to all our professional writers here

[gp101]

I admire any of you who have published even one measly short story, which is no measly task in itself. But how many of you on this board make your living solely from writing fiction? Meaning, you have no other "day job" but writing your next masterpiece? How long did it take you to get to that point? What did you give up in your personal life to get there?

I'm not going to ask how much you make annually or per book, mainly because it's none of my business, and also because money shouldn't be the sole reason to write. But it would be nice to make enough to live comfortably so that you could just concentrate on that next project versus concentrating on bills, the kids' tuition, etc. By comfortably, I mean modestly comfortable, as in your fiction allows you to own your own home, take maybe one vacation a year, pays the bills, and allows for a few vices like baseball card collecting. Does this describe any of you? If so, how many novels, short stories, or other fictional tales do you have to produce annually to get there? How long did it take you to get there? How many different agents or publishers did you have to burn through before you got there?

A break-out best-seller would be great, but I think I'd be ecstatic if I had to produce a couple novels and a few short stories a year as long as I didn't have to work another job and my modest financial needs were met. Who needs the Benz? If the VW Passat is paid for and running well, then it helps get my manuscripts to the post office without any embarrassing glares from passersby.

And if you're at this level, are you really satisfied? I'd like to think I'd be. Or is it like a video game where once you graduate from one level of the game, or from one level of difficulty, you're just aching to reach the next level?

I apologize if I'm getting nosy.

[aruna]

I've been living for the past five years entirely on my earnings as a writer: advances and royalties. I sent two children to private schools and was able to get a mortgage on my own home, plus live fairly comfortably, with at least one holiday a year.

The problem is always never knowing exactly when money is going to come; royalties are paid half yearly, but that means nothing. Royalties due on 31st December often don't come through till June for vasrious reasons, and I've often had to borrow money to tide me over till they come, so that when they DO come there's little left! On the other hand, occasionally there have been nice surprises which came out of the blue.
But on the whole it has been very precarious and I'm getting tired of it. I need a big breakthrough or a nine to five job.

[Garpy]

Living off Advances, as opposed to royalties is the more predictable way route. For example if you have established a series...eg: crime genre....then it's usually nicely mapped out, 1 book each year, advances paid out on Harcover, paperback release dates etc etc. Then...if you do earn out on the advances, the additional royalty payments come as out-of-the-blue surprises. Which is nice.

So the trick is to establish a series. Standalone books seem to be an increasing rarity these days anyway.

[cwfgal]

I'm not supporting myself on my writing now because I haven't sold a novel for several years. I'll tell you how the money played out for me with the three novels I did have published in the 90s.

April 1995 - got an offer for the first novel for $10K. They asked for a synopsis for a second book and a week later offered me $10K for that one, too. But only half was payable immediately, the other half would come when the book was done and accepted.

July 1995 - Received $15K minus my agent's 15%, so it was just over $12K. Set aside half of it for taxes.

December 1995 - finished the second book. Edits started and the book was finally "accepted" in February.

April 1996 - I received $5K minus my agent's 15%, so about $4,250. Again I set aside half for taxes (and needed most of it!)

April 1996 - started discussing and writing a synopsis for book #3. Contract signed in June for a $30K advance, 1/2 "now" and 1/2 upon completion.

July 1996 - received another check for $12K+.

August 1996 - first book came out.

December 1996 - finished 3rd book, submitted it on 12/31, and began the dreaded editing rounds.

March 1997 - first royalty check - $23K after my agent's cut! Have to admit, it was pretty exciting. But then I set aside 1/2 for taxes (which I paid quarterly).

May 1997 - finally finished edits on book #3 and had it "accepted."

July 1997 - received another check for $12K+. (and the tax thing again.)

August 1997 - second book came out.

September 1997 - second royalty check. This was for around $6K. Spent a good month trying to decipher the royalty statements. Never succeeded.

October 1997 - After months of back and forth discussions and stalling measures on the part of the publisher, I basically got dumped. My third book was now an orphan but still due to be released in the summer of 1998.

March 1998 - Third royalty check and the first check to include sales of the second book. Another big one...$21K. Half went for...well...you know.

September1998 - Third book comes out. Received a royalty check for around $5K.

Over the next three years I received dribs and drabs of royalties. The biggest check was somewhere around $8K. All told I made between $40K and $45K off of each book. (They were paperback originals.) That sounds okay until you realize that I had no idea how much money any of the checks would be for except the advance checks, and each book's money was spread out over a period of about 3 years. And, of course, the tax thing.

1995 pretax income: approx $12,000
1996 pretax income: approx $16,250
1997 pretax income: approx $41,000 (the best year by far!)
1998 pretax income: approx $26,000
1999 pretax income: approx $12,000
2000 pretax income: approx $8,000

Ater that, the amounts were pretty minor: a couple thousand here and there. Factor in the fact that almost half of this money went to pay taxes and you end up with an income that has you living around or below the poverty level.

From 1998 to 2001 I fell into some great freelancing opportunities and made a very nice income. I was working on another novel during that time but then my agent announced she was retiring in 2000 and I was suddenly agentless. And I found that all the nonfiction writing kept pushing my fiction onto a back burner. Plus, when I did try to write fiction, it felt like work instead of fun.

So I quit all the freelancing in 2001, got myself a day job (well, actually it's a night job but it's an occupation I truly enjoy) and didn't write a thing for nearly a year. Now I write only fiction (and it's fun again) and I'm back at square one, trying to find an agent and sell a few books. We shall see.

Beth

[Stuffedtoy]

Well my head is spinning.... You didn't mention, were your books a series?

And geesh!!!! The IRS sure was paying their help quite well getting half your $$$.

I write fiction. All the time. So far it seems mostly because I like it, but I have hopes. Waiting now on feed back for 2 going on 3 manuscripts.
Dreaming of those 0000000's :banana:

[victoriastrauss]

I admire any of you who have published even one measly short story, which is no measly task in itself. But how many of you on this board make your living solely from writing fiction? I don't make a living from writing, and never have. In part, this is because I'm a slow writer: a mid-five-figure advance for a duology doesn't work out to much if it takes you five years to write the books. In part it's because I'm not a well-known writer, and can't command the kind of advances more famous/successful people do. Nor do my books remain in print for more than a few years apiece, which means I don't have a reliable stream of income from royalties.

I supplement my book writing income with freelance writing, a bit of editing, and some website design. Mostly, though, I have an extremely supportive husband who's willing to shoulder the lion's share of our living expenses.

Most of the writers I know have a day job or a tolerant spouse. Most of those who do support themselves with their writing have to work incredibly hard and do a lot of scrambling to make ends meet. Making a living from writing books is a typical writer's dream, but it's not the typical writer's situation.

- Victoria

[Cathy C]

<raises hand>

I've only been doing the "writing for a living" for about three years now, so the jury is still out because as the others have said, it's a long road before you actually see the results. But the potential is encouraging.

In 2003, I made about $2,000 from selling short stories and freelance magazine articles and signed my first book contract.

In 2004, the check finally arrived and I was able to add about $10K to the household from book advances.

This year, 2005, my co-author and I will probably each see $15K from advances for books to be pubbed in 2006.

However, the 2004 book sold out the first edition of 70K, so we're hopeful that we'll pay back that advance and maybe see a little more from the royalties. At the very least, all sales of the 2005 book (also from the 2004 contract) will be free and clear, but paid in 2006. Fortunately, we're working on another deal with the same publisher, so maybe we'll get a bit more from that contract, but likely, that payment will show up in 2006 too.

So far, so good. It's a nice paying hobby that I happen to do full time. But it has potential to do all the things you mentioned. And I'm still willing to wait and see.

[brinkett]

Nor do my books remain in print for more than a few years apiece, which means I don't have a reliable stream of income from royalties.
If you have the rights, why not make them available through Lulu or something like that? They might not generate a steady stream of income, but at least they'd be available.

