Rant: Non writers live in a dreamworld.

[Sheilawisz]

I have always felt that the full-time writer thing is weird.

I directly work on writing only a few days a month, and a day of writing work means 90 or 120 minutes at most. This still allows me to produce the equivalent of a full-length novel (or several novellas) a year, all easy and comfortable. The idea of everyday writing work is strange to me because of reasons like these:

My work with stories is imagination in first place, telling in second and writing in third. This means that I can advance in my work with a story any moment, even if I am away from my Mac doing who knows what. Great sparks and clicks of story insight (Inspiration) can come when I least expect them, like when I am cooking or even cutting the grass in my backyard.

In other words, I live thinking up stories all the time but keyboard time is very limited, and still I am quite productive.

I think that this is why some very talented authors are able to keep a daily job beside their business storytelling work. I guess that I would have trouble with deadlines and contracts and other aspects of the industry, because if you ask me how long a story is going to take I am going to answer: Whatever that it has to take!

Would the publishers like that answer? Would it be good for the business?

Also, I get the impression that Artsy views are getting misunderstood in this thread: It's not that we think that money is irrelevant, what happens is that selling books is not the fuel and reason behind our work. We work on our stuff because of natural passion, enjoyment and personal expression, and we really have no choice.

If I was the only person left in the world, I would imagine and write stories anyway.

Would making it big in the fields of fame and money and signing autographs be nice for us? Sure! Can we live and be happy and satisfied without that? Sure, as well.

This starving artist that you guys have talked about sounds very extreme to me. If some people are really like that, it would be just a tiny minority of us artsy folks.

 

[LWFlouisa]

I have always felt that the full-time writer thing is weird.

I directly work on writing only a few days a month, and a day of writing work means 90 or 120 minutes at most. This still allows me to produce the equivalent of a full-length novel (or several novellas) a year, all easy and comfortable. The idea of everyday writing work is strange to me because of reasons like these:

My work with stories is imagination in first place, telling in second and writing in third. This means that I can advance in my work with a story any moment, even if I am away from my Mac doing who knows what. Great sparks and clicks of story insight (Inspiration) can come when I least expect them, like when I am cooking or even cutting the grass in my backyard.

In other words, I live thinking up stories all the time but keyboard time is very limited, and still I am quite productive.

I think that this is why some very talented authors are able to keep a daily job beside their business storytelling work. I guess that I would have trouble with deadlines and contracts and other aspects of the industry, because if you ask me how long a story is going to take I am going to answer: Whatever that it has to take!

Would the publishers like that answer? Would it be good for the business?

Also, I get the impression that Artsy views are getting misunderstood in this thread: It's not that we think that money is irrelevant, what happens is that selling books is not the fuel and reason behind our work. We work on our stuff because of natural passion, enjoyment and personal expression, and we really have no choice.

If I was the only person left in the world, I would imagine and write stories anyway.

Would making it big in the fields of fame and money and signing autographs be nice for us? Sure! Can we live and be happy and satisfied without that? Sure, as well.

This starving artist that you guys have talked about sounds very extreme to me. If some people are really like that, it would be just a tiny minority of us artsy folks.

Exactly. I once had a non writer friend, whom had the nerve to ask why I'm writing book if an EMP blast went off tomorrow, and nobody gives a crap about your book to buy it.

Of course he was a sociopath all around though, among other issues. But I'm not going to suddenly not write just because there isn't anyone to buy my work.

Keep in mind, in ancient times part of the art of storytelling was keeping social order in check, not earning a living.

I get similar reaction in my personal hobby, studying pen and paper ciphers. You have these people saying why bother with deprecated encryption, just borrow the source code from Two Fish. And the thing is, they seem to miss the point that modern day encryption would not be here if not for early encryption schemes. Even Whitfield Diffie, studied historical ciphers.

It seems like in any given field, there will always be someone that wants others that focus on the present along with them. Even if perhaps just because something is no longer in serious use, doesn't make it no longer relevant to know those skill sets.

What are they going to do when empires collapse, and they no longer have their precious computers? Meanwhile, I'm investing in an insurance policy.

Sometimes you got to tell the story that's a bit of a hard sell.

 

[skip.knox]

I do not write in order to make money. In fact, so far, I've spent more than I've earned.

That said, I do think there is another motivation that has not been mentioned. I write because I want someone to read what I have written. I am not writing solely for myself. If the world ended, I'm not at all sure I would keep writing. I might even go so far as to say it's not the writing, it's the sharing, that matters to me most. That is only one motivation; others have been mentioned here. The whole art vs money thing is a false dichotomy. We humans are more varied than that.

