124
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] PhilipTheBucket@ponder.cat 4 points 16 hours ago

And you don't see that as a problem? If 80% of the people doing an important thing make nothing for it?

That structure exists for specific reasons, and can be undone with specific changes. Here's an essay that goes into more detail about all of it, including as it pertains to other vital activities like music, teaching and art, as well as writing:

https://pluralistic.net/2024/12/21/blockheads-r-us/

The article from my post was just a further deep dive into the nuts and bolts of how it impacts one other full-time practitioner of this important thing.

[-] chonglibloodsport@lemmy.world 9 points 15 hours ago

If nobody is buying their books then how important are they?

The structure is a mathematical one. More rain falls in large puddles than into small ones (and the rain makes large puddles larger). More asteroids fall into large craters than small ones (and the large craters grow larger).

[-] PhilipTheBucket@ponder.cat 4 points 15 hours ago

You didn’t read the link, did you.

The imbalance in people buying books, that make it mostly impossible to earn a living unless you happen to be someone both you and me have heard of, exists for specific reasons. Those mathematics are not laws of nature, they are consequences of how book distribution got rearranged in the 1980s, which produced a great holocaust of writers at the time, which is bad.

[-] chonglibloodsport@lemmy.world 8 points 15 hours ago* (last edited 15 hours ago)

I read the link. It doesn’t say what you think it’s saying. The perception you’re getting is that there are millions of authors out there, that they’re all writing full time, and that 80% of them are earning less than Monica Byrne.

There are simply huge numbers of books that essentially don’t sell at all. I’m talking about technical manuals, academic books in niche topics of research, and even textbooks for courses that only a handful of people take. We don’t need a system to support these authors because they’re not trying to support themselves by writing books. Rather, the books they write are basically a side effect of their day job.

The barriers for publishing a book are extremely low today. Most university campuses actually have book printing and binding services available which professors use to make textbooks for their courses. For unaffiliated individuals you can get a book printed and bound in China for extremely low prices (think cheap enough to print a hundred copies to give out as Christmas gifts to friends and family).

[-] PhilipTheBucket@ponder.cat 2 points 15 hours ago

It doesn’t say what you think it’s saying.

What does it say?

[-] chonglibloodsport@lemmy.world 8 points 15 hours ago* (last edited 15 hours ago)

It says she earned $3400/year since she began writing the book (2012) and that her book is in the top 20% of book sales. Yes, it’s an unsustainable amount of money to support yourself on, clearly. You could earn more money stocking shelves at the grocery store.

But here’s the thing: she wrote one book in a decade!

Nora Roberts, at the peak of her career, was writing one book a month (now she’s only writing one book every three months in her 70s)! And the great thing about writing is that it builds momentum: the more you write, the better you get at writing, the faster you can write a book, the more you build a name for yourself, the more sales each of your books get.

There’s no problem here. Anyone who wants to can publish a book! You don’t have to go through a big publisher and collect a tiny royalty. You don’t have to take an advance. Just self-publish and keep all the profits yourself!

Edit: I do want to say that I’m all for a basic income (implemented as a negative income tax). People shouldn’t be living on the streets and starving to death in the modern days. But that has nothing to do with books and there’s no reason to be sponsoring people to write books that nobody wants to read.

[-] PhilipTheBucket@ponder.cat -3 points 14 hours ago* (last edited 12 hours ago)

No, I meant my pluralistic link. What does that one say?

Edit: Sounds like talking is fun but listening is unacceptable. I never said that anything this guy was saying wasn’t true, just saying why it wasn’t the end of story, but I think he’s just not into hearing that.

this post was submitted on 24 Dec 2024
124 points (97.0% liked)

Work Reform

10144 readers
794 users here now

A place to discuss positive changes that can make work more equitable, and to vent about current practices. We are NOT against work; we just want the fruits of our labor to be recognized better.

Our Philosophies:

Our Goals

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS