One thing readers might not know is that a vast majority of books—90-95% or more—sell less than 10,000 copies. Most even less than that. There are high profile books with good reviews and awards that sell less than 10,000 copies.
Hi Sherman, thank you for the comment! Yeah, I remember being really shocked when that sank in for me. A published book seemed like such a high-status thing, and it was startling for me that published authors ended up being so used by the system (and those were the ones who'd gotten published!) - selling so few copies, ending up with so little revenue after so much work. That's made me realize how much the publishing market trades on the vanity of authors - everybody else in the industry seems to make off better than all but a handful of writers - and to at least keep my eyes open to a potential, alternate way of doing things (something in this Substack-y, Patreon-y space where writers just put out their work and get paid directly for it).
So far, Substack seems to fit the economic model of traditional publishing. Big money for a few, moderate money for some, and very little money for most everybody. And, so far, all the big money folks brought in their preexisting audiences. The writers doing well right now are the ones who already were writings tons of online stuff. I wonder if a new writer has found a sizable audience with their Substack.
Just to speak from personal experience, I'm a no-name writer who'd published a novel in 2015 which sold far less than 10,000 copies (about 1200 in six years). After 6 months on Substack, I'd made more money here than in 6 years publishing (with a good publishing deal to boo: 50/50 split with the publisher). I'm not necessarily paying my rent with Substack, but I almost am. So there's hope for the little swimmers too, at least for now.
In my dark moods, I feel that inequality is just really built into the human psyche (and even into mathematics via Pareto distributions, etc) and no amount of web utopianism or jingoistic op-ed writing (like my piece here) will ever change that.
A powerful, insightful essay, Sam, that covers the problems of pursuing the arts.
I plan to post the following thoughts in future work here. But I'd like to share my thinking with you here along with a quote: In a workshop, I try to talk about the story I have in hand in terms of the elements of craft that I know I can teach, discuss objectively. I try to do this with a continuing understanding that we are dealing with art or what we hope will become art. “Art”—what an elusive word. Let me try to make that word concrete with a quote from Lewis Hyde whose book The Gift: Imagination and the Erotic Life of Property I recommend to understand how or why one might spend what’s left of one’s life trying to do this work that rarely if ever sees the light of day and has no hope to make one rich. Indeed, great art (Van Gogh’s paintings, Joyce’s Ulysses) does not lie easy in the world.
Lewis Hyde says: “I think, a gift—and particularly an inner gift, a talent—is a mystery. We know what giftedness is for having been gifted, or for having known a gifted man or woman. We know that art is a gift for having had the experience of art. We cannot know these things by way of economic, psychological, or aesthetic theories. Where an inner gift comes from, what obligations of reciprocity it brings with it, how and toward whom our gratitude should be discharged, to what degree we must leave a gift alone and to what degree we must discipline it, how we’re to feel its spirit and preserve its vitality—these and all other questions raised by a gift can only be answered by telling Just So stories. As Whitman says, ‘the talkers talking their talk’ cannot explain these things; we learn by ‘faint clues and indirections.’”
God, you really love The Gift! I'm convinced! I'm really going to read it! That's such a beautiful quote - and, yes, I have no idea if the 'gift economy' will ever push out or even contend with the 'economy economy,' but it's exactly that mentality of the gift that's so vital in art (in making art and appreciating art) and that needs to constantly hold its ground against the pressures of the market and of the 'status game.' Thank you! Excited to read it!
As you develop your thinking, think about the distinction between being a part of an artistic industry and being creative. More people than we sometimes imagine make their livings in artistic industries, many are middle-class, and receive great satisfaction from what they do. Whether or not many of these jobs are “creative” is another question, but not necessarily decisive. A friend from high-school became a violin stringer, that job is in the arts but more artisan than creative. Another became a Hollywood lawyer but also played French Horn in bands making commercials. Definitely part of the art world, but not necessarily a creator of art.
Chartes cathedral, one of the great Western works of art, were the people working on that creative? They were certainly engaged in the production of art.
I would submit that to improve our society we would be better off having more people involved in the arts, and able to make a reasonable living, a competency in the American tradition. That is a question of where our society wants to spend its money.
