Hatrack River Writers Workshop   
my profile login | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Hatrack River Writers Workshop » Forums » Open Discussions About Writing » Career vs. Casual ("One-Book") writers

   
Author Topic: Career vs. Casual ("One-Book") writers
History
Member
Member # 9213

 - posted      Profile for History   Email History         Edit/Delete Post 
Which are you?
Which do you want to be?

Interesting if not completely objective blog by K Rusch.
http://kriswrites.com/2013/08/28/the-business-rusch-a-career-versus-publication/

Worth a look and a discussion.

Respectfully,
Dr. Bob

Posts: 1475 | Registered: Aug 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
extrinsic
Member
Member # 8019

 - posted      Profile for extrinsic   Email extrinsic         Edit/Delete Post 
Brutal, blunt, cruel, but mostly a pragmatic expository composition: argumentation. I don't believe that career writers or their agents negotiate publishing contracts that always pay off, for one. Not if the writing doesn't have a profitable price-value quotient. Too many manuscripts get rejected even for known writers. I also feel that Rusch misunderstands noncareer writers. Noncareer writers want the same returns from writing as career writers, just noncareer writers' manifold approaches to writing are more, so to speak, inconsistent and episodic.

I am a career writer, no question, making the bulk of my income from writing activities now for the past fourteen years. My published writing lifetime income is in five figures. My writing-related lifetime income is in six figures. I know copyright law. I know writing-related tax law. I know publishing and writing culture. I know the marketplace culture. I am fully conversant in writing and narrative theory, too fully for many writers' sensibilities but approaching satisfactorily conversant for my own ends. Holding me back is time to write and that one iota of creativity that escapes me: audience culture. I've taken steps to rectify both. Look out world!

Posts: 6037 | Registered: Jun 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
rcmann
Member
Member # 9757

 - posted      Profile for rcmann   Email rcmann         Edit/Delete Post 
I write because I am a writer. Even if I knew no one else would ever read it, I would still write. But I admit I like getting paid.
Posts: 884 | Registered: Feb 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MAP
Member
Member # 8631

 - posted      Profile for MAP           Edit/Delete Post 
I'm not a fan of Rusch or her husband. They have a very black and white way of looking at things. "My way is the only way" type of mentality that I find annoying.

There is far better writing advice and career advice out there that acknowledges that both traditional publishing and indie publishing are viable pathways to a writing career. I'm a fan of a lot of prolific published writers who are going the traditional route (in fact 90% of what I read is traditionally published). Both paths can work and both paths can fail. Get educated and do what feels right for you.

Honestly, I don't really fit into either of her rigid categories, and that to me is the problem with her advice. There is no nuance in any of her views.

Posts: 1102 | Registered: May 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
History
Member
Member # 9213

 - posted      Profile for History   Email History         Edit/Delete Post 
I admire both Ms Rusch and her husband as "career" writers and appreciate the sharing of their experiences and advice concerning both traditional and indie publishing. However, I concur that this particular article lacks objectivity--and is unnecessarily disdainful (almost spiteful) of "One-Book" authors--i.e. writers who have a career other than writing.

I believe she unfortunately "labels", pigeon-holes used to be the term, such writers in a manner I find similar to medieval Christians defining who/what are "Jews". [Wink] Being a Career Writer for all her life, Ms Rusch suggests she can also define who/what are writers who are not--and sadly fails in her unflattering generalization.

There are, of course, successful two-career writers: physicians Michael Palmer and Robin Cook, for example, and the late Michael Crichton. I will also suggest that many if not most Career Writers did not share her singularly focused experience but began by supporting themselves and their families in careers outside of their writing. Per pay scale statistics, in 2010 freelance writers had average earned incomes of $55K and only 10% earned over $100K, and 19% less than $29K [http://www.ehow.com/info_12124574_salary-scales-freelance-writers.html]. These are publishing "Career" writers.

I can appreciate why authors do not quit their day jobs.

One would think Ms Rusch would as well--unless, perhaps, she finds "One-Book" authors are her competition, "muddying the waters", and she does not consider them "serious" writers in their choice, desire, (or need) to engage in another career simultaneously.

