Why Do You Write?
This isn’t the blog you expect it to be. I’m not about to talk about why I write, or ask why you do. I just want you to think about it so you’re in the right frame of mind for where I’m going.
Last week a Twitter friend of mine who edits a zine discovered a person he’d bought several stories from–for 1st English rights–had blatantly lied to him about those rights being available. The submitter had sent the editor stories that had already been published–multiple times–and said they were unpublished. This launched a discussion about professionalism in writing, of which this submitter clearly had none. Rights can be a tricky business (one of the reasons authors get agents). When you are agentless you have to navigate this on your own, but most markets understand this and are pretty upfront about what they ask for. No reprints means they want a story that has never been published before. So if your story has already appeared in a magazine, much less multiple magazines, it’s clearly a reprint and submitting it as original is very, very unprofessional.
Then, as these things go, someone pointed out that the zine in question only pay $10 for stories and said something along the lines of “if you want people to treat you professionally pay professional rates”. And in the comments of that little spin off convo someone else mentioned that writers should be happy for anything they get for their fiction, even a pat on the back.
All three of these things could be separate rants, but they came out together (and the last two often appear together) so together I’m keeping them. Which brings me back to this little rant’s title: Why do you write?
There’s lots of reasons to write, and lots of seemingly pretentious reasons people give (let’s face it “I write because I have to” sounds pretentious. It’s not, and any artist will immediately understand, and they probably wouldn’t have asked you why in the first place. But to a non-artist it’s not really understood.) But let’s focus on the two reasons that come down to money matters; writing for hobby and writing for career.
Let me first note that in either one professionalism should not come into question. You might not be trying to build a career in writing, but others might be, including the editors and publishers you might be dealing with. You still need to respect guidelines, be courteous to others, even if you never meet them face to face, and always send in your best work.
To a hobbyist writer it’s about writing, or being part of genre fandom. It’s about putting words on a page, having them make sense and be entertaining, and the pleasure of seeing your byline in print. And let me tell you an obvious secret, we’re all hobbyists at heart. Writers who don’t write for the pleasure of it, for the fun of it, for the moment we get our contributor copies or a kind word from a reader, don’t stay writers for long. This passion is what makes it possible to send out our work after rejection and get past that point in a project where we’re convinced it’s all utter shit and should be burned as to not infect other people’s projects. (Even Neil Gaiman, writer superstar, feels this way, so who are we mere mortals to be different?)
But at some point some of us decide we want more. We want to do this professionally. We want a career in writing, knowing how hard it is, and knowing that it will probably be a second or even third job. A career is different than a hobby because there writing is not its own reward, advancement is. Success is the reward. Success is defined in many ways. Money, more contracts, audience recognition, awards, professional reputation…it’s these things that make a career. It’s the hobby bits that make it a satisfying career. But choosing to build a career brings other goals into mind. Writing is no longer the end goal, but publishing well, building an audience and a name become just as important as writing those words. (Luckily good words help in the whole getting published and building an audience thing.)
The zine in question, again which only pays $10 a story has been fired at for not being professional itself. That depends on how you define professional. The editor has every right to expect others to hold up their end of the contract, as he is expected to hold up his. Submitters know how much they pay, and if they don’t like that they shouldn’t submit. Writers who can reliably get semi pro or pro rates for their work have no real reason to accept $10 for first rights to a story, neither do they have any obligation to submit. It would be nice if all markets paid pro or even at least semi pro rates. But that’s not the purpose of all magazines. Not all magazines want to get to the level of Asimov’s. For some it’s just about being entry level, being part of the genre. And let’s face it getting to the level where you have to think about business things (advertisers, tax forms, growing your market) can take a hell of a lot of the enjoyment out of things.
I don’t blame people for not wanting to strip away those things from something they do for the love of it. It’s not easy to turn a hobby into a career. Emotionally it can be absolutely devastating. The fact is that most people never make it when you have to make it about business rather than enjoyment.
There’s nothing wrong with being a hobbyist, as a market or as a writer. In a way I sort of envy those who don’t have to worry about, for example, what being more successful will mean for their taxes. In high school I took a journalism class and was crushed to realize that most of the work in putting out a paper is getting ads. I wanted to be a writer, not an ad seller. Choosing why you’re writing is essential because you’re defining what it is that you want to get our of writing.