[Jamesaritchie]

I make a living from writing, and have for about fifteen years now, but while I earn a full-time living from writing, fiction is only part of the process. It's the biggest part by far, but still only a part. Like many who earn a living by writing, I write anything and everythng that will turn a buck. I never found it particularly difficult to earn a living as a writer, but if you aren't high on the bestseller lists, you have to be fast and you have to be versatile.

I have, however, now found the big drawback to writing for a living. I just spent about a year and a half being too sick to earn much money as a writer. When you have a family, and kids going through college, plus medical bills, life can eat savings in a minute. As a writer, I have no worker's comp, no unemployment, no paid sick days, etc. Believe me, I have now learned why so many writers, even ones who are earning a good bit from writing, keep a day job that has benefits, or make sure their spouse has such a job.

Writers who are earning millions probably don't have these problems, but for those of us who are simply earning a decent living, getting sick can shine a very bright light on the issue of financial security. I 've never had the tax problems cwfgal mentions. The IRS seems pretty fair, to me. The only big tax I pay is the SS tax. I keep around 75% of my after agent income. Can't complain about that. But life can get extremely expensive overnight.

Writing for a living is a great life. It sure as heck beats working nine to five for a boss you don't like. One of the nicest things about writing for a living is that you can take working vacations. It's as easy to put five hours a day in a good hotel room as it is at home. Maybe easier.

But unless you hit the bigtime, you'll need a lot of self-discipline. Just because you're self-employed doesn't mean you get to take four days a week off work. It doesnt mean you get to go sit and watch TV on days when the words won't flow, and you feel like chucking it all. Too much of that and you'll be looking through the help wanted ads.

[cwfgal]

Well my head is spinning.... You didn't mention, were your books a series?



No, they were stand alones. I have since written a book that is intended as the first in a series (a humorous forensic mystery -- yeah, you read it right) and as an experiment I self-published it and used the experience as a focus for articles in my newsletter. I made back my initial investment in sales, but I've sunk it all back into marketing. To date I've sold about 130 copies. Woo hoo.

The fourth book I was trying to wheel and deal with Harper when they dumped me did get written. I'm currently giving it away in serial form, one chapter at a time, with each issue of my newsletter (which, by the way, is free if anyone is interested).

And I'm now seeking an agent for a fifth novel that is in the same basic genre as the first three (or four, if you count the one I'm giving away). My first three are all out of print now and I have the rights back, but I'm not sure what to do with them. I'm hoping my agent will tell me, assuming I find one.

This writing stuff is a wicked business.

Beth

[aruna]

This writing stuff is a wicked business.

Beth

Do you mean wicked as in good, or wicked as in bad?

[SeanDSchaffer]

I don't make a living from writing, and never have. ....

....Snipped....

Most of the writers I know have a day job or a tolerant spouse. Most of those who do support themselves with their writing have to work incredibly hard and do a lot of scrambling to make ends meet. Making a living from writing books is a typical writer's dream, but it's not the typical writer's situation.




That amazes me, Victoria. I didn't realize my own dream of living off my writing was a professional writer's dream as well as a newbie writer's dream. I should have known this stuff already, but for the life of me, I still imagine a writer's life being like the old Stephen J. Cannell Productions' clip at the end of the gentleman's famous shows: A man with a pipe in his mouth busy at the IBM Selectric typewriter, surrounded by very comfortable living quarters and obviously wealthy. I guess that's a myth for most writers.

Oh, well. I chose to be a writer because I wanted to tell stories, not because I wanted to get rich. It's interesting to see so many professionals who don't make a living at it, or have been for only a short period of time. The mythology surrounding the writer's life is indeed strong in most writers' psyches. I think having read it from professional writers' own words helps rid me of that mythology and makes the life I'm most likely to lead as a writer, more real within my mind and heart.

[maestrowork]

I still imagine a writer's life being like the old Stephen J. Cannell Productions' clip at the end of the gentleman's famous shows: A man with a pipe in his mouth busy at the IBM Selectric typewriter, surrounded by very comfortable living quarters and obviously wealthy.

Just like everyone thinks all actors live like Brad Pitt, surrounded by adoring fans and luxury and fame and... (reality is most actors, if they're working at all, don't earn enough to feed their fish)

Sure, there are writers who live very comfortably as full-timers. There are also someone like JK Rowling who are rich beyond anyone's wildest dream. But the majority of writers probably fall in the category of "I could afford a nicer place to live if I drive buses for a living..."

[Jamesaritchie]

But the majority of writers probably fall in the category of "I could afford a nicer place to live if I drive buses for a living..."

I have a friend who's a writer, and he once joked about giving up writing and getting a job working at at a local McDonald's, but finally decided against it because he was afraid all that extra money would corrupt him.

I think many of us dream of making millions, but really, how much money does any of us need? I'd far rather make 100K at year at writing than five million a year working a nine to five job I hate.

And it's not like most nine to five jobs pay all that well, anyway. The average income in this country is only 33K, plus another 15K in benefits. That's not exactly a Rowling, King, Clancy, Roberts income, either.

[maestrowork]

Let's put things in perspective. Take Rowling for instance. When the first HP book came out in England, it was a small print run. She got a, I believe, £1500 advance; that was all. Her agent told her that she shouldn't expect too much since it was a children's book. She said she was just so happy to hold the hardback in her hand! Talk about humble. Eventually she got a grant for £8000 to write her second book -- she was still living in poverty, even after the first book came out! Then came the Scholastic deal and the rest is history.

Stephen King's first advance (Carrie) was $2500.

The moral of the story: write a good book, and the rest will happen.

:)

[aruna]

John Grisham, I believe, also started out with a small advance for A Time to Kill.

[maestrowork]

John Grisham, I believe, also started out with a small advance for A Time to Kill.

And a small publisher -- he sold a lot of books out of the trunk of his car, and eventually sold over 5000 copies.

Nicholas Spark was barely making it after The Notebook came out. It wasn't until Message in the Bottle that he struck literal gold.

Then there are many stories in which the author didn't strike gold at all...

[victoriastrauss]

I got $2,500 for my first novel in 1982, and $5,000 for my second novel a couple of years later. New writers are still getting those kinds of advances. How many businesses can anyone think of where the starting salary now is the same as it was 20 years ago? I'd say that's a pretty good nutshell comment on the financial consequences of being a writer.

- Victoria

[alaskamatt17]

Though I wouldn't put him in the same league as Rowling, King, and Grisham, let's not forget about Christopher Paolini. He wrote Eragon when he was fifteen, then handsold it for almost four years to get it to take off. And it did. He was a millionaire before he was even old enough to celebrate with champagne.

[maestrowork]

handsold it for almost four years to get it to take off...

Now, that's dedication and confidence.

The problem with a lot of new writers is that they see part of a success story like Rowling's or Sparks', and they think, "Oh, that doesn't seem that hard." And it seems like every day someone is striking a six-figure deal somewhere. How hard can it be? They don't realize it's not the norm, and it takes years and some luck and lots of hard work to become an overnight success (Rowling started the HP book in 1990 -- it wasn't published until 1997... that's almost 8 years).

Obviously, we're not here to discourage writers. Writing is a wonderful career if you truly enjoy what you do. We need to keep the dream alive, but plant our feet firmly on the ground. We have to realize for some people they may find fame and fortune right off the bat, but for the rest of us, it takes years, and sometimes it doesn't happen at all. And if we're getting into this writing with stars in our eyes, we may very well be sorely disappointed.

[Aconite]

Though I wouldn't put him in the same league as Rowling, King, and Grisham, let's not forget about Christopher Paolini. He wrote Eragon when he was fifteen, then handsold it for almost four years to get it to take off. And it did. He was a millionaire before he was even old enough to celebrate with champagne.

Where on earth did you hear the kid was a millionaire?

Consider, however, when you say that the book "took off," that his parents were both in publishing and had more than a little to do with its eventual commercial publication.