I admit I'm a recreational skier, but my love and enthusiasm for the sport I believe is no less than that of a professional racer--only perhaps of less rabid intensity. There are other things in life.

What we all share as scribblers, I suggest, is a love and desire to write. Quantity does not equal quality though practice may (or may not) make perfect, to recall a couple adages. Experience outside of writing brings new and vitalizing insights to stories.

I'm a near end-of-career physician, an empty-nester; and
I am a recreational writer, a campfire storyteller.
I see no shame in this.

I write because it brings me pleasure. I love words and their crafting to depict the visions, thoughts, and feelings that at times possess me in the desire to entertain and to share my life experience.

Becoming a good enough storyteller to be published is a goal of mine, but not (and Ms Rusch may despise me for it) for money--although I'll take whatever comes my way. [Wink] Instead, I wish to write well enough to entertain, and perhaps share a little life-achieved personal wisdom, but mostly I wish someone who spends their time reading one of my tales feel it is time well-spent.

Respectfully,
Dr. Bob

Posts: 1475 | Registered: Aug 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Robert Nowall
Member
Member # 2764

 - posted      Profile for Robert Nowall   Email Robert Nowall         Edit/Delete Post 
I suppose being a one-book writer worked out fine for Harper Lee...maybe less so for Margaret Mitchell and Ross Lockridge...

Me, my goal has always been to sell one story...and then move on to the next goal, which is to sell another story...

Posts: 8809 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Owasm
Member
Member # 8501

 - posted      Profile for Owasm   Email Owasm         Edit/Delete Post 
I can understand the irritation level that Ms. Rusch can elicit in her comments. But she's oriented towards those who consider writing as a business as is her husband.

Her focus is on writing words for a living rather than writing for self-satisfaction or for 'art'. Since she has that orientation, the most important thing a 'business-oriented' writer can do is generate inventory. The more inventory you create, the more product you have to sell and as you add more inventory, that increases the demand for you old inventory.

If you, as an author, want to sell thousands of books, her approach has a better chance of success than developing a single silver-bullet novel. I'm more in her camp than in the one-book camp. Coming from a business environment, I believe she has the better points, if an author wants to make writing a career.

In order to make a living being a genre author, people do all kinds of things. Notice most of the big fantasy writers conduct workshops, seminars and blogs. Those do two things. They provide additional income streams and it keeps people looking at their inventory.


It doesn't mean a one-book or 'hobby' author approach is wrong, it's just that it is a different way of approaching the activity of writing stories. No matter what kind of approach you use, an excellent book still consists of the same elements, no matter who you are using to distribute your works.

Posts: 1608 | Registered: Feb 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Reziac
Member
Member # 9345

 - posted      Profile for Reziac   Email Reziac         Edit/Delete Post 
Basically she describes the difference between hobbyist and professional, in any field. One strives to do it well enough to scratch their own itch; the other strives to do it well enough to make a living at it. They may achieve equally, or not, but the pro has the edge at the end of the balance sheet.
Posts: 782 | Registered: Dec 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MAP
Member
Member # 8631

 - posted      Profile for MAP           Edit/Delete Post 
Owasm, I understand what she is saying, and I do think that is one way to work towards a writing career, but it isn't the only way, and that is what irritates me about her and her husband. If she would acknowledge that a "one book" writer can achieve a successful writing career, I'd have more respect for her.

This is the path she took, and it worked for her (I guess). It's great that she shares what she learned with others, but it is how she puts down others who take a different route which I find so off-putting. I'm skeptical of anyone who tells me that there is only one way to do things.

There are many authors who find success following her "one book" path (although no one perfectly fits into that category, and really it is just another slam against the traditional route), and they are not all the superstars like Stephen King and J.K. Rowling. There are many authors whose careers I admire that are in her "one book" category who are quietly working on awesome books that I love to read like: Holly Black, Maria Snyder, and Sarah Rees Brennan just to name a few, but there are so many others. So obviously this path works too maybe even better than her path, but that would take a statistical sampling to determine, but Rusch never gives any solid evidence to back up any of her claims. It is all anecdotal.

