for fun.

I like to read at night, but I'm also pretending to myself at night that I plan on sleeping soon. This used to mean looking through/reading magazines. These days it means blog surfing.

I will read non-fiction and occasionally some mainstream fiction. But I am very careful about actually picking up a murder mystery, because if it's good enough I will *not* put it down until it's done. Which is usually around dawn the next morning.

I try to get the flu a few times a year so I can read mysteries without guilt. Failing that I go to bed with a book and tell my husband I've fallen into a well for the next 8-10 hours, and to cope without me.

I'm a passionate-though-selective consumer, which might qualify me to produce. It might.

Posted by: Little Miss Attila on June 17, 2003 06:39 AM

I think there's only really three groups of people who want to write:

1. The nuts ( like myself) who really aren't good at anything else, never expect to make any money at it, but hope to create something worthwhile before they die. Any fame and fortune will likely come after we're dead, to our ungrateful children.

2. The idiots. These are the people who think it's easy to make money as a writer. They support the "writing" industry (dreck like Writer's Digest, "how-to get published books," most writing seminars, etc.) Because, gee, anyone can write, right?

These are the people who know that I'm an editor, and come up to me with some piece of crap book they haven't even bothered to spell check. They just want me to "read" it (ie, book doctor it) and then send it on to a publisher for them. Sadly, I am related to some of these people. I fend them off by telling them my book-doctoring fee is 8000.00 up front.

3. The hacks. Romance writers, bad genre writers of all types, self-help writers, and anyone else who writes-by-numbers. These are the worst to me....either they're too ignorant to understand good writing, or so cynical they don't mind churning out crap.

I would also like to note, the low rate of pay for both writers and childcare workers is based on the notion that people think these are easy, low-skill jobs.

Posted by: emjaybee on June 17, 2003 10:16 AM

As an aspiring author in the process of polishing his first novel, I'd just like to say that I have recently come to many of these same conclusions. (for the record I probably fall into the second catagory; the obsessed delusional author who dreams of pataking in "Literature." it's a harmless delusion and one I thouroughly enjoy).

I've recently been initiated into the Blogosphere and have resigned myself to anonimity. For the curious, I post short stories and thoughts at my blog, the Invisible Library (URL bellow) and soon hope to have my novel posted on the net as well. Maybe one day I'll self publisha nd sell the books through a website. Until then, I begin grad school in the fall and will live out my days with my wife and family, working as a librarian, writing in my spare time simply for the joy of creating.

Posted by: Keith Kisser on June 17, 2003 10:44 AM

Several of the concepts your article brought up have combined in my life.

I write some technical books, and have a website that I intended as a vehicle to share some things with friends and students. I started reading the top 100 novels, and put little reviews on the website. In addition, I wrote a few essays. I didn't intend to start a "blog", or anything like that.

My website has now been mentioned in USA today, and because one of the essays was critical of the Olive Garden, I've been getting fan mail and lots of hate mail from people all over the world. My love for reading books has suddenly made me known as a "writer" which was a completely weird thing, but I am sure enjoying the ride.

And I did write a novel. I am not going to try to get it published, because I am at least talented enough to know that it is not very good. But the feeling of accomplishment that I got when it was finished, the feeling of joy I get when I read it, or when a friend reads it, is incredible and certainly worth the effort that it took to write.

I hate the fact that, in this country, a thing isn't perceived as worth doing for its own sake. Do you like to sing? If you aren't as good as the folks on TV, you are told not to bother. Yeah, I wrote a bad novel. But boy, it was sure worth doing, and I think that everyone should write a book at least once, because it is a Great thing to do.

Doug Shaw

Posted by: Doug Shaw on June 17, 2003 12:02 PM

Responding to the point way above about childcare:
When I lived in San Francisco, it seemed as if every waiter and half the carpenters were 'really' artists of some kind - painters, actors, writers - or on a spiritual quest of some sort.