[triceretops]

You're right, Victoria. My advances in 1988 and 1990 will probably be slightly less than what I pull for my next book. And that is a crying shame because I'm a known quantity ghost--in other words, I disapeared for too many years to remain in the public eye, so I'm at the starting line again prepped to run against a larger and more eagar field.

Tri

[alaskamatt17]

I don't remember the magazine, but I read an article about him that said he was a millionaire by the time he was 19. Eragon has over 1,000,000 copies in print, according to www.alagaesia.com, and he's sold the movie rights to Fox 2000 (Production starts August 1st), so if he isn't a millionaire, somebody's ripping him off.

[Jamesaritchie]

I guess advances haven't come all that far in the last thirty years or so, but advances are based on how many copies a pubisher thinks will sell, and with so many novels now being released each year, it sometimes surprises me that advances are offered to first time novelists at all.

But I've never wanted large advances. I'd much rather earn my money from royalties. When a book doesn't earn out its advance, publishers can get worried fast. Royalties, on the other hand, come from money the publisher has already earned.

[cwfgal]

Do you mean wicked as in good, or wicked as in bad?

Yes.

;)

Beth

[cwfgal]

But I've never wanted large advances. I'd much rather earn my money from royalties. When a book doesn't earn out its advance, publishers can get worried fast. Royalties, on the other hand, come from money the publisher has already earned.

I disagree, sort of. I understand the logic behind the worry of not selling out on an advance, but in what other industry or business does one have to wait years for payment? From the time an author starts to write a book to the time they receive royalty payments is often 3-5 years. That's just absurd in my mind. Why shouldn't authors get as much money as they can up front?

I also think a low advance means less vested interest on the part of the publisher with regard to your book's success. Which book do you think they'll put the most marketing effort into, the one they paid $10K for or the one they paid $100K for? Accepting a low advance increases your risk of not earning out on the book because your publisher isn't going to put much if any marketing oomph into it. And in my experience, publishers are more focused on the sell-through rate for a print run than on the advance.

Of course, all that said there is still only so much negotiating that can be done and the odds of an author who is initially offered $10K being able to negotiate an offer ten times that amount are pretty slim. And the difference in support from the publisher for a $10K advance and a $20K advance is probably minimal.

Beth

[Jamesaritchie]

I disagree, sort of. I understand the logic behind the worry of not selling out on an advance, but in what other industry or business does one have to wait years for payment? From the time an author starts to write a book to the time they receive royalty payments is often 3-5 years. That's just absurd in my mind. Why shouldn't authors get as much money as they can up front?

I also think a low advance means less vested interest on the part of the publisher with regard to your book's success. Which book do you think they'll put the most marketing effort into, the one they paid $10K for or the one they paid $100K for? Accepting a low advance increases your risk of not earning out on the book because your publisher isn't going to put much if any marketing oomph into it. And in my experience, publishers are more focused on the sell-through rate for a print run than on the advance.

Of course, all that said there is still only so much negotiating that can be done and the odds of an author who is initially offered $10K being able to negotiate an offer ten times that amount are pretty slim. And the difference in support from the publisher for a $10K advance and a $20K advance is probably minimal.

Beth

A large advance is definitely a two-edged sword, and there's much to be said for getting money up front.

In truth, I could care less about how much marketing a publisher puts into one of my books. I don;t think anything is more overrated than marketing money. If marketing could turn a book into a bestseller, publishers would put marketing behind every book, and they'd all sell a million copies. Books with large advances and with tons of money put into marketing fail all the time, and books with small advances and no marketing succeed regularly.

There's a reason publishers put marketing money only into certain books, and that reason is there's already serious reason to think that book is going to sell well. Marketing usually just makes it sell well quicker, and in the right places. MArketing sells best when it's put behind a book that doesn't need it, which is why King and Clancy receive bigtime marketing dollars, and new writers do not.

Publishers have, in fact, tried putting marketing dollars behind numerous first novels over the years, and the results showed no change in the number of books that became profitable. The same number of books failed to earn out, and the marketing dollars were also lost, which meant the books not only didn't earn out, but were even bigger losers than they should have been.

Large advances can backfire, and when they do, it's the writer who gets stepped on.

I've seen no evidence at all that a low advance makes it lesser likely the book will earn out. All my experience says just the opposite.

I'm not against advances, and I've never turned one down, but it doesn't take very long before you have royalty checks coming in twice a year, if you're a steady writer. I simply prefer a happy publisher to a larger advance. I also prefer having my money come in on a regular basis.

I'm firmly with Isaac Asimov on this issue. If writers want to push for large advances, that's fine. It doesn't hurt me at all. But I much prefer smaller advances, and novels that always earn out.

I'm perfectly content to wait until my novels earn money before I receive money.

[aruna]

I'm firmly with Isaac Asimov on this issue. If writers want to push for large advances, that's fine. It doesn't hurt me at all. But I much prefer smaller advances, and novels that always earn out.

I'm perfectly content to wait until my novels earn money before I receive money.

Just one question, James: do you have dependents? This makes all the difference.

I have two children aged 15 and 20 who need to be educated, a mother of 85 in a third world country who doesn't have running water in her kitchen and who could fall down the stairs and break her leg at any time (THEN WHAT!? I am her only child; she has no relatives in her country!) and a husband in another country who is in very bad health and needs to retire and move in with me ASAP; but my appartment is too small, I'd need a bigger place.

If I did not have these concerns I would follow my heart: I'd move to India or Thailand, live in a one-room cottage, and do nothing but write. As it is, the only thing that could save my situation is a good advance for my fourth book. I am applying for a day job; a great opportunity has just opened, involving creative writing, and I am hoping against hope I get it. Then I can relax, forget about advances, and just continue to write without caring about the income.

Actually, I agree with you: I do prefer small advances and then regular royalties. I have known both variations: large advances that didn't earn out, and small advances, with the book becoming a bestseller. The latter is MUCH better. But it takes too damn long!

[brinkett]

Publishers have, in fact, tried putting marketing dollars behind numerous first novels over the years, and the results showed no change in the number of books that became profitable.
How those marketing dollars are used is important. It's not so much the dollar amount, it's how it's spent.

[Jamesaritchie]

Just one question, James: do you have dependents? This makes all the difference.

I have two children aged 15 and 20 who need to be educated, a mother of 85 in a third world country who doesn't have running water in her kitchen and who could fall down the stairs and break her leg at any time (THEN WHAT!? I am her only child; she has no relatives in her country!) and a husband in another country who is in very bad health and needs to retire and move in with me ASAP; but my appartment is too small, I'd need a bigger place.

If I did not have these concerns I would follow my heart: I'd move to India or Thailand, live in a one-room cottage, and do nothing but write. As it is, the only thing that could save my situation is a good advance for my fourth book. I am applying for a day job; a great opportunity has just opened, involving creative writing, and I am hoping against hope I get it. Then I can relax, forget about advances, and just continue to write without caring about the income.

Actually, I agree with you: I do prefer small advances and then regular royalties. I have known both variations: large advances that didn't earn out, and small advances, with the book becoming a bestseller. The latter is MUCH better. But it takes too damn long!

Yes, I have three children, and this is why I like smaller advances. This, I should emphasize, does not in any way mean I want tiny advances, or that I want less that I think is justified. I simply want advances I know will earn out, and I have found I take care of my family better with a happy publisher, and with royalty checks coming in on a regular basis.

Oh, about how long it takes to start receiving royalties. I really do understand that side of it, and had I depended on waiting for royalties with my first couple of novels, I might have felt differently. But I never really had that problem.

Even then, I was making money selling short stories, articles, columns, essays, and a few other things. Even by selling recipes and other fillers. (For a few years, the highest word rate I received was one hundred dollars for a one hundred word recipe. Not much money, but the rate per word took a while to top.) Anyway, I was selling a lot of short stuff, fiction and nonfiction, for rates that usually ranged from twenty-five cents to fifty cents per word, and it doesn't take me very long to write a short story or an article, etc.