But here is a little data I gathered which still doesn't prove much, but I looked up the amazon ranking for a few of Rusch's books and a few of Maria Snyder's (who is not very well known, but did go the traditional route).

I typed in Rusch into amazon and looked at her first five titles that came up, and I did the same for Snyder and here are the results.

Rusch novel/amazon ranking of kindle edition

Blowback/96,961
Disappeared/114,982
Anniversary Day/77,037
The End of the World/228,400
The Impossibles/209,614

Snyder novel/amazon ranking of kindle edition

Poison Study/22,450
Fire Study/40,903
Sea Glass/148,132
Storm Glass/37,474
Taste of Darkness/15,451

Granted that this is only one distributor for their books, but Snyder does seem to sell better than Rusch from this one sampling. I know that a good portion of Snyder's sales go to her publisher and agent, so maybe they make a comparable profit or not. One of them could bring in more than the other, that is impossible to say.

But I for one admire Snyder's career more than Rusch's. I do want to make money and earn a living at writing, but I also want to be read. I don't want to earn a living on 100+ books that sort of sell. I want to make money on books that get read and loved and shared and discussed. Writing for me isn't just about making money it is about sharing my stories.

If Rusch's path is the way you want to go, then more power to you. I wish you all the success. But there are other pathways too that are just as valid. Life is never one size fits all.

[ August 31, 2013, 07:10 PM: Message edited by: MAP ]

Posts: 1102 | Registered: May 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Kathleen Dalton Woodbury
Administrator
Member # 59

 - posted      Profile for Kathleen Dalton Woodbury   Email Kathleen Dalton Woodbury         Edit/Delete Post 
One possible difference between "career" writers and writers who haven't quit their day jobs may be how each fills the "reservoir" that all creative people must have to draw from for their creative work.

While I'm sure "career" writers spend part of their work time in research, I have to wonder how much time they are able to give to actually living any other kind of life than a writing-career-oriented life.

Those who do other things than write are living those other things, and that living may enrich what goes into their "reservoirs" more than what may go in only through research.

I hope that makes sense.

I also hope that what I've said will be understood to refer to the more extreme ends of this particular writing spectrum. There is plenty of grey area in between the extremes, as MAP has pointed out.

I would also like to say that I love both Dean and Kris and consider them wonderful people who are trying to help others achieve success as they have. As long as their approach can help others, they should surely share it. But each writer has to find out the approach that is correct for that writer. Try what Dean and Kris recommend. If it works for you, great. If it doesn't, try some other approach, and keep trying until you find your own way.

Posts: 8826 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LDWriter2
Member
Member # 9148

 - posted      Profile for LDWriter2   Email LDWriter2         Edit/Delete Post 
Hmmm, I finally read the article.

I don't think I got out of it what most of the posters did.

As an example that she despises One book writers who anyone not so interested in making money off of their book. I don't think she does except perhaps with signing any old contract. She did imply she thinks people who sign bad contracts are stupid. But even a one book writer should be careful about contracts. Even if you aren't interested in money be careful. That goes for any area of life.

I hadn't really thought about two types of writers but I can see that. I've known a couple who just wanted a book or two published and I've known others who wanted to do it for a living. Of course sometimes a one book writer will turn into a career writer. Maybe even the other way around too. But that doesn't mean one way is bad.

There could be a grey area between the two. I could almost fall into that grey area. I think about doing it as a career but picture myself as a one book writer. I even thought about publishing enough books to cut back my work hours to four a day. Maybe be a radio DJ and a writer. [Big Grin] Remember here the term one book isn't literal. It could involve a dozen books but that the one book writer doesn't depend on writing as his main source of income. It's a secondary source. Where I work there was a guy who sing on the weekends. He made a few bucks and got free rooms when he and his wife went to the coast for a gig. He enjoyed it too. But his main money source was his job.

His son is more into singing as a career even though right now he seems to be half and half. His son is good, I have a CD of his.


I think all she was saying is that there are writers who have the same mind set as my coworker and they think differently than those who want a career. And we need to decide which way we want to go. Career writers have a lot more homework to do to learn all the business stuff too.


