The real reason authors get paid nil: content saturation.
Another Roxane Gay® observation gets the Caleb jumping-on-board treatment. In her post over at HTML Giant, Gay talks about the James Frey writing factory, and how its existence speaks to the strange desperation of writers (particularly MFA-pursuing writers) to be published, even when facing little to no financial or celebrity gain. The following line caught me, and while powerful in its own right, my mis-reading is what really got me thinking. Brackets: MINE ( I had to insert something of myself into this statement as a meta-nod to the topic)
“The desire to be published, for some [reason], is so desperate and so intense they will do whatever it takes.”
Why?
Answer: We are trained to be ego maniacs.
The loudest, most boastful vainglorious attitude gets applauded while humility gets ignored. This is not surprising, as the very act of braggadocia is a stimuli. It doesn’t matter that silence (which implies humility) is the very nature of books. Reality TV continues to be made, and reality TV stars continue to get book deals.
Social networking and Blogging have taught us that even if what we have to say isn’t worth anything, we are for some reason less human if we don’t say it. And because the worldwide target marketing demographic thinks so too, those who say the most, the loudest, will find favor with publishers.
I’ve got to give credit to the reading populace, though. Books have managed to outlast other forms of leisure in terms of resisting the ego. First magazines. Then TV. Then Movies. But now, unfortunately, it seems books are only successful when they inspire the hope of a movie adaptation.
The truth is, not everyone has something worthy of wide attention. Yes, each person has something important to say, but often that thing is important to a small group of people (family and friends – which is where Vanity and Print on Demand come into play, but that’s for another post). Book publishing was at one time the main way give the widely-important IDEAS (caps intentional) a larger audience. Today, literally every thought, whether minutely or widely important, has the same range. I have as much potential to reach the world with my Tweeted fart joke as the President does with his Tweeted fart joke. Social blogging culture has simultaneously trained us to over-inflate the importance of our ideas AND give us a world-wide platform for those ideas. Hell, I’m a victim to this right now.
But as with everything, even idea saturation (and the vanishing author advances that comes with it) does have benefits.
As a physically weak man, I embrace that people are allowed to exist in their heads, now. Manual labor isn’t necessarily the common proof of societal participation and benefit. Words and thoughts are now as visible as sweat and dirt. You used to have to afford a suit and nice care to be thought of as beneficial to society in terms of your intellect. Now, a base understanding of HTML and an internet connection will do just fine.
And hopefully, if monetary gain becomes less viable, only the widely important ideas will rise.
![Pixar's 22 Rules for Storytelling [video]](https://calebjross.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Pixar-02-offsite-thumbnail.jpg)
Caleb,
I will engage you on this (and if such other post about ‘vanity’ and ‘self-publishing’ come up I will engage you on that, too).
Let me ask you the question that is not as often asked, but that is as pertinent as the one implicitly asked here by you (‘Why don’t authors get paid?”)
Why would authors get paid?
In the sense of ‘Why would they get paid to the tune of making not only a living but a hearty living (let alone a kind of celebrity living?)
Other than ‘Because it is what the market will bear” which answers in itself why some writers get paid and others don’t (and why this never seems to so directly reflect a degree of ‘literary importance’ or talent) what is the answer?
‘Because some writers get paid, all writers should get paid?’
‘Because talentless writers get paid, it follows that talented ones should, as well–and should more?’
What is an author being paid for, and to what degree? Did someone ask you to write the novel that is fruit of your personal thought and aesthetic, to take whatever time and energy goes into it, to–in effect–pursue something you enjoy because you enjoy it?
What is it, personally, that makes you WANT to get paid for your writing, even in the sense of simply assigning a cover price?
A sense of deserving it for the hard work put in, as just stated? Maybe. But, gun to our head, let’s ask ‘How much Work—capital W–is really, really put into a novel?’ A good amount, but let’s find an equivalent. You write a novel or some work, say it takes you a year–at what sort of hours for what sort of wage…what you write in a day someone else writes in a month, after all? Is it harder, more wage worthy work to write a novel than to clerk a shoe store or to rent videos or to detail cars? Considering you are beholden to nobody, what should someone else pay you for it–even if they find that ‘Your work can be made to make money’ how much of that is ‘them’ (publishers/marketers whatever) and how much you (your particular piece of writing)? If not Twilight, then Character Pieces? You state in your piece “No, of course not.” But you also seem to think it makes sense as the night follows the day that ones write and one gets paid–or SHOULD get paid (or, even further, one SHOULD WANT to get paid)…provided there is something ‘of value’ ‘of importance’.
