Wednesday
Apr132011
Don't give up the day job (until the time is right)
Wednesday, April 13, 2011 at 10:00PM
I honestly never dreamed I'd be writing a blog post about writing that would include the term 'multiple revenue streams'. But ever since the Cory Doctorow post, and the ensuing Twitter exchanges, it seems impossible to escape the damned phrase. Now John Scalzi (have to mention his wonderful Electronic Publishing Bingo card again) has weighed in too.
So let me try and put down what I think succinctly here.
In case you didn't notice that last sentence is the kicker.
When I started out writing I couldn’t make enough money from books alone. So I kept on with a parallel career in journalism. For the last decade of that it consisted of writing an 800-word weekly column for the Sunday Times. Latterly they paid me £40,000 a year for those 800 words a week, which was a lot of money frankly. In 2005 I quit the paper. Partly because I was bored with the work. Partly because a movie deal made me feel a little more secure financially than I had in a long time. But principally because I felt it was time to focus on my fiction and devote more time to trying to write better books.
Did I manage? In financial terms, yes. That £40K from journalism got made up elsewhere as I devoted my time and concentration to the books alone. More importantly from a personal point of view, I feel my writing got better. I was able to work at it harder. To learn. To question and edit and rewrite to a greater degree than I could when I was working as a journalist too.
This was perilous of course, but anyone who wants a writing career without risk is surely deeply delusional. This whole business is based upon questionable decisions and insane gambles, both by authors and -- though we rarely recognise the fact -- by publishers too. That's the nature of the game. As an individual author it makes sense to lay off your bets as much as you can. But you still have to plonk down your wad on the main horse, which is, for me anyway, writing.
To put it another way... would I be where I am today if I were still hacking out that 800-word column for the Sunday Times? No. I wouldn't have had the space to develop my writing. I would always have been asking myself, 'What might I have achieved if I'd had the guts to quit everything and try to be an author and nothing more?' Oh... and let's be frank. Journalism being what it was I'd probably have been fired along the way too.
Writing's a tough, demanding business. Sooner or later you have to decide whether you're in for the duration or just a bit player. People who manage multiple careers -- speaking, being gurus, developing celebrity status -- are the exceptions in the book business, not the rule. They may get all the publicity and in the case of a few individuals a good chunk of the money.
Your odds of becoming one of them are slim indeed. You stand a much better chance of developing a career through writing good books, at regular intervals, getting your face and work known as widely as possible and developing a reputation as a solid, professional, original author in your own right. Devoting your time to peripheral activities, however financially rewarding, however necessary at times, will take you away from all that.
And don't forget that a canny author develops multiple revenue streams in any case. Through foreign translations, through audio sales, public lending right (if it exists in your country), through TV and media deals.
Provided, of course, you're published conventionally through literary agents and printed books that find their way into libraries and book fairs. None of which will easily come the way of most self-pubbers following the current fashion.
So let me try and put down what I think succinctly here.
- Anyone who gives up the day job and tries to become a full-time writer from scratch is arguably insane and probably headed for a sticky end.
- Multiple income streams -- rich wives or husbands, inherited fortunes, lottery winnings, adopting a guru-like stance which gets you fancy paid speaking engagements -- are a good idea in any walk of life, writing or not. Provided they don't get in the way of the real work.
In case you didn't notice that last sentence is the kicker.
When I started out writing I couldn’t make enough money from books alone. So I kept on with a parallel career in journalism. For the last decade of that it consisted of writing an 800-word weekly column for the Sunday Times. Latterly they paid me £40,000 a year for those 800 words a week, which was a lot of money frankly. In 2005 I quit the paper. Partly because I was bored with the work. Partly because a movie deal made me feel a little more secure financially than I had in a long time. But principally because I felt it was time to focus on my fiction and devote more time to trying to write better books.
Did I manage? In financial terms, yes. That £40K from journalism got made up elsewhere as I devoted my time and concentration to the books alone. More importantly from a personal point of view, I feel my writing got better. I was able to work at it harder. To learn. To question and edit and rewrite to a greater degree than I could when I was working as a journalist too.
This was perilous of course, but anyone who wants a writing career without risk is surely deeply delusional. This whole business is based upon questionable decisions and insane gambles, both by authors and -- though we rarely recognise the fact -- by publishers too. That's the nature of the game. As an individual author it makes sense to lay off your bets as much as you can. But you still have to plonk down your wad on the main horse, which is, for me anyway, writing.
To put it another way... would I be where I am today if I were still hacking out that 800-word column for the Sunday Times? No. I wouldn't have had the space to develop my writing. I would always have been asking myself, 'What might I have achieved if I'd had the guts to quit everything and try to be an author and nothing more?' Oh... and let's be frank. Journalism being what it was I'd probably have been fired along the way too.
Writing's a tough, demanding business. Sooner or later you have to decide whether you're in for the duration or just a bit player. People who manage multiple careers -- speaking, being gurus, developing celebrity status -- are the exceptions in the book business, not the rule. They may get all the publicity and in the case of a few individuals a good chunk of the money.
Your odds of becoming one of them are slim indeed. You stand a much better chance of developing a career through writing good books, at regular intervals, getting your face and work known as widely as possible and developing a reputation as a solid, professional, original author in your own right. Devoting your time to peripheral activities, however financially rewarding, however necessary at times, will take you away from all that.
And don't forget that a canny author develops multiple revenue streams in any case. Through foreign translations, through audio sales, public lending right (if it exists in your country), through TV and media deals.
Provided, of course, you're published conventionally through literary agents and printed books that find their way into libraries and book fairs. None of which will easily come the way of most self-pubbers following the current fashion.
Reader Comments (3)
[...] UPDATE 2: David Hewson has written another blog post to more fully explore his thoughts on the matter: Don’t give up the day job (until the time is right). [...]
As someone just starting out in this game, I find it wholly disheartening to consider a long term future where the writing itself remains the part-time, sidelined activity. I write because I want to tell stories, and I cannot hope to explore even the current teetering stack of ideas while barely stealing 2-3 hours of writing time late in the evening after a full day's work.
The notion that it is acceptable to allow literature de-evolve into little more than promotional tools for more profitable enterprises demonstrates anything but a respect for the medium. If this attitude is permitted to propagate, literature is bound to suffer. But what does it really matter: it's not as if literature has ever made any real difference historically, right? ;)
The pen is mightier than the sword always seemed to me the most idiotic of mantras. But more seriously... I think it makes sense not to leap until you feel happy about it. But some of us - perhaps most in the end - have to leap to see what we can really achieve. And in spite of what Doctorow keeps on repeating an awful lot of people do make modest to decent livings out of full-time writing. It's not easy and it takes time. I do cringe at some of the celeb culture stuff now going on to be frank. Crude self publicity isn't pretty.