Oh she said career writers think of all ways to write--radio shows, comics etc... they also place paypal "tip" jars at the end of their blog posts. [Smile]

Posts: 5289 | Registered: Jun 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
extrinsic
Member
Member # 8019

 - posted      Profile for extrinsic   Email extrinsic         Edit/Delete Post 
Ms. Dalton Woodbury, I do understand what you mean about outlets for creative expression.

I'm also a creative and career driven artist in other fields. Writing alone doesn't fulfill my need for creative expression. Woodcraft: decorative platter and bowl turning and scaled-down dressertop chests of drawers are my woodworking fortes. I've won art show awards for my woodwares. I have no inventory because it sells as fast as I make it. Pottery: wheel, hand, and cast; earthenware and stoneware. Photography, graphic arts and design, printmaking.

I'd hoped to have woodwares ready for a substantial arts council grant application for plastic arts (2-D and 3-D fine arts) due in November. Work has gotten in the way. Next year's grant is for performance arts: fiction writing included. If I don't win an award, I can continue applying until I do.

Other forms of expression enhance my writing and vice versa. They are metaphors for each other. I create evocative artworks. Actually, the advice I give to also-ran plastic artists who ask me why I win and they don't is appeal, voice, and craft matter. An art object must at least evoke emotional responses, if not tell a story: appeal, voice, and craft. Craft-wise, though also appeal and voice; form, structure, and sensory textures must be aesthetically pleasing.

How does an inanimate object have a voice? For my woodwares: grain and figure textures, geometric patterning from assembling blanks out of many different pieces (as many as a thousand) and multiple natural-color woods, forms that emulate coopering, masonry, basketmaking, quilting, marquetry, and pottery, from bare wood to rough hewn to coarse sanded to highly polished, a variety of finishes from waxes to oils to varnishes, shellacs, and resins, and most importantly, shapes that evoke associations with and memories of shapes from antiquity, from classic and modern arts, from varying cultures throughout time and space, from nature, from the human figure. Oh the sesnsorily, tactiley voluptuous shapes of parabolic, catenary, volute, inverse, compound, oval, spherical, and recombinant curves.

----
There are two kinds of people in the world: those who believe there are two kinds of people, those who believe there should be only one kind of people, and those who know otherwise.

Posts: 6037 | Registered: Jun 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Robert Nowall
Member
Member # 2764

 - posted      Profile for Robert Nowall   Email Robert Nowall         Edit/Delete Post 
I think it does not matter to the reader whether the writer writes one book, or one hundred books. It matters to the reader whether they like what they're reading when it's right in front of them. Maybe the reader will buy more, if there's more to buy.
Posts: 8809 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
babooher
Member
Member # 8617

 - posted      Profile for babooher   Email babooher         Edit/Delete Post 
I didn't think Rusch stated that One-book writers couldn't be successful. I thought she showed how success is different for the two groups. I personally try to define success for myself and let anyone else kiss off.

Tomorrow I have a day off from work. I'm still getting up at 5 am to write. Ever since my boys were born, I got out of the writing business and only worried about it as a hobby. I used to write everyday with the idea that if I wanted it to be my job, then I had to treat it as one. I produced a lot more that way. I was a happier writer that way. Rusch's article reminded me about acting like a business, and this one doesn't give days off until at least a full year.

Posts: 823 | Registered: May 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Owasm
Member
Member # 8501

 - posted      Profile for Owasm   Email Owasm         Edit/Delete Post 
My only other observation on this subject is that my perception of the one-book writer is the person who takes years to get a manuscript together and then spends the next few years trying to get an agent.

If the author gets published because of that, it's a wonderful thing. If the author gets no interest in their work, then it's a lot of time that might have well been wasted and better spent writing other stories.

I've seen people fail and I've seen people succeed taking that route. More people fail than succeed since they aren't doing enough to practice the craft of writing.

Rusch and Smith are at one pole of the issue and I don't worship them. For example, I don't feel their attitudes towards marketing one's books is particularly cogent and not consistent with their activities. I haven't read a word of either of their works because neither write anything that interests me...but the key takeaway is I do feel that aspiring writers need to move on sooner than later to their next project.