One of the reasons a ‘literary writer does not get paid’ is that, historically, literary fiction was something that was not pursued as a paying craft–however much many people like to align writing to the craft to plumbing or pottery or architecture and construction, it is none of those thing. I would sooner ask that my garbage man be given a raise than ask for an advance-against-royalties. Or I’d ask that educators, for example, find better compensation to educate those I think will benefit from my ideas.
And is this what we do, as readers and as writers? We seek out ideas? Beneficial idea? Which are these and where in literature are they to be found? The ideas might rise–to where and to what purpose? G.K. Chesterton would be worried about this elevation of books, I think. Do we, ourselves, trained to be egomaniacal, as you suggest, or no–become self-declared important idea men, or do we leave this distinction of importance up to the opinions of others…of how many others…not too many I hope (Paul Blart Mall Cop is more widely known than Pontypool, Moon, Besieged Fortress, Dogville, and Squid and the Whale put together)?
Are important ideas in literature really lost under a pile of bad ideas, unimportant ideas—people are looking for important work but because there is so much out, so much garbage that is worthless and means nothing there they cannot find them? If these unimportant ideas–however they are to be distinguished from important ideas–were swept aside then folks would find Aristotle and Walter Pater and Epictetus and Honor de Balzc saying ‘Hey, yeah man, thank you for getting rid of the dregs, nobody was able to find us here… now you can read some real shit, over here’.
Also–to this tune of important ideas and the questions of which are they–Personal Dignity is an important idea, but aren’t books just pumped out about that?…Individual Freedom and Identity, Clear Headedness over Warmongering, Charity over Greed–important ideas…that almost every book in the world (slight exaggeration of that stat) and certainly every ‘literary’ book in the world are about. Do we need one such book to rise to the top? Is Saramago, really, writing something different than Caleb or Pablo or Jake down the block or Margurite Duras or Roland Topor or x or Y or Z person I have never heard of and never will? And if I find it in ‘Billy G’s work even though the same thing could be found in Kafka with an earlier copyright (even if Billy was directly inspired and halfway cribbing from Kafka) should I be directed away from Billy and ‘back to the original?’ Can someone say it better? Can someone say Caleb better than Caleb or can someone say something that, honestly, reducing Caleb to moot? Is it a vacancy of worthwhile subject matter in literature that we witness, or do we witness, instead, an abundance of voices speaking about what is important? (I was resisting using as an Important topic ‘being human’ ‘ones personal experience’ ones perceptions of oneself’…because maybe that will fall under the vanity press conversation, but it seems I have broken down and inserted it here, parenthetically). If there is such an abundance, other than to the bottom line—is this a bad thing, is this, people writing and wanting their voices read and heard, honestly something to lament or to nickel and dime?
If we don’t want celebrity writers, perhaps we also need to remove even hallowed and deified literary celebrities, admit that they aren’t talking about what a million other writers are talking about and that our personal aesthetic taste–mixed with marketing availability mixed with historical weightiness leading to more exposure to Hemmingway than whatshisname–as a readership does not really extend as far as to say Tolstoy said it better than Dostoyevsky said it better than Scott Smith said it better than Easton Ellis said it better than that crazy bastard whose book I can’t stand.
Are you really of the school of thought that if monetary compensation becomes less available LESS people will write or ‘only important people will write’ and ‘only important people will write important things’ and that somehow if there were only five or six writers the important people will be easier to identify? Literature—literary craft—predates literary-craft-for-renown-compensation-paying-the-bills etc.
(Also—this is in direct response to a thing you say—what could it mean that some people have something to say pertinent to friends and family, but other people to the world stage? Jesus. It’s a play on the term ‘vanity’ I like to bring up—what is vain? To write and produce a volume and make it available to those who want it, if they want, and to suggest here and there that people can have it if they want it? Or to declare you have rendered an artwork that is pertinent to every stranger the world over and that this pertinence, this necessity of grandeur of intellectual idea is what makes it worth monetary compensation and adoration and posterity? The Polio vaccine was a Good Idea, you know? It would’ve been a little bit dickish to charge for it– and it fucking cured polio. Wouldn’t it be a bit more hardcore to have the ‘important ideas’ be the ones who don’t argue contract points and peddle and take postures that they are the important ones?)