Even the money side gets over-simplified in these arguments (which can be found all over the net). For example, I do have a financial goal: I'd like to break even. To me, that would be success. Ironically, because I am retired, I actually have a ceiling as well. If I start making too much money a year, they start cutting my Social Security money. So I would have to go from making a few bucks to making about 30k a year; fall in between and I'd be back to losing money. Ain't life funny.

 

[Heliotrope]

I do not write in order to make money. In fact, so far, I've spent more than I've earned.

That said, I do think there is another motivation that has not been mentioned. I write because I want someone to read what I have written. I am not writing solely for myself. If the world ended, I'm not at all sure I would keep writing. I might even go so far as to say it's not the writing, it's the sharing, that matters to me most. That is only one motivation; others have been mentioned here. The whole art vs money thing is a false dichotomy. We humans are more varied than that.

Even the money side gets over-simplified in these arguments (which can be found all over the net). For example, I do have a financial goal: I'd like to break even. To me, that would be success. Ironically, because I am retired, I actually have a ceiling as well. If I start making too much money a year, they start cutting my Social Security money. So I would have to go from making a few bucks to making about 30k a year; fall in between and I'd be back to losing money. Ain't life funny.

This is the same for me. I'm like a lot of the people here. My grandmother paints water colors. She has for many years. She sells the odd one now and again at markets and shows. Sometimes she gets one in a gallery. You will never see her at a large gallery, or on prints at high end shops. She paints because she sees beauty in the world and she wants to share it. She doesn't care about the money so much, but she appreciates it when other people appreciate her art.

Like Skip, and my grandma, I'm not sure I would keep writing if there was no one to share it with. I write as self expression. I'm always the most motivated to write when it is for a challenge on this site, or for a contest that has explicit criteria. I love writing knowing someone is going to read it and that it is "for" something. There has to be a reason. I can't just write because it feels good. Part of my issue with motivation for my WIP is that I'm not sure anyone is ever going to read it, so I have little motivation to work on it on a regular basis. I have a day job. I have a nice family I like spending time with, so it often get's put on the back burner. But if a contest comes up? Or a challenge? I'm in.

For me, money would mean someone liked my work enough to pay for it. Money is the by-product of what I really want.... acceptance. Knowing I entertained someone. Then I know my job is done.

 

[psychotick]

Hi,

Strangely - I write for me. I wrote before I considered publishing. I write loads of stuff I know I'll never publish. And yet I publish and make money to live on. As I often say, I write for me and I publish for others.

Cheers, Greg.

 

[Annoyingkid]

That isn't what I meant.

I was responding to AK, and I was referring to those who choose to take the path of the struggling artist even to the point that it puts their financial well being at risk. Many of the people who take it that far do so hoping to sell their works and make it as an artist. If you're going to take a risk with your livelihood, you had better know what you're doing, and have a realistic assessment of your own abilities, and those abilities had better be there.

There are lots of reasons to write and that's fine. Just don't quit your day job, so to speak, unless you're damn sure your art is where it needs to be for that choice to work out.

Photo by C D
Photo by C D
Photo by C D

At the end of the day,past a certain point, people need to be allowed to make their own mistakes. There's a line between suggestion and trying to dominate another human being. I've met many artists who's practice I did not get to say the least, but telling them so and not to quit their day job, would be a comment that just feeds my ego over supporting them. Especially if I hadn't even seen their art. In every other field, people respect the limitations of their perspective, of their knowledge base, and their reality. We don't criticize the researcher for taking too long to learn science or do a research study because people acknowledge that they don't get what that involves. Yet just about everyone thinks they get writing and art. Everyone thinks they can just write the Great American Novel.

Drawing is different. People think they either can or cannot draw. They think that because it's about talent, that practicing for years is unnecessarily spinning your wheels. or a misguided form of perfectionism. If someone wants to lower their standard of living because they find value in making art that's not skilled, that's their life and their reality. If we don't understand what they get from their art, then how can we make accurate value judgements on how they should balance their life? We're fundamentally looking from the outside in. If we see their art as low on the value scale and they see it as very high on the value scale, then agreement will not occur and going beyond making a suggestion,into a persistent naysaying, or even mockery, becomes harassment and psychological bullying.

 

[Sheilawisz]

They think that because it's about talent, that practicing for years is unnecessarily spinning your wheels. or a misguided form of perfectionism.

Well that's one of the common misconceptions about natural abilities or talent.

The truth is that even if you have natural ability for something in particular, it still takes a long time of practice, discipline and hard work so you can develop all of your personal potential. The levels of dedication involved are something that not everybody can attain, and that's why I believe that having a true love for what we do is also very important.