Posts: 1608 | Registered: Feb 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Denevius
Member
Member # 9682

 - posted      Profile for Denevius   Email Denevius         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
One possible difference between "career" writers and writers who haven't quit their day jobs may be how each fills the "reservoir" that all creative people must have to draw from for their creative work.
I agree wholeheartedly with this.

The whole idea of being a career writer was more persuasive to me when I was in high school, an awful student, and the world at large was quite frightening to me. At the time, I didn't see it this way, but I did basically want to escape into a successful literary career as early as possible so that I wouldn't have to work.

Of course, how much does an 18 year old kid know about the world in order to form complicated narratives? And if you manage to hit the literary lottery at an early age, what often follows next except stagnation?

I've walked a lot of different roads in life, have worn a lot of hats, out of a necessity that I can't believe would have existed if I had reached the apex of my career as a writer at an early age. I think I'm fairly adventurous and curious, but there are many pursuits I would not have taken if I didn't have to, and there are a number of risks I took out of a sense of not being settled, and not having much to lose. However, the experiences I've gained from this, some good, some bad, have done wonders in shaping and maturing my craft.

I have often thought about how many books I would like to publish. It would be more then 1, but I think less than 10. And probably closer to four or five. Each individual has their own motivations, but I just can't imagine truly having enough to say to fill 10 novels. There just comes a point in time that your narratives are derivative of what you've already written, and I'm pretty desperate to avoid that.

There's nothing wrong with being a career writer, and many of the most famous writers across the world are/were such. At the same time, I think those prolific writers are really only remembered for a handful of their books. True fans of their writing will love all of it, but not the typical adherent. And since that's the case, I just don't see the point of producing a large body of work.

Being a writer should probably be more a way of perceiving the world around you and your relationship to it.

Posts: 1216 | Registered: Nov 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Robert Nowall
Member
Member # 2764

 - posted      Profile for Robert Nowall   Email Robert Nowall         Edit/Delete Post 
It started bothering me after I thought about it awhile...there aren't any financial figures to go along with this argument. I'd have to know what Rusch makes as a career writer, and how it compares to what I make in a career that has next-to-nothing to do with writing, and whether I could support an indulgent lifestyle on whatever Rusch makes...

Now, from experience, I know most everybody 'round here is somewhat reluctant to discuss "how much?" about their literary efforts...I haven't seen that many hard figures for the literary giants, and a lot of what I have seen is a long time ago...among the SF field, the only ones I've seen listings of earnings, year by year, were Isaac Asimov and Jack Williamson, and both stop 'round about when I was born...and the numbers were, admittedly, kind of depressing. (Then there's the horrors that were the literary earnings of H. Beam Piper, which was really depressing...)

Posts: 8809 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
legolasgalactica
Member
Member # 10087

 - posted      Profile for legolasgalactica   Email legolasgalactica         Edit/Delete Post 
Hmm.. I'm with LDWriter2. I didn't see anything so demeaning or any haughtiness in her blog. I thought she was quite diplomatic in her attempts not to offend.

The only ones she was really scathing about were the conniving publishers and agents who take advantage of inexperienced, uninformed, or overly trusting writers.

To me she was concerned for the writers who unknowingly throw away potential income and business in their rush to get published.

It seems to me good advice no matter your writing goals--signing good contracts, trying to perpetuate and multiply the income from every work you produce is good business sense whether you write only one or thousands of books.

So its not "career vs one book" or "traditional vs indie", but rather "good business sense--no matter your level of writing vs just getting published--no matter the cost".

[ September 03, 2013, 10:42 AM: Message edited by: legolasgalactica ]

Posts: 164 | Registered: Jun 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
extrinsic
Member
Member # 8019

 - posted      Profile for extrinsic   Email extrinsic         Edit/Delete Post 
Publishing business is far more complex than Rusch portrays. The break-even point for just making conventional books is two thousand copies. Less than ten percent of fiction titles published annually sell more copies, many less than that number. Actual royalties are based on an average ten percent of actual revenue. A publishing business model scale directly sells ten percent of copies at one hundred percent of cover price. The remainder are discounted to distributors, twenty percent to eighty percent discount. The average overall is about thirty-five percent discount. Actual royalties are about 6.5 percent of retail cover price. On top of that, remaindered copies returned unsold runs about forty percent average.