I've also had a couple of screenplays optioned over the years, and I've made some pretty decent money ghostwriting.

Which means I was able to wait out that initial period between selling novels and the first royalty check. The first two novels, in fact, never did earn any royalties. And as I said, I don't want a tiny advance, I just want one I can be sure will earn out, with something left over for royalties.

[Jamesaritchie]

How those marketing dollars are used is important. It's not so much the dollar amount, it's how it's spent.

I've seen the dollars spent in every conceivable way there is to spend them, and I've seen every conceivable way fail. Marketing dollars work best when the book doesn't need them, and it's very rare when marketing dollars, however spent, can turn a book the public doesn't like into a bestseller.

Again, this isn't to say I turn marketing dollars down, or that I think they always fail. They can help a good book get where it's going faster. But my experience tells me marketing is vastly overrated.

The number one thing I want a publisher to do is simply make certain a copy of my book gets in the hands of every good review site in the country. From my experience it's word of mouth that sells novels, and the best way to get word of mouth going is to have a favorable review in the right place. It's amazing what a favorable review in, for example, The New York Review of Books, or The New York Times Review of Books, can do for a novel.

Reviews in the right place get the news of a novel out, and from here, the public either likes it or not. If they do, word of mouth sells it, if they don't, word of mouth kills it.

Unfortunately, about all you can do in this area is make sure a review site receives a copy of the novel. Then it's pretty much out of your hands. Either a reviewer reviews it or he doesn't, and either he likes it or he doesn't. Though even a bad review in the right spot gives the public the knowledge that the book is out there, and the public often disagrees with a reviewer's opinion, so even a bad review in the right spot can turn a novel into a bestseller.

[brinkett]

I agree that word of mouth is most important, and to generate buzz, you need to make readers aware of your book. I also agree that bad reviews can be just as helpful as good ones. But sending out review copies should be the minimal that's done. There's so much more that can be done to market a book. Perhaps in your experience, it hasn't helped, but I've read about the experiences of other authors and it certainly has helped when they've spent marketing dollars on initiatives that target specific groups of readers.

[Jamesaritchie]

I agree that word of mouth is most important, and to generate buzz, you need to make readers aware of your book. I also agree that bad reviews can be just as helpful as good ones. But sending out review copies should be the minimal that's done. There's so much more that can be done to market a book. Perhaps in your experience, it hasn't helped, but I've read about the experiences of other authors and it certainly has helped when they've spent marketing dollars on initiatives that target specific groups of readers.

Targeting specific groups of readers is the one thing all the marketing departments I've worked with claim doesn't work at all, at least if you mean targeting them through advertising. Targeting specific readerships seems to work better, when it works at all, when the writer does it himself, and it's usually more a matter of the writer's time, rather than the publisher's money.

I'm half and half on this one. I certainly think targeting specific audiences can help with self-published writers, and I think it may well help writers who simply can't get their novels reviewed anywhere important. Beyond this, I just don't know.

I know these marketing departments have tried many ways of targeting specific readers without much success, but I'd still like to see more attempts at this.

For instance, some of the books I write match the readership of Outdoor Life Magazine perfectly. They have a circulation of 1.5 million. I'd love to see what a major ad in this magazine would do for book sales. The marketing department syas it would cause a jump, but not one nearly large enough to pay for a full page add, which is close to 100K.

What makes me wonder is that I had something published in Sports Afield a few years ago, and they have a similar, though smaller audience. The circulation there is 500,000, which still isn't bad. In the four weeks or so after that issue appeared on the newsstand, the novel I had out at the time had a sharp jump in sales.

I know marketing departmenst have tried such things with very little success, but I have to wonder if where, when, and how, along with having just the right novel, aren't so critical that sometimes it will work, and sometimes it won't.

My agent is trying to convince my publisher to do a quarter page ad in one of these magazines. We'll see what happens, though I'm not going to hold my breath waiting.

[brinkett]

Targeting specific readerships seems to work better, when it works at all, when the writer does it himself, and it's usually more a matter of the writer's time, rather than the publisher's money.

Yes, I agree, and I also agree that it's usually left up to the writer, which is why I think making statements about marketing based on what a publisher does (and spends) is ignoring much of the story.


What makes me wonder is that I had something published in Sports Afield a few years ago, and they have a similar, though smaller audience. The circulation there is 500,000, which still isn't bad. In the four weeks or so after that issue appeared on the newsstand, the novel I had out at the time had a sharp jump in sales.

Yes, it's always good to have tie-ins like that. Many nonfic authors write articles for different mags/sites for this reason.


My agent is trying to convince my publisher to do a quarter page ad in one of these magazines. We'll see what happens, though I'm not going to hold my breath waiting.
I've read that straight advertising generally doesn't do much, but like most things, it's probably a generalization. Please let us know if it results in more sales for you. :)

[Jamesaritchie]

Yes, I agree, and I also agree that it's usually left up to the writer, which is why I think making statements about marketing based on what a publisher does (and spends) is ignoring much of the story.


:)

Probably, but it seems that when writers, usually newer writers, mention marketing, they usually mean "How much money the publisher will spend, and how much work the publisher will do." Most often, they don't know how the publisher should spend this money, or exactly what a publisher can and can't do to "push" a novel, but they want more of it, anyway.

[Cathy C]

Probably, but it seems that when writers, usually newer writers, mention marketing, they usually mean "How much money the publisher will spend, and how much work the publisher will do." Most often, they don't know how the publisher should spend this money, or exactly what a publisher can and can't do to "push" a novel, but they want more of it, anyway.


I guess my co-author and I never really expected much from the publisher, other than to not get in our way. I knew the book would get SOME publicity dollars from the publisher, merely because it was one of the flagships in a new line, in a brand new genre that the publisher had never tried. They did serious hype on the first few books, which was definitely to our advantage.

But I really expected that I would have to get the word out myself in a lot of venues, and dedicated a large chunk of my first advance on marketing. I don't regret it a bit and would do it again.

Fortunately, the things I chose were effective, and it's now paying off. But our first book was an historical fiction with a small press. I definitely lost money on that deal, even though I did all the right things. I got scholarly reviews, rather than popular ones, because my GOAL was to appeal to the critics, the highest level of the niche market. I figured we could interest the masses later. My bad! It was an okay plan (and thankfully much was deductable on my taxes!), but other than one high-profile ad in a national magazine, I didn't spend nearly the time or effort as I did for the mass paperback. I should have. Fortunately, since those sales have been pretty good, sales of the first book are picking up a bit. At least we'll make it through the first print run in another year or so. That's better than a lot of small press offerings.

I know a lot of authors don't bother with marketing. Write the good book and it will sell. I agree with this philosophy -- to an extent. It will EVENTUALLY sell through word of mouth, but you'd better at least do enough publicity that people know it EXISTS for the tiny little window of time (3-4 weeks) that it's on the shelf. Without at least that much effort, being "the good book" won't matter much. JMHO! :D

[brinkett]

I know a lot of authors don't bother with marketing. Write the good book and it will sell. I agree with this philosophy -- to an extent. It will EVENTUALLY sell through word of mouth, but you'd better at least do enough publicity that people know it EXISTS for the tiny little window of time (3-4 weeks) that it's on the shelf. Without at least that much effort, being "the good book" won't matter much. JMHO! :D
That's exactly right. If nobody knows the book exists, nobody will be recommending it to their friends. Sure it's great to get reviews, but how many people read them? I know I don't. I'm more likely to read the reviews on Amazon, but in order to see them, I have to know the book exists (just love that good old search field). In my opinion, having the book on shelves is a very small part of the battle. What you have to do is create demand.

[Jamesaritchie]

That three or four week window is very imortant, and I think pre-release timing is also important. If you time it right, readers have two windows to shop through, one when they can order pre-publication copies, and one when the book actually hits the stores.

My problem with marketing is that too many writer sthink the publisher can do some magic push that will sell a novel, and that a book's success depends on whether or not the publisher puts money behind it. It seldom works this way.