Hi Larry! Yours is definitely the mature perspective that the economy is the economy and artists need to adapt - usually, unless they really break through, by doing something ‘arts adjacent.’ Mine is the immature perspective - that ‘arts adjacent’ doesn’t really count and the friend who makes a living stringing violins would likely be vastly more fulfilled if he could play the violin for a living (and make anything resembling a living wage). I don’t have any real ideas for how we get to a society where more people who really want to be artists make a living doing art, but part of heading in that direction is thinking a little more critically about this topic and removing some mental barriers that we all have. We’ve reached a place in the society where you can be only a professional artist (i.e. make any kind of living from it) if you’re a star. If you’re not a star the best you can hope for is arts-adjacent. The society I would like to live in has much less inequality here, less of a cult around ‘stars,’ many more people who can make even modest livings doing what they love, a public that gets it and is able to spread its money for artistic consumption more diffusely, and an industry that’s more focused on celebrating the array of art as opposed to ceaselessly promoting stars. I don’t think any of that is going to happen anytime soon! - but it’s still worth articulating. A decent analogy, actually, is professional sports. The way it works now there are probably what, 5000 people in the country who make a living as professional baseball players, and 500 of those are millionaires? That’s actually crazy when you think about it. It used to be - mid-19th century, let’s say - that every town would have had a team, everybody playing gets whatever money is made from ticket sales. To me, that’s actually a much better model than what we currently have with professionalism tightly controlled by a narrow gatekeeping industry. Art is a little looser, but the basic dynamics aren’t so far off. Anyway, happy yo argue this over Thanksgiving dinner! - Sam
"Simply put, art as it is is too intertwined with narcissism." I think this line, more than any other in this killer essay, is the real rub: can we unstick ourselves from the commodification of the personality that is creating the art? I believe yes, especially because Substack and reading writers like you is so inspiring. But of course humility and success tend to be inversely proportional, so it may only be a matter of time before you or I am selling Instant Waffles for a Snapchat Channel b/c someone offered us $10,000 to use our "brand image." And then we'd have a stomach ache. Because of the waffles.
There's a really brilliant Viktor Pelevin story called "Friedmann Space" that I think you would like a lot. It follows a team of scientists attempting to test the proposition that "money attracts money" - first, by wandering around Moscow laden with large amounts of cash and seeing how much more money they attract to themselves during the course of their stroll; and then by launching test subjects past the 'Schwarzenegger Threshold,' to a level of wealth where, it's determined, "it is impossible to acquire any factual information about the inner life of a superrich subject though the subject is still capable of discussing a broad range of topics from soccer to business," and where, as telemetry subsequently observes, the inner life of the subject is discovered to consist of a long corridor leading nowhere.
So, in other words, hook me up when you get that Instant Waffles offer!
And thrilled to be in touch. I'm really enjoying your writing. Keep it up!
One thing readers might not know is that a vast majority of books—90-95% or more—sell less than 10,000 copies. Most even less than that. There are high profile books with good reviews and awards that sell less than 10,000 copies.
Hi Sherman, thank you for the comment! Yeah, I remember being really shocked when that sank in for me. A published book seemed like such a high-status thing, and it was startling for me that published authors ended up being so used by the system (and those were the ones who'd gotten published!) - selling so few copies, ending up with so little revenue after so much work. That's made me realize how much the publishing market trades on the vanity of authors - everybody else in the industry seems to make off better than all but a handful of writers - and to at least keep my eyes open to a potential, alternate way of doing things (something in this Substack-y, Patreon-y space where writers just put out their work and get paid directly for it).
So far, Substack seems to fit the economic model of traditional publishing. Big money for a few, moderate money for some, and very little money for most everybody. And, so far, all the big money folks brought in their preexisting audiences. The writers doing well right now are the ones who already were writings tons of online stuff. I wonder if a new writer has found a sizable audience with their Substack.
Just to speak from personal experience, I'm a no-name writer who'd published a novel in 2015 which sold far less than 10,000 copies (about 1200 in six years). After 6 months on Substack, I'd made more money here than in 6 years publishing (with a good publishing deal to boo: 50/50 split with the publisher). I'm not necessarily paying my rent with Substack, but I almost am. So there's hope for the little swimmers too, at least for now.
That's great to hear. Congratulations! And I'd think that means other writers are on the same path. Yay, Substack!
Fingers crossed / we shall enjoy riding the wave while it lasts !
🙌
You may well be right ((
In my dark moods, I feel that inequality is just really built into the human psyche (and even into mathematics via Pareto distributions, etc) and no amount of web utopianism or jingoistic op-ed writing (like my piece here) will ever change that.
I think my moods are usually dark. But there's also a comment here about a writer making his way into the middle-class of Substack!
I saw that! So maybe all’s right with the world after all!
A powerful, insightful essay, Sam, that covers the problems of pursuing the arts.
I plan to post the following thoughts in future work here. But I'd like to share my thinking with you here along with a quote: In a workshop, I try to talk about the story I have in hand in terms of the elements of craft that I know I can teach, discuss objectively. I try to do this with a continuing understanding that we are dealing with art or what we hope will become art. “Art”—what an elusive word. Let me try to make that word concrete with a quote from Lewis Hyde whose book The Gift: Imagination and the Erotic Life of Property I recommend to understand how or why one might spend what’s left of one’s life trying to do this work that rarely if ever sees the light of day and has no hope to make one rich. Indeed, great art (Van Gogh’s paintings, Joyce’s Ulysses) does not lie easy in the world.