A $15.00 trade paperback, two thousand copies print run, sixty percent actual sales typically might earn about $1170 in royalties. Most publishing contracts provide a handful of free copies for the writer. Many writers want more, which their costs are deducted from royalties.

One writer I know of, the publisher sold twelve hundred copies of a two thousand copy print run. The writer received six complimentary copies and gave away an additional fifty copies, which earned no royalty and the cost was deducted from royalties at fifty percent of cover price, shipping included. Taking the $15.00 example above, that's $375.00 from $1170.00, leaving $795.00.

Additional publisher costs may also be deducted from royalties, any outside services not provided in-house; for example, editing, artwork, and some in-house costs, substantive writer changes made after galley proofs being number one.

Also, fifteen percent average of royalties goes to an agent, if one represents the product. First-timers are unlikely to place a book project with a traditional publisher on their own. Fifteen percent of $1170 is $175.50, leaving $995, minus 50 extra copies, leaving $620, minus $300 for cover artwork: What, leaving $320 for two years of emotional investment and a lot of hard writing work!? The publisher cheated me! I cheated myself, believing my writing is better than it actually is.

By the way, Stephen King's advance for Carrie, 1975, was $2,500, though the paperback earned $400,000 in royalties. King followed blockbuster Carrie with a series of short novels published under a penname, Richard Bachman, that languished until they were revealed as King's. Then they were rereleased and soared to bestseller status. One was made into a film, one has an allegorical parallel to a writing life, one was removed from print. The Bachman Books is now out of print in the U.S., though still available from libraries. Three of the titles are still in print in single editions.

[ September 03, 2013, 10:42 AM: Message edited by: extrinsic ]

Posts: 6037 | Registered: Jun 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
shimiqua
Member
Member # 7760

 - posted      Profile for shimiqua   Email shimiqua         Edit/Delete Post 
I love that post.

I think she takes it very black and white, very these writers are smart, and these writers are stupid babies, which I don't agree with, but all in all, that advice helps me, because I have more than one story to tell.

I like the advice to remember to dream beyond one book, to dream beyond one story, where your whole life is about telling stories. What a beautiful dream. I hope, and am working, to one day live it.

Posts: 1201 | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
RyanB
Member
Member # 10008

 - posted      Profile for RyanB   Email RyanB         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by MAP:
I'm not a fan of Rusch or her husband. They have a very black and white way of looking at things. "My way is the only way" type of mentality that I find annoying.

There is far better writing advice and career advice out there that acknowledges that both traditional publishing and indie publishing are viable pathways to a writing career. I'm a fan of a lot of prolific published writers who are going the traditional route (in fact 90% of what I read is traditionally published). Both paths can work and both paths can fail. Get educated and do what feels right for you.

Honestly, I don't really fit into either of her rigid categories, and that to me is the problem with her advice. There is no nuance in any of her views.

I've been reading Rusch's blog for a few months now. I'll admit, she's caustic. (Which is a good strategy to get noticed.)

From what I've seen she offers business advice almost exclusively (and promotional material for her own writing.) Her business advice is ... unique. That is, she offers a perspective and insight I haven't found elsewhere. (But it's not like I've seen everything that's out there.)

I wouldn't say her advice is "better" or "worse" than other "good" writing blogs. I do think you'll learn things from her (valuable things) you wouldn't learn elsewhere. And if that's all she does, she's worth reading.

Posts: 222 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Robert Nowall
Member
Member # 2764

 - posted      Profile for Robert Nowall   Email Robert Nowall         Edit/Delete Post 
I've heard at least one writer buys up the remainder of the print runs of his books (at a discount), then sells them himself (at full price), one at a time, as well as having them available when he attends conventions and such. If I got in a situation like that, I might try something like that myself...
Posts: 8809 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Reziac
Member
Member # 9345

 - posted      Profile for Reziac   Email Reziac         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by extrinsic:
What, leaving $320 for two years of emotional investment and a lot of hard writing work!? The publisher cheated me! I cheated myself, believing my writing is better than it actually is.