I honestly don't know whether or not an good, four color ad in Outdoor Life, Field & Stream, and Sports Afield will work, and it may well be that comtinuing to sell articles and short stories to these places is the best way of promoting my novels. But it's a question I'd like to have answered.

[cwfgal]

My problem with marketing is that too many writer sthink the publisher can do some magic push that will sell a novel, and that a book's success depends on whether or not the publisher puts money behind it. It seldom works this way.


Here's my take on it. Which book will do better, the one the publisher spends money on for ARCs, a really slick cover, a better catalog picture and position, book dumps, and the bestseller slots at the bookstores, or the one that goes through basic production and is listed in the catalog with a gazillion other books on page whatever?

I think you're more likely to end up in the latter category if the publisher doesn't have much money vested in your book up front. They can recoup their investment without any marketing push pretty easily if the advance is low enough.

Beth

[aruna]

She was only 16 when she finsihed it, and in the middle of major exams; that was the "newsworthiness" of the story; plus, the report that she got a £400000 advance - that's about £800000. Finally the story came out that it was, in fact, only £40000!

ooops! that of course should read "... £400000 advance - that's about $800000"! Sorry! My typo demon again!

[maestrowork]

A lot of great books came out of nowhere, sold modestly for a while, then won a few awards and the eventual word of mouth carried the sales... I usually heard about a book through newspapers or magazines: "Such and such won an award..." or "so and so really likes this book about..." I'm one of those people who don't really read initial reviews or try to read the newest books out... I hardly buy hardcovers. That's how I got to know about books like Memoir of a Geisha or Cold Mountain -- long after their initial HC or PB releases. Sometimes I know about a book because it's being made into a movie... then, combined with a nice cover and a premise that interests me -- that's when I pick up the book.

In a way, when it comes to books, I'm like one of those people who only buy/rent a DVD after hearing good things about a movie, long after its theatrical release... In reality, my habit of seeing a movie is 180 degrees different. I usually hear the buzz, watch the trailers, and decide which ones I want to see the first weekend they're released. Partly because I review current movies. Partly because I just like to see a movie in the theater when it first comes out... Can't say the same about books, though...

I think awareness and advertising is important, but only if you have to the goods to back it up. Word of mouth is probably still your best bet (that includes media mentions, however, but not necessarily "advertisement").

[Jamesaritchie]

I agree with you; but what makes a reviewer in a major newspaper choose a particular book over the hundreds he receives? Sometimes it's again the hype the publisher has managed to egenerate; and again, this can be simply th enews that so-and-so has been paid a 6 figure advance. Other factors: celebrity connections or other unusual circumstances. And really brilliant covers/blurbs. And sometimes, simple luck/destiny! It also helps to be very young, female, beautiful and/or "ethnic".

It sounds very cynical, I know; but reviewers are only human and somehow they've got to make a choice; they aren't just going to grab into the pile of books and pick a few at random.

Earlier this year there was a case of schoolgirl getting a book published at Bloomsbury. She was only 16 when she finsihed it, and in the middle of major exams; that was the "newsworthiness" of the story; plus, the report that she got a £400000 advance - that's about £800000. Finally the story came out that it was, in fact, only £40000! Apparently, the publicity machine deliberately gave the wrong figures to get the hype going, so the advance and the authors age (Schoolgirl gets £400000 for Debut Novel) made headlines all over the place, and the world knew about it. I read the book and didn't like it much; it remains to be seen what the public thinks. Certainly, the hardback didn't take off as expected. The paperback will tell.



Easrlier this

The reviewers I've known will read a book that's hyped, but so what. They also go thrugh the stacks and give most of the books that come in a chance, and any reviewers will read a book they find that grabs them, and will review it if they like it. Most reviewers are just like editors and agents in that they love finding books by new writers that really turn them on. They only way to do this is to give most of the books that come in a chance.

And most reviewers read dozens of books for every book they review, and read a few pages of perhaps hundreds of other books for every book they actually finish.

The only books that really stand no chance of being reviewed are self-published novels. There simply is no time to give these books a chance, especially when any experienced reviewer knows he is extremely unlikely to find anything there he can read, let alone grant limited space in his paper or magazine, etc.

The first novel I had reviewed in The New York Review of Books was a nothing novel by a completely unknown writer, and the publisher gave it zero hype and simply mailed the novel cold, just like they do hundreds of other novels. Good review sites regularly review novels that are not hyped, that have nothing at all going for them except that the reviewer liked them.

And my guess is that the exaggeration in the advance for the schoolgirl was first made by an idiot reporter or reviewer, not from a publicity machince. I think this because it's stupid. "Schoolgirl gets £40000 for Debut Novel" is every bit as good for marketing as "Schoolgirl gets £400000 for Debut Novel."

Either is unusual beyond belief, and I can't remember the last time a schoolgirl received that much money for a novel. Schoolgirl gets £40000 for Debut Novel" should be front page news and should make the bigger TV shows without any trouble at all. You simply do not need to exaggerate such a large figure for such a young girl. I can't conceive of this not making headlines all over the place, but if you can point to a case where such an advance to a school kid didn't make headlines, I'd like to see it.

[aruna]

The reviewers I've known will read a book that's hyped, but so what. They also go thrugh the stacks and give most of the books that come in a chance, and any reviewers will read a book they find that grabs them, and will review it if they like it. Most reviewers are just like editors and agents in that they love finding books by new writers that really turn them on. They only way to do this is to give most of the books that come in a chance.



James, you don't know the London reviews, and they are the ones I am talking about - sorry if I generalized, and US reviewres are different. The London reviewres are famed for their incest. They ONLY review certain books; you have to have some special element, some secret hanbdshake to get an unknown book reviewed; but then, if one reviewer does review anunknown book favourabvly, the next week all the other papers are covering it. I've been told that again and again by publicity people; it's rare for a newcomer to get reviewed UNLESS there are special circumstances, or you are friends with the reviewer, or perhaps already a journalist writing for them or one of their rivals.

[aruna]

And my guess is that the exaggeration in the advance for the schoolgirl was first made by an idiot reporter or reviewer, not from a publicity machince. I think this because it's stupid. "Schoolgirl gets £40000 for Debut Novel" is every bit as good for marketing as "Schoolgirl gets £400000 for Debut Novel."



But why, then, was the £400000 figure not immediately corrected? This figure was in ALL the papers - which makes one think of a press release, not an inept reporter. Later interviews with the girl only had her giggling coyly and saying it was greatly exaggerated. Only months later did the truth come out. Whether it was a deliberate mistake or just a stupid one, they all certainly enjoyed it.

My personal belief is that whatever the truth, the hype may hurt rather than help her. The book, though well written, seems to be largely autobiographical and feeds much on her own past depressions and, once, a suicuide attempt. It's very dark and has an inconclusive, and rather unsatisfactory, ending, and no real storyline. I don't think it's the kind of thing the publc will take to in droves; the public does like to see people escaping and conquering their demons. But as I said, time will tell. The hardback has sunk without a trace, let's see how well the paperback does. If that does not make it she'll have a harder time with her next novel.

Such stories make headlines; but I think it's better in the long run for a such a young author to keep a low profile and grow over the years, so that when they do get their breakthrough they already have a large body of writing behind them. The hype machine has ruined many a young artist before they have reached their peak.

[zarch]

Hey, I wanna be able to type the sign for the British pound...how do you do that? I don't think my goofball American laptop does that. And about book marketing: have many/any of you ever done radio or print media interviews about your books/writing? If so, was it effective? I just finished my first novel-length fictional work and have been wondering about marketing, assuming that the most widely-used tools were book reviewers. I guess it didn't occur to me that book reviewers must sort through a gazllion submissions.