In writing stories, sheer discipline to keep working on a story is a crucial part if you want to finish a novel of good size.

Exactly. I once had a non writer friend, whom had the nerve to ask why I'm writing book if an EMP blast went off tomorrow, and nobody gives a crap about your book to buy it.

Always print your stories, everyone! =)

 

[skip.knox]

I get that, Sheilawisz. Study the masters, as Dali said. On the other side, I also believe it's true that without natural talent, practice and hard work will carry you only so far. Someone who is tone deaf, for example, or who has no sense of rhythm, is not going to get far as a musician. I've watched people who were naturally good at drawing. It's like watching magic. I can sketch a face. What I cannot do is sketch recognizably the same face from another angle. Artists can. Despite my ability with Photoshop, it's why I hire an artist for my book covers.

As for the OP, I also recognize that different people require different levels of support. Some artists can labor in solitude; some can even work in the headwinds of criticism and mockery, while others need support and approval. This says nothing about moral fiber or such; it simply says there are as many different kinds of artists as there are human beings.

And yeah, as Annoying Kid annoyingly pointed out <g>, there are some human beings who don't understand artists at all. True enough. There are human beings who don't understand mathematicians or engineers or politicians or revolutionaries. Thus sayeth the poet: diff'rent strokes.

 

[Steerpike]

I think people put too much stock in raw talent. I agree with Stephen King that talent is cheap. It's nice to have, but hard work is what separates the "talented" person from the successful one. Much of what we see as "talent" in the authors we love is the result of a hell of a lot of hard work and practice.

 

[Steerpike]

I get that, Sheilawisz. Study the masters, as Dali said. On the other side, I also believe it's true that without natural talent, practice and hard work will carry you only so far. Someone who is tone deaf, for example, or who has no sense of rhythm, is not going to get far as a musician.

I don't know that I'd analogize these things to a lack of talent. Tone deafness is a neurological condition. A true inability to maintain rhythm, called "beat deafness" also looks to be a biological disorder. They're both types of amusia. I'm sure there are biological disorders that would render it very difficult, if not impossible, to be a good writer. However, when we're talking about talent or lack thereof, I think you have to set aside the cases where someone is suffering from a physical impairment.

I believe that with music, as with writing, anyone who puts the time and effort into it can become good. Sure, there are "geniuses" in any art--people who transcend what we generally think of as talented. I don't think you can learn to be a "genius" in an art. To me, there is something going on biologically. But the vast majority of successful writers are not geniuses. They're people who have worked hard to learn the craft and to be good at it.

 

[Russ]

At some level writing is a form of communication. I would suggest storey telling is the same. That to some degree requires an audience, who matter in the process.

I guess technically you could be your own audience, but that strikes me as quite hollow, and certainly would never require any development of skill or craft in story telling of any type.

 

[psychotick]

Hi,

Talent versus effort again? For me this is a fallacy.I think with certain exceptions everyone has enough talent that they can become a successful writer. And no one has so much talent that they can achieve this goal without a lot of hard work. Sure maybe some people don't need as much as others but nobody gets out of this without putting in the hours.

In both cases however, a third factor hits success and probably has a bigger impact - luck. You just never know what's going to be a hit. Case in point my sister has been complaining to me lately about an acquaintance of hers - another NZ author - who seems to be winning awards at the moment for her first book out of the blocks. She can't understand how a book so poorly written can do so well! Sadly I an. Right book in the right place at the right time. Talent and hard work simply can't beat that.

Cheers, Greg.

 

[Heliotrope]

I guess technically you could be your own audience, but that strikes me as quite hollow, and certainly would never require any development of skill or craft in story telling of any type.

This.

But I guess it comes down to goals too, if your goal is to just write nice little stories on a personal blog or in a journal in your house and never have anyone read them, it's just for personal fun, then it all doesn't matter. You don't need an audience and you can just indulge in you talent (or lack there of, lol).

If you want to submit to a contest or a challenge now and again and maybe have a poem or short published, or publish your own shorts yourself, then it matters differently. Then you have to work at it more and develop an audience (and your skill)

If you want to publish novels (either traditionally, or by yourself) then you have to be willing to put in a lot more work, both with building audience and with developing skill.

And I'm not one to put too much stock in talent either. Talent will get you so far. But hard work and determination are necessary if you want to be successful (if that is what you want). I have seen plenty of my students with "talent" go no where simply because they didn't want to put the effort in, and kids with less "talent" walk away with all the scholarships simply because they were harder workers.

 

[Devor]

I think I've been coming to a different perspective on talent, but it's still only half-developed, so bear with me a moment.