Or maybe believing the market for that work was larger than it proved to be.

But, yeah... I read somewhere lately that the average decent seller in the SF/F department only sells about 20,000 to 30,000 copies. Which is still about two bucks an hour.

Posts: 782 | Registered: Dec 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
extrinsic
Member
Member # 8019

 - posted      Profile for extrinsic   Email extrinsic         Edit/Delete Post 
I've said before that I track publishing stats. One of which is full-time, self-employed writers expend about six hundred hours completing a book, which sells in the 20,000 to 30,000 copies range, maybe two per year, or about 1200 hours expended writing, about another six hundred hours expended on various promotional activities, and another two hundred hours business housekeeping and keeping business books, totaling 2,000 hours per year, equivalent to a standard wage full-time year. That comes close to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics mean annual writer gross income of $60,000, or about $30.00 an hour before taxes (about 25 percent), before personal insurance policies (about 5 to 15 percent), before business expenses (about 10 to 25 percent).

The U.S. has about ten thousand full-time, self-employed fction writers who fall in that bracket. I'm not in that bracket as an editor but driving toward the prize.

Full-time fiction writers also develop an inventory of products that earn residual royalties from still in print but backlisted titles. Many successful writers also earn ongoing royalties from short story and excerpt reprints and writing about writing titles. Those stats are not easily expressed. However, established publishers make their bread-and-butter revenue from backlist and expired copyright titles.

[ September 03, 2013, 06:43 PM: Message edited by: extrinsic ]

Posts: 6037 | Registered: Jun 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MAP
Member
Member # 8631

 - posted      Profile for MAP           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by RyanB:
quote:
Originally posted by MAP:
I'm not a fan of Rusch or her husband. They have a very black and white way of looking at things. "My way is the only way" type of mentality that I find annoying.

There is far better writing advice and career advice out there that acknowledges that both traditional publishing and indie publishing are viable pathways to a writing career. I'm a fan of a lot of prolific published writers who are going the traditional route (in fact 90% of what I read is traditionally published). Both paths can work and both paths can fail. Get educated and do what feels right for you.

Honestly, I don't really fit into either of her rigid categories, and that to me is the problem with her advice. There is no nuance in any of her views.

I've been reading Rusch's blog for a few months now. I'll admit, she's caustic. (Which is a good strategy to get noticed.)

From what I've seen she offers business advice almost exclusively (and promotional material for her own writing.) Her business advice is ... unique. That is, she offers a perspective and insight I haven't found elsewhere. (But it's not like I've seen everything that's out there.)

I wouldn't say her advice is "better" or "worse" than other "good" writing blogs. I do think you'll learn things from her (valuable things) you wouldn't learn elsewhere. And if that's all she does, she's worth reading.

Perhaps I was too hard on her. She clearly knows her stuff, but the advice is so one-sided that it isn't helpful to me. I like more objective advice that doesn't push me in one direction or the other. That simply gives me the facts and the pros and cons of both sides (because there are always good things and bad things on both sides) and lets me decide instead of telling me what to do. That is just my opinion.

[ September 03, 2013, 07:02 PM: Message edited by: MAP ]

Posts: 1102 | Registered: May 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
legolasgalactica
Member
Member # 10087

 - posted      Profile for legolasgalactica   Email legolasgalactica         Edit/Delete Post 
If you follow her advice to protect your interests and make shrewd business decisions, it doesn't matter how you go about publishing your work. Her point was to focus on making sure you maximize your earnings from your work. That will not only accomplish the goal of getting published but also give you more income, options, control, readership, etc. Don't lose out on the backside just to achieve your front-end goals.
Posts: 164 | Registered: Jun 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
   

   Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Hatrack River Home Page

Copyright © 2008 Hatrack River Enterprises Inc. All rights reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.


Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2