[triceretops]

I did T.V. radio and print reviews, and a lot of them were set up by my publisher's publicity department. But about 40% of the radio stations found me through newspaper profiles and reviews, then solicited me personally without the help of my publisher. These were non-fiction books with a huge general interest audience, so I don't know how it works with novels. With all the publicity I got, which I thought was a tremendous amount, I really don't think it had an astronomical affect on my sales. I think that I was classified as an above average midlister--both books sold through. Niether of these books recieved a frontline marketing push.

I did get a little sneaky and sent out ad flyers for my books, soliciting 300 major newspapers with the invite for them to contact my publisher for a free review copy. That helped a little.

Tri

[azbikergirl]

If you're using Windows, you can use Start > Programs > Accessories > System Tools > Character Map to copy any symbol to the clipboard, then paste into your document. If you're using Word, Insert > Symbol will let you do the same thing.

[zarch]

Thanks!

[loquax]

What does Shift+3 do for you yanks then?

[maestrowork]

Shift-4 is $. Shift-3 is #

alt-0163 gets you £ (this is the easier way, instead of going through the symbols).

[Zolah]

I certainly don't making my living from writing - and I don't expect to for many years, if ever. I haven't made it my goal either, because that's asking for heartbreak and depression. Instead I made a goal three years ago to be able to afford to go down to four days a week at work, and last february I was able to do this. That one day a week, during which no-one disturbs me and I do nothing but write, is such utter bliss, I can't even describe it. I now have a new goal - to be able to afford to go down to three days a week. I hope to do that next year.

[SeanDSchaffer]

I certainly don't making my living from writing - and I don't expect to for many years, if ever. I haven't made it my goal either, because that's asking for heartbreak and depression. Instead I made a goal three years ago to be able to afford to go down to four days a week at work, and last february I was able to do this. That one day a week, during which no-one disturbs me and I do nothing but write, is such utter bliss, I can't even describe it. I now have a new goal - to be able to afford to go down to three days a week. I hope to do that next year.


Wow Zolah. That's a cool goal. And I'm glad you reached your first one. Maybe I should try for something like that. It would take a lot of stress off me, that's for sure.

Plus I think you're right: having 'making a living at writing' as a goal could very well destroy a person, especially if they're just starting out. That's something to think about. I know you've got me thinking about it.

[BlueTexas]

I certainly don't making my living from writing - and I don't expect to for many years, if ever. I haven't made it my goal either, because that's asking for heartbreak and depression. Instead I made a goal three years ago to be able to afford to go down to four days a week at work, and last february I was able to do this. That one day a week, during which no-one disturbs me and I do nothing but write, is such utter bliss, I can't even describe it. I now have a new goal - to be able to afford to go down to three days a week. I hope to do that next year.

Hey--you stole my goal:) I did the same thing a few months ago...I was finally able to go down to four days from six!

[Aconite]

Eragon has over 1,000,000 copies in print, according to www.alagaesia.com, and he's sold the movie rights to Fox 2000

Egads. I read the book--actually, more to the point, I tried to read it, and I simply cannot comprehend its popularity. Good on him, anyway.

[triceretops]

It looks like Eragon was self-published by the parents before it was latter picked up by Knoph (sp?). I would be interested to know the transition from self-pubbed to landing at such a huge house. What kind of word-of-mouth was generated to garner outside attention like this? 97 weeks on the best seller lists? Fox is producing the movie? He was 19 when it was published? It appears as though it is YA fantasy--that would be in keeping with the writing style and literary experience of such a young author. Although this kid might very well be a genius. Think I'll go back to the website and check this out again.

Tri

[Zolah]

Wow Zolah. That's a cool goal. And I'm glad you reached your first one. Maybe I should try for something like that. It would take a lot of stress off me, that's for sure.

Plus I think you're right: having 'making a living at writing' as a goal could very well destroy a person, especially if they're just starting out. That's something to think about. I know you've got me thinking about it.

Thanks! I think there's a real problem with perception, in that people expect a 'writer' to do that, and only that, for a living, and you feel a bit of a fraud claiming the title if you don't. But at the end of the day all any of us want is more time to write, and an extra day makes a huge difference - more than I realised before I got mine. It feels so wonderful to actually reach a goal like that. It's something you can achieve, something you can work towards with optimism and use to motivate yourself. Go for it!

[Zolah]

Hey--you stole my goal:) I did the same thing a few months ago...I was finally able to go down to four days from six!

Wow, well done you! I'm very envious, but only in a positive, life-affirming way, of course ;).

[Nateskate]

Thanks! I think there's a real problem with perception, in that people expect a 'writer' to do that, and only that, for a living, and you feel a bit of a fraud claiming the title if you don't. But at the end of the day all any of us want is more time to write, and an extra day makes a huge difference - more than I realised before I got mine. It feels so wonderful to actually reach a goal like that. It's something you can achieve, something you can work towards with optimism and use to motivate yourself. Go for it!

It's rather eye opening to see how much of a struggle it is to write as a profession. However, when you think of how hard it is to get published, you have to admire anyone who has fought the fight to get there. Anyone who has published a work of fiction has the right to call themselves writer/author. Of course, I'd say the same for those who've published a book of non-fiction. However, I think it's a sobering reality, one I'm seeing more and more, that few people are going to be proficient/blessed/fortunate enough to make a living at it.

I think there's a public perception that if you've sold a few books, you're going to make a lot of money.

[alaskamatt17]

It looks like Eragon was self-published by the parents before it was latter picked up by Knoph (sp?). I would be interested to know the transition from self-pubbed to landing at such a huge house. What kind of word-of-mouth was generated to garner outside attention like this? 97 weeks on the best seller lists? Fox is producing the movie? He was 19 when it was published? It appears as though it is YA fantasy--that would be in keeping with the writing style and literary experience of such a young author. Although this kid might very well be a genius. Think I'll go back to the website and check this out again.

Tri

I don't really like his writing style, but he did work very hard to reach success. There was an article about him in Writer's Digest last year, and that prompted me to go get the book. It wasn't a really great book, but it was at least good.

A lot of people hear that his parents owned a publishing company and think, "Oh, that's how he made it big." I don't think that was all of it, though. The Writer's Digest article mentioned that he sold the book by hand for two years before it got noticed. He went to schools, book fairs, and libraries all over the Northwest selling that thing. He finally had his big break when a previously published and widely successful author (whose name I don't currently recall) bought the book for his child and found that he couldn't get his kid to stop reading it. He told his publisher about it, and that's when Paolini got the deal. He had sold 10,000 copies by hand prior to this.

I'll definitely go see the movie when it comes out in theaters. I liked the boo enough that I want to read the rest of the trilogy. But I still wouldn't put it on my top ten list for fantasy reading. Probably not even my top twenty.

[SeanDSchaffer]

....Snipped....

I think there's a public perception that if you've sold a few books, you're going to make a lot of money.


When I first began writing, at around age eleven, that was my perception, and almost everybody I knew held that same belief. It was such a common belief among my family and friends, that some people thought I was crazy for wanting to write a book. Those particular people believed, for many years, that it was a 'Get Rich Quick' scheme I had developed.

I myself did not know how hard the Writer's life could be, until I finished my first work and had it printed. This was long before PA ever got hold of it. I printed it myself and tried to publish it myself. It was a lesson I learned quickly, (as it was a hard lesson to grasp), that I probably would never make a major living at writing.

I made all of three copies of that book, right around 1998. They cost an unbelieveable price of $35.00, were bound with comb binding, and were copied instead of printed. On the brighter side of things, all my copies sold....

I said all that to say this:

I'm glad I learned that lesson. It gave me a view of writing that it isn't all about getting rich. It's about putting your thoughts on paper and loving what you do. If I never get rich at it, oh well. At least I'm doing with my life, something that is dear to my heart. That, to me, is worth more than all the money in the world.

[James D. Macdonald]

If anyone thinks that writing is a great get-rich-quick plan, let me tell you right now: It isn't.

This is a hard profession and the pay is very, very low. As a group, I think only migrant farm workers get paid less than writers.