Fantastic as always, Pablo. I agree with so much of your idealism, the implication that writing should be above material goods, but I’m also a (sad) realist, and I know that money does buy time. That’s what I’m looking for: time. Currently I work 10 or so hours/day, leaving, if I’m lucky, 1-2 hours of ‘me’ time (after dinner, family, etc.) at the end of the day. If I can power through the exhaustion, that’s a few minutes for writing. The problem is, I have so much I want to get on paper. I want to map my brain. I’m fully aware that I could be shot tomorrow, and, yes this sounds egotistical, but my ideas would die with me. If I have more time in the day, I could get those ideas out. Getting paid for my writing (being an Author, proper) would allow me the time away from a consuming day job to purge.
The question “Why would authors get paid?” is an apt one, but perhaps a better one is “Why can’t a book be worth money?” Money is a near-universally accepted symbol of work (maybe that’s the real idealism of this piece, I know). Can’t I trade my writing for someone else’s work?
I didn’t come to this desire to get paid easily (toward the end of the recently released The Velvet Podcast 009, Brandon Tietz and I debate a bit about the idea of being offered a LOT of money for a book; I would be very, very suspicious of that). I think ultimately I’ve come to understand the importance of context. As in writing, where context is so very important, the marketplace of ideas is also governed by context. Instead of fighting it, I want leverage it. In the context of the American market, $$$ equates value, to some extent (whether fairly or not). Something free is often seen as worthless (physically, yes, but intellectually also). Even just $5 for a book suddenly makes people pay attention where if it were free, they’d pass it up like a door prize.
I’d love to give my stuff away for free, but I’m afraid people simply wouldn’t read it if that were the case. Not everyone gives away true capital L Literature for free like you do. If people could ever consistently expect fine quality from free products, then the social mindset may start to change. But until then, most free things just don’t get attention. And without attention, any writing is worthless, both physically and intellectually.
Caleb,
Your question back with regard to mine is something much worth exploring so my apologies for giving it just a brief consideration here before moving onto something you touched on that is one my favorite little subjects, it obviously is not all covered by this little bit of response I am starting out with, below:
Why can’t a book be worth money?
No reason. Totally no reason.
To my philosophical slant—which does not call for all literature to be given out gratis, though oftentimes it strikes people that way (not you, I don’t think)—the pricing of a book, especially when it becomes something in the author’s hands directly or in the hands of a small press handling in an intimate way the works of indie writers, is something steeped in principle consideration. I come at this question through the method of book production I use so some of this thinking might not apply to people who utilize different methods—Cover Price is used as a gauge to make sure everyone gets a bit, you know? A book is $14 in general so that when sales to booksellers are taken into account everyone can squeak a profit—publisher, author, wholesaler, bookshop. If a book goes out to a store via Ingram or what have you at 55% of cover price the bookstore can get their bit, you get your bit, publisher etc. If you priced it at five bucks and tried to go through booksellers via Ingram (or any other way) you’d likely come up short on your end (with cost of production shipping, etc.) So the situation for a lot of indie sellers who don’t depend on booksellers or Ingram or any of it is one of principle—if the book itself doesn’t need to be priced at $14 to cover all bases, why price it as such? Certainly because one can—absolutely—the buyer/reader is used to buying from booksellers—electronic or brick and mortar—and so the pricing structure has taken a kind of root and if I can make a book for 3 and sell it for 14 that’s better than making it for 3 and selling it for $6.50. The question is one of what is the transaction artistically, what is the desire of the artist.
Which nicely segues me to my little obsession: Do people find less value in a free book?
I understand every side of this and have been involved in myriad situation I will not go into on the matter—what remains for me is a deep suspicion of this reasoning—I’ve never seen it, face-to-face, never seen someone say ‘Well this book I got free is pointless because it was being offered for free’ and in thinking about the fact that most publishers (large and small) chug out ARCs (free) and such things and then the age old library argument (not quite the same thing, but still germane to this discussion) it becomes more wobbly.
But above all of that is a counter example which I have seen and have seen often, a mentality I call the ‘Well, I paid, so I don’t have to read it’ mentality—this exists in a bookstore browser who really probably doesn’t feel compelled to read a book because they paid for it (it just doesn’t happen that way and nobody looks at all the unread books on their shelf and laments the 10 dollars here and the 13 dollars there…it’s not the mentality of a bookstore reader) and it exists even in the indie writer who shows ‘support’ for a college by purchasing a copy, maybe never to read it.