Now, the idea that writers should be happy with whatever they get, even if it’s only a pat on the back is utterly ridiculous. As in every profession AND hobby, writers have the right to demand a certain price for their work. If a hobbyist baker makes you a wedding cake you can expect it to cost less than a professional bakery, but expecting it to be made for a pat on the back is outright silly. No one would expect a hobbyist carpenter to work for free, or a hobbyist leatherworker, or even a hobbyist musician. At conventions and fairs and online you see people who make a few extra bucks doing something they love and when you’re looking down at handmade jewelry, even if you know the person will be at their “real job” as a bank teller tomorrow morning, it never occurs to you that they should just give you their jewelry because you like it. So why do we expect even a hobbyist writer to submit to that?
There’s nothing wrong with a hobbyist market or with writing for fun, with profit being a cherry on the top. But there is something wrong with devaluing a person’s time, effort and WORK making it only worth what crumbs of appreciation people can be bothered to toss at the maker. If a writer sets a low price for their work in exchange for better odds at getting published or less work required, that’s their choice. But demanding that all workers accept a certain level of pay, or that all markets give a certain level of pay misses the point for which these markets and writers work.
Finally, tossing out accusations of elitism and snobbery to those who are working toward different goals and demand a different pay scale in turn is no better than those who are dismissing low pay markets as scum. No, token pay markets aren’t going to get you noticed by big editors or get you a big publishing deal. But sometimes all you want out of something is encouragement to keep going.
You have to know why it is that your write, what your goal is when you send out that story, what you want from your words. Once you decide that then you take the path that’s right for you, not the one that everyone else says you should take.
When I was learning to write, self-publishing didn’t exist yet, and the idea of PAYING someone ELSE to support your work was anathema. Banned. Out-and-out anathema.
Now, it seems (forgive me) a drop-out’s way. Sure, blah blah it’s the very greatest thing in the whole world for a tiny, select batch of writers–but for most, it’s a lousy excuse not to edit their own work or hone their craft. Inexcusable and lazy. Then these people go around introducing themselves as “published authors.”
I write because I want to be paid for it. I am not a hobbyist–nor do I think it’s somehow wrong for a hobbyist to want to be paid. Even THE NEW YORKER reputedly pays only $50 per poem. But I have published poetry galore for the sheer “thrill” (ha ha) of another name on my resume. That’s what it’s about: building consumer trust, if you will–the consumer being agents and editors.
Yes, there are a small number of people who are writing for a niche or who are already experienced marketers, but the fact that the major goal of self publishing is to get a big contract is pretty telling. I’ve read some great self published work, and it makes me a little sad, because I think because it was self published it wasn’t do what it should have done for the writer’s career. But it’s important to remember that these other people are going after what they want. If they are getting what they want out of self publishing more power to them. It’s when they aren’t and they get really bitchy about it that there’s an issue.
I agree absolutely with everyone’s take. I just wonder how much this will change over the next ten years. After all, the majors are publishing works that fail (90% of titles are supported by the 10% that are blockbusters), failing to publish at least some good work I’ve read, and struggling to find their way in a world of e ventures. I’m just not sure how it will all shake out–whether a new model will emerge. Even if it does, though, there will have to be some way of filtering the wheat from the unedited and unhoned chaff.
Well there are some misunderstandings about how publishing works too that might skew the degree to which it is failing. Such as I recently learned advances (I don’t know if this is for all or just some publishers) are given based on the expected revenue for the book throughout its entire contract. Books aren’t supposed to earn out at all. That does change my expectation that not earning out equals failure.
I also think that some of the issues are changes happening in the consumer, the market and society as a whole not just blatant failures on the part of publishers. I think people these days are moving toward a preference for long availability of products (backlists) rather than “Hey this is new, buy now!” I think most products are more permanent than they once were. I think that publishers offering low royalties on ebook and refusing to offer ebooks is a huge mistake, but so is the idea that ebooks are a gold mine that will replace print. For one many of us cannot afford ereaders, and even if we could the lack of standard formats and technology updating every few months makes us reluctant to spend that kind of money on something that will be obsolete in a year.
lol–You said it, Michele. I couldn’t agree more. Thanks for your snappy comeback!
Hi, Michele:
While I encourage e-book purchases because authors receive higher royalties and are more protected from the loss of royalties through used book purchases, I admit I don’t own an e-reader myself for precisely the reasons you mentioned–the initial cost, and the soon-to-be-outdated technology–and one more: I spend at least half my day in front of a computer and don’t want to spend my pleasure reading time with my dry eyeballs facing another screen.
I guess that makes me a hypocrite.
I’m not sure how that would make you a hypocrite. I understand the staring at a screen thing. I hear that eInk is better for your eyes than backlit computer screens, but I couldn’t tell you from experience.