[Zolah]

It's rather eye opening to see how much of a struggle it is to write as a profession. However, when you think of how hard it is to get published, you have to admire anyone who has fought the fight to get there. Anyone who has published a work of fiction has the right to call themselves writer/author. Of course, I'd say the same for those who've published a book of non-fiction. However, I think it's a sobering reality, one I'm seeing more and more, that few people are going to be proficient/blessed/fortunate enough to make a living at it.

I think there's a public perception that if you've sold a few books, you're going to make a lot of money.
That's basically it, yes. When you say that you're a writer, you expect people to ask where you get your ideas, what your books are about, how they can get published too, and if you'd like to write the story of this fantastic dream they had the other night. But the most common question I seem to get now is: 'So you must be rich, right?' It's not much fun answering that one!

[loquax]

Eragon has provided me with many hours of reading bad reviews on amazon. I like to read bad reviews of successful books because in some morbid way, it helps raise my morale. But then again, one really bad review ended with "This is the second worst book I've ever read - the first being The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-time"

And then I realised that person was stupid.

[triceretops]

Ben--I do the same thing with my morbid curiosity. I look for the chink in the armour, something that brings down the mightly author hero. I think we all do, just to level the playing field in our minds. We play these mind games as a defensive mechanism, knowing full well that our chances of successful publication are slim and extremely competitive.

Tri

[Nateskate]

Amazing. I almost feel like making a t-shirt. "Have you hugged a writer today?" Slaving over a keyboard for hours, just you, yourself, and well...you. Then when you hammer out a work of art, there's the fight just to get an agent to give you the time of day, and even if they and a publisher belly up to the bar, there's the forever waiting to see your book in print. Ah, but first you get to have editors insult your work of perfection, ripping it apart and telling you to sew it back together.

But the worst insult is not making millions of dollars for all that labor. How dastardly deceptive a profession writing is!

[maestrowork]

To me, Eragon sounds like a run-of-the-mill fantasy with dragons and wizards... but, if his readers love the book, that's what counts. The studio is going to make 3 movies (I think he's still writing the series)... we'll see how the movie pans out in the box office (if the first one does poorly, there most certainly won't be a second...)

[Aconite]

Nateskate: Yeah, we write for the money--er, for the chicks--er, for the glory...

I need to go think about this.

[Jamesaritchie]

Egads. I read the book--actually, more to the point, I tried to read it, and I simply cannot comprehend its popularity. Good on him, anyway.

I can't help but wonder how much the title has to do with it. I can't tell you how many readers I've come across who confused "Eragon" with "Aragorn," and thought they were getting some sort of LOTR continuation.

I wouldn't think this would make a gigantic difference, but I still wonder. I've heard this said just often enough to make me think it might have influenced sales a good bit.

[Jamesaritchie]

If anyone thinks that writing is a great get-rich-quick plan, let me tell you right now: It isn't.

This is a hard profession and the pay is very, very low. As a group, I think only migrant farm workers get paid less than writers.

I'm not even certain they earn less than writers. On average, migrant farm workers earn $7,500 per year. According to Writer's Digest, only 15% of selling writers earn more than $30,000 per year, and the average selling US writer earns $7,000 per year. Right down there with migrant farm workers, and maybe a tad below them.

I think such numbers are difficult to verify, but two things seem certain: 1. Neither migrant farm workers nor most writers are in danger of making the Forbes list of world's richest people. 2. Migrant farm works are probably the saner of the two groups. They will, at least, get paid for all the work they do, even if the pay is low. Writers aren't even guaranteed this much.

[Nateskate]

Nateskate: Yeah, we write for the money--er, for the chicks--er, for the glory...

I need to go think about this.

Eh...glory is over-rated, but it's better than being despised.

Chicks? I'm married twenty-six years and I'm still trying to figure out the one I've got.

Money? It's not looking too good from this thread.

Why did you say we were doing this again?

[scribbler1382]

Why did you say we were doing this again?

What makes you think we have a choice? :)

[brinkett]

I'm not even certain they earn less than writers. On average, migrant farm workers earn $7,500 per year. According to Writer's Digest, only 15% of selling writers earn more than $30,000 per year, and the average selling US writer earns $7,000 per year. Right down there with migrant farm workers, and maybe a tad below them.
This makes me wonder where all the fantasies come from, i.e. writers thinking their manuscript is going to make them rich and famous, allowing them to quit their dreary day job and do the talk show circuit. Is it because of the few big name writers? Is that what gives everyone the (false) impression they'll make millions?

[scribbler1382]

Yup. Same goes for actors, garage bands and accountants.

Okay, maybe not garage bands. ;)

[Aconite]

Okay, maybe not garage bands. ;)
Yeah! Garage bands get glo--...chi--...mon--

Dang. Scratch that one, too.

[azbikergirl]

I like to fantasize about winning the lottery, but I don't actually think it's going to happen (which is why I rarely buy a ticket). Similarly, I'm guilty of daydreaming about earning a high income from writing, but it has never been an expectation. Still I pursue writing as a career because it beats working 40-60 hours a week at a job that's "just OK."

[Jamesaritchie]

This makes me wonder where all the fantasies come from, i.e. writers thinking their manuscript is going to make them rich and famous, allowing them to quit their dreary day job and do the talk show circuit. Is it because of the few big name writers? Is that what gives everyone the (false) impression they'll make millions?

Well, when you know that Nora Roberts made sixty million year before last, and that Tom Clancy and John Grisham earned almost as much, and that Stephen King's largest single advance was seventeen million for one book, and when Dan Brown earns thirty million for a single book, and J. K. Rowling sells 250,000 books an hour all day long, and that her fiirst five books sold 265,000,000 copies, it does, I think, lead many to believe the same thing is possible for them. And it is.

[brinkett]

it does, I think, lead many to believe the same thing is possible for them. And it is.
Possible, but realistically, not likely to happen. I can understand hoping for it. I was thinking more of those who fully expect it to happen because they think ALL writers are rolling in dough.

[Aconite]

Well, when you know that Nora Roberts made sixty million year before last, (snippage) it does, I think, lead many to believe the same thing is possible for them.
But people who hear that some CEO made millions last year generally don't think that everyone in that business makes that kind of money. A surprising number of people assume I'm as rich as Stephen King because I'm in the same business. (Excuse me, I think I pulled something there. And my head hurts where I hit in on the desk when I fell off my chair. Gimme a minute.) What is it about writing, specifically, that makes them assume that?

[reph]

There's a mystique about writing because most people grew up with books around and perceived that they were important. Books spoke with a voice of authority. But you never saw one being produced. Books came from somewhere else. They came from a vaguely imagined place filled with smart people who knew more than you did.

A lingering idea of books as magical and of their authors as superior might lead nonwriters to expect writers to make pots of money.

[Jamesaritchie]

But people who hear that some CEO made millions last year generally don't think that everyone in that business makes that kind of money. A surprising number of people assume I'm as rich as Stephen King because I'm in the same business. (Excuse me, I think I pulled something there. And my head hurts where I hit in on the desk when I fell off my chair. Gimme a minute.) What is it about writing, specifically, that makes them assume that?

Darn, I thought you were as rich as Stephen King. I was just working my way up to asking you for a loan of a million or so. You know, short term. Just until my next multi-million dollar advance check comes in.

[popmuze]

I remember once a Writers Guild survey of screenwriters put the number at about 2% of those who could claim to make any kind of a living writing.
As far as print writing goes, I can't say I'm making a living at it right now (although I do feel my previous books have led me to some stupendous day jobs, the latest of which I've had for the last eleven years).
But I'm wondering where my experiences would put in the ranks of fellow published writers: apart from lots of essays, columns and articles I've had 7 non-fiction books published (highest advance $20,000), 3 novels (average advance $3000), 1 reference book ($25,000); only the reference book and a quickie book I did on Disco for Scholastic Press earned back their advances. I've had some positive and some mixed and some negative reviews, but nothing I'd consider major. Sometimes people recognize my byline, but don't remember where they saw it. Some books come and go without a mention.
But, after thirty years I'm still getting published (new book due in August), sending out non-fiction proposals, and working on a new novel. Whether I can move into the higher five figures, or have to drop down to four figures to continue remains to be seen.
So, statistics obsessed sports fan that I am, where do I rank?