I was a carpenter/writer, and when our son was born we found a pregnant artist who wanted to run a small daycare to pay her way. Not being the kind to do things by halves, Sterret Smith had got a degree in child-something-or-other, and instead of actually living off her daycare income, it seemed as if she plowed it all back into toys and improvements (I built her a child-sized play loft, thus circulating our dollars nicely). I loved her paintings but was much more impressed by her childcare. She was truly a master in the art of starting children off in their lives. These kids had their imaginations stimulated every day, and learned how to resolve disputes without an adult's intervention (or with a minimal one) to a degree that still shows in my son's mid-teen years.

I began to wonder why there were so many young people waitressing or hammering so they could occasionally act or write, but few if any doing the same so they could be daycare providers. The latter seemed much more worth doing, or at least as worth doing, but we had all somehow absorbed the notion that it is an unromantic boring slog. For me, it probably would be, just as for some writing is pain and agony (whereas I have had months of ecstasy at the best points in novel writing) but for Sterrett it wasn't. Of course, she had endless dirty diapers, and the money wasn't good, and she depended to some extent I suppose on her husband, except that he was a freelance writer himself...

I wish childcare could be seen as more of an exciting area to work, money or not. Maybe there could be some way of starting an upward creativity spiral inb the field... Or maybe Sterrett should write a book about it... and suffer further penury.

Posted by: Dave on June 17, 2003 01:50 PM

I think, therefore I am; I write, therefore I think. So, to return to the original question, why does a person write? Either for money or pleasure, although often for both, in varying degrees. If you write full-time (newspaper, magazine, advertising, p.r.) generally you are paid. You also may earn brownie points toward possible career advancement. As you cash your paycheck, your ego is stroked. All people are driven by our egos after taking care of life’s necessities. If you write but don’t get paid for it, you feel good when it’s done and better when someone you love or respect reads it (lover, spouse, teacher, classmate).
So Michael’s caveats, interesting as they are, will ring a bell with the money-grubbers of the industry, not to the hobbyists, the vain, and the deluded (mea culpa). We don’t really mind wasting our time, knowing our reach exceeds our grasp (or what’s a heaven for?). We mortals pursue activities only when pleasure outweighs the pain. I made a living in journalism for three decades but am less invested in, or proud of, that voluminous output than I am in the few sorry chapters I am currently, painfully excreting at present, post-retirement. See Freud and Sade on the connection between pleasure and pain. Those of us who, in the wee hours, hit the keyboard or put pen to paper are first addressing ourselves, rarely the outside world. Mental masturbation it may be, but without the guilt. Even after we have delivered our load of crap – to an agent, to a publisher, to a desk drawer, to the wastebasket -- we have done no real harm. We have put a little excitement back in our dreary lives before it’s time to shut down.
--Robert

Posted by: Robert on June 17, 2003 05:16 PM

I think it's insane that the people who are moaning that book writers are not making enough money out of their books are nonetheless not buying my novel, The Case of the Cockamamie Killer. Damn you, go to the webnetlet.net web site and buy my damn book. Or go to the doingfreedom.com web site and read the review by John Michaels and then go to webnetlet.net and buy my damn book. What is wrong with you? Buy my book already.

Posted by: David Blade on June 17, 2003 08:31 PM

Michael - hold that thought. Poof! I just took your dust jacket photo. The book will be called "Why You Shouldn't Write a Book" by Michael Blowhard. The writing will be excellent funny provocative. It will tap into the longings and funny bones of book lovers and writing fantasizers everywhere. It will become a Best Seller. You will become hugely rich and Freidrich will sue for a share of the royalties. There will be a royal falling out and you will stop blogging forever…

Don't laugh. It could happen, this is America, after all. If I were an editor on-the-ball I'd be cruising the web looking for writers like you and everyone on this post.

I don't like the way you are always putting yourself down. Stop please. Good writing and writers are not so common that you can be allowed to indulge in easy self erasure. You are obviously a terrific writer an enabler, communicator. When a log floats in the ocean it attracts small fish, seaweed, a forming barnacle, a bored turtle and before you know it sea life has transformed the log into thriving eco-system. Look at your blog, look at your vibrant posts!

