7 ms·

Without some kind of business model, no writer would be insane enough to write or publish a book because their audience would just read it for free.

the_af 6y ago
This is mistaken. Writers write. It's their calling. Plenty of writers have been "insane enough" to write and publish without a business model for as long as written language has existed.
- dageshi 6y ago
  No, what's mistaken is not noticing that the world has changed. Websites exist, youtube exists, there are a myriad of ways a writer might "write" or create which does not involve book form. Books remain viable because there's a business model to support them, but take that away and people capable of writing could and would go to modern competing products that didn't exist in the past.
  - the_af 6y ago
    > Books remain viable because there's a business model to support them If you mean "viable" business-wise, that's a tautology. If you mean "viable" as in "writers feel compelled to write books", that's simply false. Writers write. Many writers like writing books, and would do so even if it didn't put a single cent in their pockets. Writing books can be turned into a business, but it's not inherently a business. Also, a book is not its physical form. An electronic book is no less of a book than a paper book.
    - goto11 6y ago
      > Many writers like writing books, and would do so even if it didn't put a single cent in their pockets. Unless you are independently rich, you need an income to survive.
      - the_af 6y ago
        That's not the only option. Some writers get by without being rich. Others have other jobs, and write because it's their passion. The falsehood here is "no writer will be insane enough to write without a business model".
        goto11 6y ago
        Sure some cushy jobs makes it possible to write on the side. It is no accident that historically a lot of authors and scientists were clergymen. But you need an income to be able to write.
        the_af 6y ago
        "Cushy jobs" is overstating it. People find the means to write with poor jobs too. Yes, you need to be able to have a means of living in order to write. Selling your books is one such way, but not the only one. Lots of writers would still write without a business model. That was my only point, really. It's false that one would have to be "insane" in order to write. We can argue about ifs and buts all day long, but that bit which I was replying to was hyperbolic and false.
        goto11 6y ago
        Can you mention some examples of novels by working-class authors from before the introduction of copyright and commercial publishing?
        the_af 6y ago
        I can do one better: I can mention a hugely popular and commercially successful writer -- whom you know of, at least by name-- who used to live from paycheck to paycheck, really struggling when he started (before succeeding enormously, of course) and who wrote in the introduction to one of his books: "Painting. Sculpture. Composing. Singing. Acting. The playing of a musical instrument. Writing. Enough books have been written on these seven subjects alone to sink a fleet of luxury liners. And the only thing we seem to be able to agree upon about them is this: that those who practise these arts honestly would continue to practise them even if they were not paid for their efforts; even if their efforts were criticized or even reviled; even on pain of imprisonment or death." He struck gold, of course, but note the sentiment he expressed. By his own admission, had he never been paid for it, he would have kept writing anyway, because that's what he does. And when he was starting he had other jobs -- and a family to support -- and really struggled with money, but kept going anyway.
- goto11 6y ago
  Writers are free to make their work public domain if they want. The question is for all the author who have not decided to do that, but prefer to get paid for their work. > Plenty of writers have been "insane enough" to write and publish without a business model for as long as written language has existed. Only in the case of independently wealthy authors, which historically typically means nobility. Most non-wealthy authors have been depending on patronage, which means some other wealthy person decide what you write. Copyright was revolutionary because it meant an author could exist without catering to rich or powerful patrons.
  - the_af 6y ago
    > Only in the case of independently wealthy authors, which historically typically means nobility. Not only that. Plenty of struggling people write because they like writing. Writing is a calling which some people happen to be able to turn into a business. But do note the post I was replying to. I wasn't arguing about copyright. I was arguing about the hyperbole of "no writer would be insane enough [...]" which is simply untrue. And it's untrue by a lot, not by a little.
  - pessimizer 6y ago
    > Only in the case of independently wealthy authors, which historically typically means nobility. Most non-wealthy authors have been depending on patronage, which means some other wealthy person decide what you write. You're mistaking publishing for writing. You need money to publish, because publishing is selling decorated paper. Or rather, you did need money to publish. Now you don't, but instead we throw up artificial barriers in order to preserve the status quo.