Lewis Hyde says: “I think, a gift—and particularly an inner gift, a talent—is a mystery. We know what giftedness is for having been gifted, or for having known a gifted man or woman. We know that art is a gift for having had the experience of art. We cannot know these things by way of economic, psychological, or aesthetic theories. Where an inner gift comes from, what obligations of reciprocity it brings with it, how and toward whom our gratitude should be discharged, to what degree we must leave a gift alone and to what degree we must discipline it, how we’re to feel its spirit and preserve its vitality—these and all other questions raised by a gift can only be answered by telling Just So stories. As Whitman says, ‘the talkers talking their talk’ cannot explain these things; we learn by ‘faint clues and indirections.’”
Love your writing, as ever --Mary
God, you really love The Gift! I'm convinced! I'm really going to read it! That's such a beautiful quote - and, yes, I have no idea if the 'gift economy' will ever push out or even contend with the 'economy economy,' but it's exactly that mentality of the gift that's so vital in art (in making art and appreciating art) and that needs to constantly hold its ground against the pressures of the market and of the 'status game.' Thank you! Excited to read it!
As you develop your thinking, think about the distinction between being a part of an artistic industry and being creative. More people than we sometimes imagine make their livings in artistic industries, many are middle-class, and receive great satisfaction from what they do. Whether or not many of these jobs are “creative” is another question, but not necessarily decisive. A friend from high-school became a violin stringer, that job is in the arts but more artisan than creative. Another became a Hollywood lawyer but also played French Horn in bands making commercials. Definitely part of the art world, but not necessarily a creator of art.
Chartes cathedral, one of the great Western works of art, were the people working on that creative? They were certainly engaged in the production of art.
I would submit that to improve our society we would be better off having more people involved in the arts, and able to make a reasonable living, a competency in the American tradition. That is a question of where our society wants to spend its money.
Hi Larry! Yours is definitely the mature perspective that the economy is the economy and artists need to adapt - usually, unless they really break through, by doing something ‘arts adjacent.’ Mine is the immature perspective - that ‘arts adjacent’ doesn’t really count and the friend who makes a living stringing violins would likely be vastly more fulfilled if he could play the violin for a living (and make anything resembling a living wage). I don’t have any real ideas for how we get to a society where more people who really want to be artists make a living doing art, but part of heading in that direction is thinking a little more critically about this topic and removing some mental barriers that we all have. We’ve reached a place in the society where you can be only a professional artist (i.e. make any kind of living from it) if you’re a star. If you’re not a star the best you can hope for is arts-adjacent. The society I would like to live in has much less inequality here, less of a cult around ‘stars,’ many more people who can make even modest livings doing what they love, a public that gets it and is able to spread its money for artistic consumption more diffusely, and an industry that’s more focused on celebrating the array of art as opposed to ceaselessly promoting stars. I don’t think any of that is going to happen anytime soon! - but it’s still worth articulating. A decent analogy, actually, is professional sports. The way it works now there are probably what, 5000 people in the country who make a living as professional baseball players, and 500 of those are millionaires? That’s actually crazy when you think about it. It used to be - mid-19th century, let’s say - that every town would have had a team, everybody playing gets whatever money is made from ticket sales. To me, that’s actually a much better model than what we currently have with professionalism tightly controlled by a narrow gatekeeping industry. Art is a little looser, but the basic dynamics aren’t so far off. Anyway, happy yo argue this over Thanksgiving dinner! - Sam
"Simply put, art as it is is too intertwined with narcissism." I think this line, more than any other in this killer essay, is the real rub: can we unstick ourselves from the commodification of the personality that is creating the art? I believe yes, especially because Substack and reading writers like you is so inspiring. But of course humility and success tend to be inversely proportional, so it may only be a matter of time before you or I am selling Instant Waffles for a Snapchat Channel b/c someone offered us $10,000 to use our "brand image." And then we'd have a stomach ache. Because of the waffles.
There's a really brilliant Viktor Pelevin story called "Friedmann Space" that I think you would like a lot. It follows a team of scientists attempting to test the proposition that "money attracts money" - first, by wandering around Moscow laden with large amounts of cash and seeing how much more money they attract to themselves during the course of their stroll; and then by launching test subjects past the 'Schwarzenegger Threshold,' to a level of wealth where, it's determined, "it is impossible to acquire any factual information about the inner life of a superrich subject though the subject is still capable of discussing a broad range of topics from soccer to business," and where, as telemetry subsequently observes, the inner life of the subject is discovered to consist of a long corridor leading nowhere.
So, in other words, hook me up when you get that Instant Waffles offer!
And thrilled to be in touch. I'm really enjoying your writing. Keep it up!