The trick is not to let the thing you love - acting, writing, music, etc - become an oppressive force just because you aren't presently at Carnegie, holding an Oscar, a juicy book contract etc. In fact I'm writing a novel, called blond eyes bllue hair, about that very theme...

Posted by: Doug Anderson on June 17, 2003 09:15 PM

I have spent the last hour reading these comments and had to put in a few of my own random comments:
Writing: It is work, and it is fun. It is also time consuming, and completely inexplicable to anyone who does not do it. However, I work within several mediums. I cannot find the equation between them (music, writing, drawing), however, each function for me as a means of using my intelligence, talent, ability, whatever, to produce something that gives me great satisfaction. But, once the thing is done, I must create anew. I must begin again. The process is then the goal.
Having not yet been acknowledged by this market, and having made great effort to that end (query letters to agents, to publishers, in regard to three novels), I can say that at the end of the day the one thing that keeps me doing the work is that I can think of no reason to not do it. I must do it, I suppose. I can pick up a favorite work and feel inspired in a way that I cannot explain.
Perhaps, after having spent the years of struggle, either quit in defeat and despair, or you will persevere, and believe that publication of your work will happen. Though this may seem ridiculous, I believe it is how anyone breaks through.
There seems to be the assumption that self publishers haven’t slogged through the efforts of traditional publishing routes, which is why they settle on self publishing. Or, there is an elitist assumption that anyone seeking advice from someone in the business, is naive or inept or worse, believing they could produce a work of fiction. Are they really that breezily confident? Or is it that they just enjoy the work and appreciate some knowledgeable advice?
There is the question: “Am I a writer?” Market forces are the weather to a writers successful journey. I am writing for a reader who puts their faith in me as a writer to provide something interesting, entertaining, and worth their while. I hope to instill their faith in my writing.

Posted by: Robert D. on June 17, 2003 10:20 PM

I just published my first (last?) book in January. (Pox: Genius, Madness and the Mysteries of Syphilis--Basic Books). poxhistory.com One of 60,000? Where did that number come from? If it is so difficult to find a publisher, how do 60,000 people a year manage it?

I worked on mine for ten years and it ate most of my life in the process. So far I've gotten forty positive reviews in splendid places and lots of emails from people who indicate that it was worth it. I love to fondle it (even squeeze it like a tube of toothpaste). It was a joy and a compulsion. And was it worth it all? Was it? Don't get me started . . .

Posted by: Deb Hayden on June 17, 2003 11:42 PM

Many thanks to all for the informative -- and heartfelt -- comments. It's always striking how much people care about writing and reading. One of the things we enjoy doing on this blog is opening up discussions about the actual experience of living with the arts, as creators and fans. What's it like? How to support the habit? How to find time for it? How to keep the passions alive? Etc, etc. Hard to do better than this discussion. Many thanks to all for pitching in.

A quick note to Kirk, who was miffed that I wasn't counting computer-book authors among the authors-who-might-possibly -be-earning-a-living: no disrespect was intended, and apologies if it came across otherwise. I actually have the greatest respect for technical writers of all kinds. Tough field, very demanding, yet a real field at the same time. I excluded computer-book authors for two reasons: one was that most people don't think of them when they think of "real writers," however annoying that fact is. The other is that my authors'-organization source didn't have a grasp on technical and computer-book field, so wasn't competent to give me the relevant number. But please accept my apologies if I seemed to be dissing the field, which was no part of my intention.

Posted by: Michael Blowhard on June 18, 2003 01:01 AM

Michael,

No disrespect taken for not including us computer book writers. It is a demanding field, calling for both technical expertise and wordsmithery to enable all the rest of you computer users to get more work done.

But just another comment on the Writer as participant in social structure. No matter how little money writers get, and how much time they spend, the