As a point of note, the need for the numbers to go up and fascism are utterly inextricable. Marx pretty much predicted this is how capitalism ends when it can no longer push the number up with the system of capitalism, it must do so with force and theft. Nothing goes up forever. That is an unnatural state. And so the gestapo and the guns come out, but even that won't make it last.
I got $5k less on my second book because it wasn’t gonna be true crime related. I was of course bummed but moved forward with it. I’m about to be on a press tour with that second book now and I’m wondering how things are gonna shake out, but I’m the one in charge of everything press related (Which I’m used to obvi). I have hope that because I can actually do book events (Last book was Covid) I’ll have a bigger start but as you say, you really don’t know! I’m beginning to work on the manuscript for book 3…god help me?
The real issue isn't that artistic careers are inherently unstable, but that publishing specifically has structured itself in ways that maximize risk for creators. The advance system, lack of meaningful sales data, minimal marketing support for most books—these aren't natural laws but business choices.
I agree. How else should we structure it? I think it boils down to allowing bookstores to return unsold stock for their money back. Few to no other retail industries do this. If publishers stopped doing this, and the risk fell to bookstores, would that work? Who would bookstores stock and who would they pass up? If the publishers ate the risks, who would they sign up to publish and who would they pass up? Where would the money come from? What would the shareholders in those companies think? These aren't gotcha questions and I don't have answers. It's not great the authors assume the risk. I haven't landed on an alternative system, except billionaires becoming art patrons like in the Renaissance.
Your perspective on publishing economics is honest and necessary. However, something is troubling about accepting this system as immutable. You say, "we can't make publishing fair because capitalism isn't fair," but other creative industries have found ways to provide more stability—residuals for actors, performance royalties for musicians, licensing fees that continue paying creators over time. Your advice to "write the damn books you want to write" is sound, but it sidesteps the larger question of whether an industry that treats most of its creators as disposable can sustain itself long-term. At some point, expecting artists to subsidize an entire industry with unpaid labor becomes unsustainable.
I have observed this, that 2nd-book thing and the rest of it, the diminishing returns, discouragement, the reader who took a chance on the first book, but didn't love it enough to read the second, however much they're told it's better. I could not have explained this as you have so thoughtfully explained reality.
As a point of note, the need for the numbers to go up and fascism are utterly inextricable. Marx pretty much predicted this is how capitalism ends when it can no longer push the number up with the system of capitalism, it must do so with force and theft. Nothing goes up forever. That is an unnatural state. And so the gestapo and the guns come out, but even that won't make it last.
I got $5k less on my second book because it wasn’t gonna be true crime related. I was of course bummed but moved forward with it. I’m about to be on a press tour with that second book now and I’m wondering how things are gonna shake out, but I’m the one in charge of everything press related (Which I’m used to obvi). I have hope that because I can actually do book events (Last book was Covid) I’ll have a bigger start but as you say, you really don’t know! I’m beginning to work on the manuscript for book 3…god help me?
The real issue isn't that artistic careers are inherently unstable, but that publishing specifically has structured itself in ways that maximize risk for creators. The advance system, lack of meaningful sales data, minimal marketing support for most books—these aren't natural laws but business choices.
I agree. How else should we structure it? I think it boils down to allowing bookstores to return unsold stock for their money back. Few to no other retail industries do this. If publishers stopped doing this, and the risk fell to bookstores, would that work? Who would bookstores stock and who would they pass up? If the publishers ate the risks, who would they sign up to publish and who would they pass up? Where would the money come from? What would the shareholders in those companies think? These aren't gotcha questions and I don't have answers. It's not great the authors assume the risk. I haven't landed on an alternative system, except billionaires becoming art patrons like in the Renaissance.
Your perspective on publishing economics is honest and necessary. However, something is troubling about accepting this system as immutable. You say, "we can't make publishing fair because capitalism isn't fair," but other creative industries have found ways to provide more stability—residuals for actors, performance royalties for musicians, licensing fees that continue paying creators over time. Your advice to "write the damn books you want to write" is sound, but it sidesteps the larger question of whether an industry that treats most of its creators as disposable can sustain itself long-term. At some point, expecting artists to subsidize an entire industry with unpaid labor becomes unsustainable.
Well said.
I have observed this, that 2nd-book thing and the rest of it, the diminishing returns, discouragement, the reader who took a chance on the first book, but didn't love it enough to read the second, however much they're told it's better. I could not have explained this as you have so thoughtfully explained reality.