Writing For Love or For Money by Chris Longmuir
The idea of making money from writing gets a mixed
reception. Those who regard themselves as professional writers see no problem
with this. In fact they expect to make money because of their professional
status. Then there are the hobbyists who write solely for the love of creating
something. They are quite happy to distribute their writing, whether that is
poetry, stories or novels, for no payment. They get their reward from knowing
their work has been read. But among the hobbyists are some writers who are
developing their work and themselves into semi-professional status. These are
the writers who are happy to charge for their writing in order to acquire a bit
of extra income, although many of them do not make a profit.
In among these groupings there are some who believe that
writers should not be paid for their work. They should supply everything free
to their followers and readers. While this is a noble concept it is not a
realistic one.
It is easy to say money is unimportant if you know where
your next meal is coming from. It is not so easy to take this stance if you
rely on food banks for your next meal. This implies that writers should only
write if they can afford to, and that people who need the money they make from
their writing to help keep them out of poverty, are not entitled to write. If
money is unimportant to writers are they an elite group who look down on those
who can’t afford to write for nothing? And should we all be starving in our
respective garrets, otherwise known as the room where we write?
The idea of artists starving in garrets was a romantic
notion that arose during the late eighteenth and ninteenth-centuries. This was
a time when it was the fashion for artists and other creative people to go to
Paris and live in a garrett. It was a rebellious age where young people
rejected society and flouted the rules in order to follow their own path. They
believed in art for art’s sake, and that they should suffer for it.
There were many people in the arts movement who followed
this path. James Joyce and Vincent van Gogh, for example, both lived in poverty
for their art. But they also relied on hand-outs, gifts and loans. In van Gogh’s
case he spent the money his brother sent him on art supplies, preferring to
starve for his art. Rilke the poet had a patron, and Marcel Proust had a
private income. There is nothing to suggest that any of these men would have
objected if they had been paid for their art.
There are many writers who spend thousands of pounds on
their ‘hobby’, I know I certainly do. Are we not entitled to some reimbursement
for our expenditure? If I decide to follow the high moral ground so I can feel
superior, and give my writing away for no charge, I am in effect gifting my
readers thousands of pounds, because that is what my writing costs me on an
annual basis. I would love to do this because I value my readers, but I simply
can’t afford to do so. And if I did do it I would simply be feeding my own
vanity, which is not something I want to do.
In conclusion, it’s easy to take the high moral ground and
say it is demeaning to accept money from writing. Not so easy when your
finances are such that you cannot afford to do that.
Chris Longmuir
Amazon
Apple iBooks
Comments
Taken from a socialist perspective - though this is hardly radical - they are selling their labour (writing) in the market place. Those who give work away dismiss the value of both their own labour and that of other writers.
(Having said that, I write voluntarily for a local online newspaper - but we are all volunteers, and any money from adverts goes to local charities. That feels very different from giving books away on Amazon.)
Compare it to any other worker, who spends years learning a difficult craft - whether it be car mechanics, plumbing, joinery, dress-making. They may well enjoy the exercise of this craft - it is nevertheless, work.
They then offer their skill for hire. 'If you haven't the time or the knowledge to fix your own plumbing/car/make your own bespoke table, sew your own dress - I will do it for you, better than you could do it yourself, at a price which allows me a living.'
If all the customers in their area insist, 'No, we don't want to pay. We insist that you supply your skill for nothing. Your plumbing/dress-making or whatever will be purer if you do it for nothing - but mind, we want your very best work! We'll accept nothing less - but we won't pay. You should be charitable and give us all the benefit of your hard work for nothing - while we get on earning our own livings.'
Is that a noble idea? - I think it's a selfish, short-sighted, ignorant and stupid idea. If carried through, it will quickly result in the death of skilled trades.
Applied to writing, it will mean that only a small circle of those who don't need to earn a living will write - we'll be back to the days when literature was exclusively about a tiny circle of priviledged people.
'The labourer is worthy of his hire.' Or even her hire.
What has got worse is the problem of "discoverability" because of the sheer volume of writing being done. Since word-of-mouth has always been,and probably always will be, the most effective marketing tool in the business, there is a temptation to give books to people who might tell other people about them, in the hope of later being able to charge money. Publishers have also been able to exploit this dream by paying small or no advances on the promise that you might have a best seller on your hands once it is published.In most cases, inevitably, that doesn't happen, which is why the average writer's salary is considerably less than the minimum wage.
As someone who has always had to rely on writing as his sole source of income, I do appreciate that sometimes you need to get the ball rolling with some voluntary work - writing for this blog being one example.
Every so often, of course, someone like E.L.James comes along and demonstrates just how well the word-of-mouth system works, and so we all keep on putting our work out there in the hope of winning the publishing lottery.
So at the moment, FREE is earning me more money than not-free was. I always said I never wanted to give stuff away and I won't leave it free forever, but it's working for me right now.