unless it's the act of writing, or what you're writing, that is causing the psychological problem:-) you sound very cheered, so maybe our musings have provided the kick you needed. hope so:-) sxx

You have all helped immensley, Thanks (maybe I shood learn to spell before I start too rite - or is that just enother exquse?)

Courtney,

I've never quite understood the differentiation that many people make between 'literary' and 'commercial' work and your mention of Shakespeare and Dickens are classic examples that the two are not mutually exclusive.

There is nothing wrong with saying 'I want to make my living as a writer' - christ we all have bills to pay, and if you don't want people to go into a bookshop and buy your work you might as well lock yourself in dark room and read it to yourself. Of course hone your skills, of course be true to your craft and to yourself, of course make it as good as you can - and then try and sell as many copies as possible.

Very best of luck

Harry

Courtney - I certainly never said that to write commercially was not a valid contribution! certainly not. i only questioned because as i said literary writing THESE DAYS unless you're lucky is unlikely to pay a great deal.

shakespeare wrote for the theatre

Dickens in a an age when people read serialized novels instead of watching Eastenders.

it's only wise to be aware (and i was merely asking, not implying) that literary writing is unlikely to compensate for the day job.

that was my only point. nothing more.

it's a sad fact.

I'm sorry, its just a personal gripe I have with art for arts sake and its all down to spending my time doing a theatre degree surrounded by post-modernists.

I have a strong passion that all art (and that includes literatue obviously) is for the people and not the critics.

I also have a strong belief that a happy writer is a good writer... and right now a little extra cash would make me very happy indeed, therefore... would make me a better writer

(Its worth noting that Shakespeare also wrote for the masses in the same way as Dickens, the only difference is that when he became popular he became the lap-dog of the royalty and started to write plays geared towards flattering them. Its also interesting that Shakespeare stopped writing after he had ammassed a huge pile of cash, fame and fortune. If you look at when he finished his last work and when he took his final bow there is a considerably healthy retirement period there... that suggests that either he wasnt writing for the art or he was burnt out or that he deserved an early retirement. To be honest I'm not the biggest shakespeare fan so I am quite glad he did stop writing when he did. Long live Marlowe!)

Courtney, there's nothing wrong with art for arts sake as long as there's no hypocrisy. In my frequent dealings with bands and musicians the cry of 'it's all about the music' is virtually a mantra yet none I've met to date have refused any royalty payments.

Terry mentioned coming from a different angle and I think this is the key difference. If someone sets out from day one saying 'I need money, I'll write a best-selling book.' then that's clearly a nonsense (and just as clearly not your situation). If someone writes a best-selling book and says 'Wow, look at all this money!' then I think they have every right to spend it all on drink.

Jon

Make mine half a pint of Cider (unless they sell it in shots?!?)

yeah but Courtney as I said all I was pointing out was that literary writing ISN"t going to garner loads of dosh. that's all. I am afraid you read more into what I was saying and yet without acknowledging my point - than was there.

Jardinery,

I do appreciate what you are saying, its a valid point and a point well taken. Sorry if you felt I wasnt taking it in. I will keep writing and see what rewards become me, be they financial or personal, and keep firmly in my mind that even writing for a commercial audience is a labour of love and not pennies in the bank

But Jardinery, Doesn't any writing falls into that trap these days? There are so many people submitting manuscripts that only a small percentage will be taken up at any level, be it literary or... what's the opposite of literary? It's a general problem in an area of creativity that is oversubscribed. Everyone has a problem selling:-) Shyama

agree but literary has LESS chance

<Added>

and it is wise to know that SHOULD anyone think they certainly will make loads of money in writing lit fiction

It IS a smaller market, but there are fewer writers submitting literary fiction - how does it work when compared in percentage terms, do we know? sxx

On a slightly lighter note I think it is also worth bearing in mind that there are less people reading and more and more people writting. When I think about it my mind boggles... I think that one in five people must be writting a book or something?!?

If the average agent is receiving maybe 70 books a week (and lets make this clear that we are talking about NEW and UNPUBLISHED writers and not the writers they already represent) and in a good year they may take on a dozen new writers then the odds are 1/280 that they will take a writer on.

Now as bleak as that seems all is not lost because we are just talking about literature (I mean books) here. There are so many other mediums one can write for. TV, Film, Theatre, Radio etc etc... you can write for the Net, you can write for the press, advertising, blah blah blah... There are so many possibilities now for writers, that is why there are so many of them and also why it is so competative.

Incidentally, if you want to write for money then I would reccommend writing for TV, less competition and better income, especially if you can write a sitcom. I think the lowest income is from writing plays which is a shame as this is my greatest passion. Competition is also fierce here because theatre tends to be a bit anal about what it will show and that is why at any given time you can find a Shakespeare production but not any new wrtiting.

I think its sad that new theatrical writing tends to be limited to London, Edingborough (I cant spell the s*dding place let alone get anything performed there! - my spelling might actually have something to do with it now that I think about it) and a few other cities. This is another issue I guess.

And before someone responds whinging that TV is competative, I agree it is but I think that is because of the money grabbers, there are many writers who I think are great but wouldnt consider writing for television because of the sensorship, hence why theres so much trash on TV, granted some good stuff gets through but I think many new writers who have something to say or a message to get across approach TV as a last resort. I know of well known theatrical writers who have written great programmes for TV but they were axed as they were considered too political etc etc...

Boy, I could waffle all day... shame I dont write this much

<Added>

Im not a last word freak honest... I just like a good debate!

Nothing wrong with writing for a commercial audience - nothing wrong with writing for any audience. Seems to me that in an ideal world you should have a book completed before you send off sample chapters, however if you're keen to send off the first three or so, an agent is the best plae to send them to. After all, you've got nothing to lose, really.

I know I'm coming at this quite late but I published an article on just this point.

http://www.writerswrite.com/journal/apr98/keegan7.htm


happy to chat about my experiences


AK