http://enjoyment.independent.co.uk/books/features/article2347523.ece

Cath

Sobering reading Cath.

Perhaps, and I say this without tongue-in-cheek for a change, the majority of writers should accept that it is a hobby and look seriously into self-publishing. Ok, so that makes it an expensive hobby, but how much do we/our husbands spend on hobbies like fishing, photography, woodworking, or our motors in comparison?

If one accepts that there's no money in it, then breaking even or making a small profit from self publishing a few hundred copies - or via POD - starts to look appealing.

- NaomiM

I think artists have always had to make some of their living from other things than their core, creative activity. Singers teach, Architects build conservatories, photographers do pack-shots. Quite a lot of those things actually feed the creative work - I'm sure teaching does.

But it's very hard on the likes of Freely, and for that I blame the publishers to some extent. When an author's sales aren't as good as expected - I'm quoting my agent, here, - 'The publishers never think it's their own fault'. They just dispose of the mid-career author and pounce on the bright new hope instead.

Emma

That's interesting, Cath, thanks for posting.
Two things struck me.

"Publishers of literary fiction are not considering anything they don't think will get on to Richard & Judy," said one agent. "That has become everything."

Do you think this is true? If so then that's not a good thing, IMO. I read a couple of books from the Richard and Judy lists and didn't enjoy them. (And other ones that I did) I'm not saying that my judgement is any better than theirs but there will always be very different views about books and to attempt to target ALL books at a specific reader's taste seems to be a bad thing for the future of books.

I also wonder how many people would continue to write if there was no money to be made from writing and no chance of making any. If writing was purely for the honour of being read, would you still do it?

Tho' I've heard that same remark a propos prize lists too. The original success of Richard and Judy was so startling that I suppose it was inevitable that getting picked would become the prime marketing goal for a certain kind of book. As it goes on, with luck it'll just become one more important tool, and publishers will go back to having to think of other ways too.

And at least R&J are several books at once, and more than once a year. Much healthier than one Orange winner, say, and everyone else stuck in the outer darkness.

Emma

<Added>

And yes, I think I'd still write without being paid, as long as I had some means of getting my work out there to be read. But it would be much slower, because I'd have to spend more of my life earning my keep by other means. And work and writing together would mean there'd be very, very little left of time or money to be a human being with.

! also wonder how many people would continue to write if there was no money to be made from writing and no chance of making any. If writing was purely for the honour of being read, would you still do it?

I think the vast majority of us do ashlinn. Of course we live in hope of landing that big advance, but even for the majority who are published, the financial rewards are so paltry that, ultimately, it is for the honour of being read.

Emma, But in this article I detected a difference between awards and the R+J booklist. I've never had the impression before that publishers select books to publish on the basis that they will win an award. The books are published first and then the choice of longlist/shortlist/ winner is made.
But the agent in this article is saying that all literary books are selected prior to publication on the basis of their likelihood to enter the R+J list. Maybe I'm making too find a point but it did make me think. (BTW, would you have said that the books on the R+J list are 'literary'?)

Naomi, I don't know if this makes me a not-very-serious writer but I would stop writing, I think. It not that I have high expectations of making money out of writing or that money is a major motivational factor for me (I left a very well-paid job to look after my children). But something in the nature of the industry would change for me if writers were not remunerated for their work. It's a bit like the difference between being a servant and a slave. The job might be the same but there's a world of a difference all the same. The two-way relationship between writer and reader becomes one-way somehow.



<Added>

typo, ...too fine a point...

I understand that payment gives writers validation, ashlinn, but that does not stop a huge majority from doing it simply because they have a compulsion to write, and with no thought to monetary reward over and above an 'oh, that would be nice'.

Ashlinn, I think that's true to some extent, though publishers do go looking for Costa winners...

On a human level, I think most of us would probably create without payment, just like all those Sunday painters and passionate amateur musicians. But if everyone else in the booktrade gets paid, fundamentally simply because we supply what they need to run the industry, I don't see why why shouldn't be paid, along with publishers and accountants and assistants in Waterstones.

Emma

It would be nice to have a tax break, though. Do they still have that in Ireland?

Just on the R%J point, I've also had mixed feelings about their choices. I know it's probably a bit unfashionable to say it, but the original Oprah Winfrey bookclub suggestions are stonger, in my view. I have found some gems I might never have come across otherwise.

<Added>

R&J, of course!

Yes, in Ireland artists don't pay tax. And that includes U2. Lots of writers have moved to Ireland to benefit from that like Michel Houellebecq, David Mitchell and others.

a huge majority from doing it simply because they have a compulsion to write, and with no thought to monetary reward

Naomi, I'm not sure that I fully agree with this. I think that most writers, in their secret heart of hearts, dream of making a living (even a modest one) from writing even when they know that statistically speaking the chances are slim. And generally they think that their own chance of success is higher than average.
If that chance became zero then I think that a lot of writers would stop. Would actors act for nothing? Would painters give away their paintings for nothing? Would musicians give concerts every night without payment? I don't think they would and I don't think it's good to see the publishing industry going that way. Writing a novel is work, it's not all fun.

<Added>

Emma, there's a difference between the Sunday painters and writers. A Sunday painter, for me, is more comparable to an entertaining letter-writer; it's purely for pleasure, there's no work involved. But a painter wouldn't paint every minute of his free time just to give his painting away for free to a stranger which is essentially how it would be if a novelist wasn't paid at all.

the original Oprah Winfrey bookclub suggestions are stonger

Caroline, I get the impression that the Pulitzer winners are much more accessible novels than the Booker winners. And I get the impression that R&J are trying to cover different novel territory than the Booker - books that are well-written with a good story but ones that the average man or woman on the street could enjoy. Not a bad strategy, IMO. A lot of average readers will actively avoid Booker prize winners but would like recommendations all the same so that when they face oodles of books in the shop they have some basis for choice.
Oprah is a bit different in that she's not in opposition to the Pulitzer. At least that's the impression I get.

<Added>

Sorry, badly written, lots of impressions going on there.

You've lost me a bit there, Ashlinn! Sorry to be such a dense twit, but I thought R&J included some Booker nominees anyway? And is there some link between Oprah and the Pullitzer?
I think I need to go to bed now and rest my brain...

Sorry, Caroline, that was more of a marketing comment than a literary one.
No, there's no connection between Oprah and the Pulitzer, any more than there's one between R&J and the Booker. I meant that the first pair are THE American references in terms of a reading list as the second pair are THE UK ones. R&J tend to choose more accessible books that those that feature normally on the Booker shortlist for example. The Booker committee, seeing the success of R&J, have edged towards their type of selection so there is some minor overlap now. This is just my opinion though.