Money or Respect: Which would you choose?

Money. Critical acclaim doesn't pay the rent.

I'd rather have both. But if I could only have one, I'd take the money. Respect is beautiful, but it's intangible and never, ever universal. (The number of truly great writers you can see getting run down mercilessly on AW on any given day of the week is staggering.) Whereas money is actually of use.

I'd rather have respect.

Because if you have enough of THAT, people will see you right financially.

I've always been a sell out for money. I already know that my stories will be panned by many critics. So, I'll just take the money and run.

Besides, I'm a high school teacher. If I wanted respect, I would have picked a different career.

I'd love more money than I have, but I just couldn't live with myself if I wrote something that was beneath me for cash. A clear conscience is the softest pillow.

Although I'd quite like both...

If it was one or the other, I'd go for respect.
I'd rather have respect as well as bill paying money, though.

There seems to be a disconnect somewhere in the basic poll question. It assumes that Paolini/Meyers/etc... knowingly wrote bad books that would incur the ire of the literary community solely for the sake of making a lot of money. Which they did not, because neither of them could have foreseen the cash cows their books became. No one can predict the success of novels in the marketplace, and I very seriously doubt either of those authors considered their books "trash" or that they were "selling out" by writing them. They were telling stories; they got lucky.

But that's just my opinion.

I think of my writing as a career hopefully in the making. Writing would be my *job* and I would happily write accordingly; which means I'd have no problem taking direction from the people I'd be working for, like a publisher who's paying me.

Those of you who dismiss writing tripe for money (which means tripe that sells) have no idea how hard it is, LOL.

Smiles,
EM

ChaosTitan said:

There seems to be a disconnect somewhere in the basic poll question. It assumes that Paolini/Meyers/etc... knowingly wrote bad books that would incur the ire of the literary community solely for the sake of making a lot of money. Which they did not, because neither of them could have foreseen the cash cows their books became. No one can predict the success of novels in the marketplace, and I very seriously doubt either of those authors considered their books "trash" or that they were "selling out" by writing them. They were telling stories; they got lucky.

But that's just my opinion.

Click to expand...

I agree.

I'd take the money, but I'd never put something out there that I myself didn't respect. What the "literary community" thinks, I couldn't care less. If people are enjoying my work enough to give me long-term royalties, that's good enough for me.

Nicole

I'd like to have both, but not everyone is going to like my style of writing, so I do lean more toward MONEY!

Respect won't help you retire from the day job, unfortunately...

shokadh said:

I'm just wondering about other things I've read that seemed to be selling well, but that I would have considered a "sell-out" of my own standards, if I wrote that way. I could make a quick buck that way, but I don't want to, that's all.

Click to expand...

Ah. Thanks for clarifying.

you cant eat critical acclaim. that being said it would kill me if someone called me "the next Stephenie Meyer" but if someone were to call me "the next Anne Rice" I would be over the moon. so I'll go with respect.

Money.

Respect and an empty bag is worth a bag.

Respect.

The day job pays the bills.

The only respect I honestly value is my own. I voted for the money.

I picked other because I figure I'll take the money and buy some respect.

(That's a joke.)

It's a false dichotomy -- no one makes Meyer-level money without the adoration, and yes, respect, of a whole lot of people. Writers might not have a lot of respect for her craft, critics might not have a lot of respect for her work, some readers just won't like her, but you can't say the people who are buying the books (by the metric shitload) don't respect her.

So, in answer to your question, money. Because with it comes a level of respect. And, if you get really lucky, hordes of teenage female fans.

I don't write for the "general literary community." I write for "readers," whoever they may be. If I'm making money, readers obviously respect my writing enough to shell out their hard-earned dollars for it. If I wrote the best story I could, then I've earned self-respect, and that's enough for me.

Personally, I think this type of question is a false dichotomy that causes writers a lot of unnecessary angst.

well, i think you write what you can write, and you do the best job you can at it. Meyers, Paolini, Stephen King, they all devote hours and hours and hours to their writing. Maybe they didn't do the best job in some areas of the craft, but they sure figured out how to tell a riveting story. If it were easy, the rest of us would be selling millions, too.

that said, I'd rather write what i want to write, and hope other people like it, than do something like freelancing or ghostwriting just so I could say "I pay my bills with my writing." So I voted for respect. There are other ways to make a lot of money (though I can't say I do any of those, either, so maybe it's just me and my issues....)

Neither. I want my books to be loved.

For me, life's too short and I value family, friends, nature, and simplicity. Having and giving respect is a part of a great life, and if part of that respect comes from being an inspiring author, even sweeter. Having enough money is a relief, but too much causes phony happiness. IMHO.