On that point, writer-to-writer books are often handed around free—to get peer critique, to get reviews, to get “blurbs” and all and I’ve never found this free exchange something that carries derision or a sense of ‘this is something I’m not going to take a look at because the writer gave it to me for free’. There is—this is about indie circles, in my experience—a pervasiveness of the “show support, buy my book” versus “show support, read my book” (there is the combo “show support, but and read my book” of course). And here I become a bit more personally specific about my philosophy:
As a writer and publisher, I think it needs to be admitted that active readership is just that: Active, it is something that the author is asking the reader to DO. If one just wants to know their book was causally browsed through, read and not considered, looked at by anonymous Jack and then who knows, then all is well and good. But if one earnestly seeks concerted, intelligent, time consuming interface with the work on the part of a reader the exchange is now two sided—now the author wants something and the reader is giving it. I’ve written essays and thoughtful, considered response on literature—it isn’t the same as thumbs up thumbs down, you know? It isn’t the same as asking someone to off hand assign a Star Value.
Authors need to respect the readers as intelligences and admit there is some direct touch they want from this—money is not the object and, honestly, if someone gives me five bucks for my book, that pays for my book and profits me a buck and then they go ahead and invest time and effort to give me something else I want—well…now I have taken form them without giving back.
Giving-it-away-for-free is not the same as putting it on a table with a Take One sign (or it isn’t always). It’s an investment in artistic interchange, in art-to-intellect interaction. Take the amount of hours it takes to promote a work– to slog it around, to post here and there and there, to get some purchases– and then think ‘Well, what if I worked an extra work shift equal to that amount of hours and used that money to buy copies of books that I will give to interested parties’—there is little to no equivalent difference, just a philosophical one.
So yes, an apathetic “Read it if you want or whatever” method of giving out a book for free is ludicrous, I think it is odd, don’t understand it. But, thinking that because someone laid down some money they will think of the book with more gravity than if they’d borrowed it from a friend or gotten it as a gift or found it on a bus and (this is important) started reading it and found it interesting is not something I think is real, it’s a rhetoric that I just have never seen made manifest. No one—at least I have never met such a person, Lord knows they probably do exist—ever seriously says “I’m so glad I spent that $14 dollars! This book was so worth $14 I don’t feel swindled!” and no one (same earlier aside) reads an entire book, dislikes it and says “Bah that book was not worth $14! (or if they do it is not said with utmost gravity, just offhand irritation…or if it is said with honest aggravation, if they really feel slighted because they’re short a few bucks for taking a chance on a book purchase, is this the sort of mind whose response you’re looking for?
Playing devil’s advocate, why shouldn’t “good” books cost more than shitty books? Same with movies. One cost them $150 million to produce, another only $1 million, but I can see either for $7.50. Yet at the amusement park I gotta pay extra to go on those premium rides.
I used to be a copywriter. “Paid to write.” But that had an assignable value because clients made money off the products/services I exalted, and my company made money on the markup of my services. Point being, the “ideas” present in nonfiction are easier to put a price tag on than the entertaining or philosophical ones of fiction (though nonfic can be philosophical, too).
I said in that podcast Caleb linked that I make more money in one day at my career job than I have for all the profits of my self-published book that took me four years to write (intermittently), two years to seek publication, and one year to promote. And I don’t care. I want people to read it, above all else. That’s my gauge of success: people reading it and then talking about or advocating it to others. Like Pablo said, someone purchasing it in support is one step, which I appreciate (though I’ve given away nearly as many as I’ve sold), but I don’t really care to engage them until they’ve actually read it. And I do feel insulted when even my “friends” can’t be bothered to take two evenings out of their lives to do so, given my above investment, and what I consider to be sacrifice. Opportunity cost.
I have a lot of other pursuits and hobbies in my life that are far more immediately rewarding than writing. I sought professional publication for two reasons: some external validation I’d been missing, and wider distribution. Not money, though if that did come, it would be yet another level of validation to be able to, as Caleb said, make that my career instead of my hobby. But I’ve learned what I always suspected: that I have neither the temperament nor the prolificacy to write novels for a living. Few do.