[SeanDSchaffer]

But people who hear that some CEO made millions last year generally don't think that everyone in that business makes that kind of money. A surprising number of people assume I'm as rich as Stephen King because I'm in the same business. (Excuse me, I think I pulled something there. And my head hurts where I hit in on the desk when I fell off my chair. Gimme a minute.) What is it about writing, specifically, that makes them assume that?


Hmmm....

I'd wager it's probably the fame and the public exposure many writers experience. It's not as though a large number of businessmen are in the public light the way many writers are. When people think of writing, they think of fame. And when many people think of fame, they put the words "and fortune" behind fame.

Granted, most writers are not massively famous, but nevertheless the mythology is there of a writer automatically being famous and rich because he or she published one book.

[Mike Martyn]

<------ Mike Martyn, Out Standing in his field!



I've been writing since last fall. I write because I don't seem to have any bloody choice in the matter. It's a good thing that I love it.

Since I'll keep on writing (BIC for two hours every day), in the fullness of time I will get better at it. So far I've done an 110,000 first draft, a couple of shorts and am 15,000 words into book two. Book two is definately better than Book one. I love Book one but I suspect it's trunk fodder since the prospect of re writing it is daunting. All that head hopping!

My goal is to make an income as a writer equal to my wife's pension once we retire which will be in two years or so.

Since my wife's pension is only about $10,000 per year, it seems a modest enough goal.

As to occupations, I highly recommend the practise of law. It's been good to me.http://absolutewrite.com/forums/images/icons/icon7.gif

[Jamesaritchie]

So, statistics obsessed sports fan that I am, where do I rank?

As one of the lucky few who may not be rich, but who can still claim to be living a dream.

[popmuze]

Basically, my motto is, the act of writing is the best part. Once it goes into the marketplace, it's all downhill.

[Nateskate]

What makes you think we have a choice? :)

Exactly. I've written entire stories freehand, all for the entertainment of a handfull of people. I didn't ever write for money, though I've been writing in one form or the other most of my life. Even now, I'm not writing for money. I'm not writing for poverty either. If I happen to make money writing, I'll let them pay me.

If I had the option of fifty thousand people reading my book and a million dollars verse a million people reading my book and fifty thousand dollars, I think I'd take the million people reading my book. I haven't been tempted yet, so I can't say 100% though.

[Jamesaritchie]

Basically, my motto is, the act of writing is the best part. Once it goes into the marketplace, it's all downhill.

This is one reason a good agent is worth her weight in wood pulp. A good agent pretty much means the writer can mail her the manuscript, and she can handle the marketplace. In the meantime, the writer can be writing another manuscript.

Let the editors edit, the reviewers review,
Let the accountants account, or whatever they do.
Let them steal all my money, let them steal all my fame,
Let them remainder my books, let them slander my name.

There still is the trash man, the tramp, and the clown,
And that's all that matters, my words have been found!
And if none of this works, I'll shout them out loud,
Balanced on a box, in front of a crowd.
If I live in a palace, or a cabin down south,
If I make untold millions, or live hand to mouth,
If I never need work, or must slave day and night,
I'll be just as happy as long as I write.

[maestrowork]

It would be fantastic if I become rich and famous because of my writing... I can dream, but my feet remain firmly on the ground. I sure would work hard toward making my books read by every person on Earth, now and forever... Bwuahahahahaha!

The reality is, and to quote a silly song: the future's not ours to see... the only thing I can control is write some darn good stories with great characters and see where they take me... and to live my dream and feed my passion. Best of all, to live happily as I'd like...

And the reality is I have some savings and I make my money some other ways (no, I'm not a drug dealer! <eg>) I am not depending on my income as a writer, and if I never become rich because of my writing, so be it. I'm not going to be homeless. It doesn't mean I don't taking my writing seriously. Just not "because of money" or fame, for that matter.

[Diana Hignutt]

No, I don't make my living as a writer. Sure, I make a little money here and there, but I couldn't live off of it. I'm still a relative newbie, and though some folks in the industry expect me to go very far, my time has not yet come. For awhile, I was listening to all those reviews that told me how brilliant I was, and industry-insiders who knew I was going to (eventually) be one of the next big things. It was hard to see, struggling with financial and health problems as I have been. Finally, my finances are easing up, so the pressure I was feeling to make real money from my writing has correspondingly eased up. Now, I'm writing again, just because I love to write. I feel grounded again. If fame and fortune come, that's cool, but I hope to continue writing simply because that's what I want to do. I don't ever want to feel like I have to write or I can't eat, or I won't be able to pay my bills. I'm not saying, I wouldn't like to be a professional writer, but I would only just write if I was successful enough to be able to do it at my own pace. At least that's how I'm feeling about it now.

Diana Hignutt
author of Empress of Clouds (Behler), a 2004 ForeWord Magazine Book of the Year Finalist, 2005 IPPY Award Semi-Finalist, and a 2005 Spectrum Award Nominee.

[Zolah]

[QUOTE=Mike Martyn
My goal is to make an income as a writer equal to my wife's pension once we retire which will be in two years or so.

Since my wife's pension is only about $10,000 per year, it seems a modest enough goal.
[/QUOTE]

10,000 a year? That would be a dream come true for me, and for a lot of other people I know. It's not easy to make that much money writing - even if you're writing novels - especially with advances routinely divided into four chunks these days and agents charging 15%.

[Mike Martyn]

10,000 a year? That would be a dream come true for me, and for a lot of other people I know. It's not easy to make that much money writing - even if you're writing novels - especially with advances routinely divided into four chunks these days and agents charging 15%.



A guy can dream, can't he?

Bear in mind, I've had a lot of practise at writing. Over the last 28 years as a lawyer, I've written some astonishing fictions!http://absolutewrite.com/forums/images/icons/icon7.gif

[Zolah]

Well, there's nothing wrong with knowing your own abilities, or being ambitious. Good luck to you!

[James D. Macdonald]

Nothing wrong with hoping. It's just planning on it that breeds frustration.

[Mike Martyn]

Nothing wrong with hoping. It's just planning on it that breeds frustration.

Thanks for your comments. No, I'm not planning on it. If it happens, great, if not 'ca sura sura!

My wife encourages me. She looks upon it as an inexpensive hobby. Other wise I might take up golf.

[Jamesaritchie]

10K a year really isn't very much to expect form writing, if you can sell at all. If you do nothing except write novels, and if you're a slow writer, 10K might be difficult to make year after year, but it really shouldn't be for anyone who is in the least prolific.

The trick really is being able to sell at all. Once you can do this, and if you aren't terribly slow, or if you're versatile, I don't think 10K per year is in any way unrealistic.

It's planning on getting rich from writing that's a problem. Or even planning to earn as much as you would from a top job with good benefits.

Having advances broken up into several chunks shouldn't cause anyone to earn less per year, and any good agent will more than earn her 15%. An agent who can't increae the advance you could get for yourself more than 15% is an agent you probably don't want. Any good agent will more than pay her own way.

But first a writer has to prove he can sell at all, and that's the hard part. But I can earn more than 10K per year selling short stories, and considerably more than 10K per year selling articles, and more than 10K per year just selling this and that and the other.

Dreaming is good, and I believe planning is, as well, once you prove you can sell short stories or articles at a national level, or novels to mainstream publishers.

[Zolah]

Well, I was seeing £10,000 when what was actually written was $10,000. £10,000 might, if I was careful, allow me to give up work completely for a year. I don't think $10,000 would. Plus, I'm not at all versatile, and I only write YA novels - which do not earn big advances. And though I can usually finish two books a year, my publisher will only put one out a year, which means everything else gets delayed.