If you read a bunch of books, and with little to no other direction sit down to write one of your own, how well will you do? I think that this is what we usually call talent, and I think that's a mistake.

To me, the real measure of talent isn't your starting point but your ability to improve. If you write a story, and get feedback on it, how well can you fix it? Will your next story be better? Are you developing your creativity, your character's voice, your description, and the rest? How good can you get?

I don't take for granted that anyone can get there. I don't assume that hard work is everything. I think there's more to it than that. I think that real talent is an intuition that shapes your attitude, and that without it you're going to struggle.

 

[Russ]

I think I've been coming to a different perspective on talent, but it's still only half-developed, so bear with me a moment.

If you read a bunch of books, and with little to no other direction sit down to write one of your own, how well will you do? I think that this is what we usually call talent, and I think that's a mistake.

To me, the real measure of talent isn't your starting point but your ability to improve. If you write a story, and get feedback on it, how well can you fix it? Will your next story be better? Are you developing your creativity, your character's voice, your description, and the rest? How good can you get?

I don't take for granted that anyone can get there. I don't assume that hard work is everything. I think there's more to it than that. I think that real talent is an intuition that shapes your attitude, and that without it you're going to struggle.

I have never really thought through the meaning of talent. But now you have me intrigued. Will add this to the pile of things I am pondering these days.

 

[Heliotrope]

"Talent" for me is that raw, unquantifiable ability people have early on for a certain thing. Some people are very athletically talented, some musically. But talent is meaningless without skill development, IMO. I've used this example before about my kid. He is six. He wanted to play the fiddle. I put him in violin lessons. His teacher says that he "has talent." He uses an advanced bow hold, he picks up rhythm easily. He has an "ear" for tone.

But he is still playing "twinkle twinkle little star". That raw talent, without serious training, skill development, and practice, is not going to get him to the orchestra. He has to learn the skills and theory and put the time in.

This is one thing that drives me bonkers about (new) writers, and where I believe many new writers live in a dream world. They for some reason think they can get by on sheer talent alone and don't have to put any of the work in because it "ruins their art" or whatever. OR, on the flip side, they get a little bit of criticism and give up because they take the criticism to mean "lack of talent" instead of just lack of skill in that one area of story development.

That attitude would never fly in any other artistic field. It would never fly in any field ever. But for some reason everyone who has a tiny sliver of talent in writing can be the next whatever whenever their undeniable artist is recognized by the world.

 

[Steerpike]

Heavy buy-in to the idea of talent carrying the day is a form of elitism. It's the idea that I can get to point X but you can't because I have some quantum of talent that is missing in you. It's reductive, partly for reasons I stated above, and my guess is that if one really looks into it, one would find it is also rooted to some extent in privilege.

When you look at success as the product of hard work and perseverance, you're not only providing a more realistic view of success in the craft, but a more egalitarian one where people who won some kind of biological lottery for talent aren't held up as separate and above the rest. It's also a more respectful view of those already successful, acknowledging the efforts it took to carry them there.

 

[Chessie2]

I don't believe in talent either. What I do believe, however, is that some writers are inclined to write more often than others. The more the writer practices, the better writer gets. Talent won't matter. Honing the skills is what does.

Besides, it's a jungle out there. Maybe I'm too sensitive but I take issue with the notion that writing for money means a writer isn't artistic. At least, that's what I'm getting out of this thread. I don't even know why I care anymore but I do. Maybe because the folks saying they would never write for money wouldn't bat an eyelash and accept payment for their work. Maybe because it takes a different level of craft and understanding of humans in general in order to sell your work successfully, whatever that means. All I know is that I've loved writing stories since age 8 and I've worked and toiled to write engaging stories. Sometimes I fail, other times I get it right. Writing to market or for money means something different to every writer. I want to entertain so I think about the market/readers when I write. Why? Because I'm expecting people to pay money for my work so there needs to be value in it for someone else. I write mostly to share and add hope in other people's lives. I don't see how that's a bad thing.

 

[Chessie2]

I have always felt that the full-time writer thing is weird.

Not trying to pick on you here, but it's these sorts of statements that make me personally feel not welcome. You are a moderator. Why say this? What's so weird about writing full-time? Have you any experience writing full-time? How does that seemingly take away from being an artist? Don't you think that practicing writing all the time, like daily, means a heightened honing of your craft? Some of us work very hard to get pennies for our work. If it's so easy, maybe you could give it a shot? No disrespect, I'm truly curious!

 

[Heliotrope]

Maybe I'm too sensitive but I take issue with the notion that writing for money means a writer isn't artistic.

X a billion likes.