the_af 6y ago

This is mistaken. Writers write. It's their calling. Plenty of writers have been "insane enough" to write and publish without a business model for as long as written language has existed.

dageshi 6y ago
No, what's mistaken is not noticing that the world has changed. Websites exist, youtube exists, there are a myriad of ways a writer might "write" or create which does not involve book form. Books remain viable because there's a business model to support them, but take that away and people capable of writing could and would go to modern competing products that didn't exist in the past.
- the_af 6y ago
  > Books remain viable because there's a business model to support them If you mean "viable" business-wise, that's a tautology. If you mean "viable" as in "writers feel compelled to write books", that's simply false. Writers write. Many writers like writing books, and would do so even if it didn't put a single cent in their pockets. Writing books can be turned into a business, but it's not inherently a business. Also, a book is not its physical form. An electronic book is no less of a book than a paper book.
  - goto11 6y ago
    > Many writers like writing books, and would do so even if it didn't put a single cent in their pockets. Unless you are independently rich, you need an income to survive.
    - the_af 6y ago
      That's not the only option. Some writers get by without being rich. Others have other jobs, and write because it's their passion. The falsehood here is "no writer will be insane enough to write without a business model".
      - goto11 6y ago
        Sure some cushy jobs makes it possible to write on the side. It is no accident that historically a lot of authors and scientists were clergymen. But you need an income to be able to write.
        the_af 6y ago
        "Cushy jobs" is overstating it. People find the means to write with poor jobs too. Yes, you need to be able to have a means of living in order to write. Selling your books is one such way, but not the only one. Lots of writers would still write without a business model. That was my only point, really. It's false that one would have to be "insane" in order to write. We can argue about ifs and buts all day long, but that bit which I was replying to was hyperbolic and false.
        goto11 6y ago
        Can you mention some examples of novels by working-class authors from before the introduction of copyright and commercial publishing?
        the_af 6y ago
        I can do one better: I can mention a hugely popular and commercially successful writer -- whom you know of, at least by name-- who used to live from paycheck to paycheck, really struggling when he started (before succeeding enormously, of course) and who wrote in the introduction to one of his books: "Painting. Sculpture. Composing. Singing. Acting. The playing of a musical instrument. Writing. Enough books have been written on these seven subjects alone to sink a fleet of luxury liners. And the only thing we seem to be able to agree upon about them is this: that those who practise these arts honestly would continue to practise them even if they were not paid for their efforts; even if their efforts were criticized or even reviled; even on pain of imprisonment or death." He struck gold, of course, but note the sentiment he expressed. By his own admission, had he never been paid for it, he would have kept writing anyway, because that's what he does. And when he was starting he had other jobs -- and a family to support -- and really struggled with money, but kept going anyway.
goto11 6y ago
Writers are free to make their work public domain if they want. The question is for all the author who have not decided to do that, but prefer to get paid for their work. > Plenty of writers have been "insane enough" to write and publish without a business model for as long as written language has existed. Only in the case of independently wealthy authors, which historically typically means nobility. Most non-wealthy authors have been depending on patronage, which means some other wealthy person decide what you write. Copyright was revolutionary because it meant an author could exist without catering to rich or powerful patrons.
- the_af 6y ago
  > Only in the case of independently wealthy authors, which historically typically means nobility. Not only that. Plenty of struggling people write because they like writing. Writing is a calling which some people happen to be able to turn into a business. But do note the post I was replying to. I wasn't arguing about copyright. I was arguing about the hyperbole of "no writer would be insane enough [...]" which is simply untrue. And it's untrue by a lot, not by a little.
- pessimizer 6y ago
  > Only in the case of independently wealthy authors, which historically typically means nobility. Most non-wealthy authors have been depending on patronage, which means some other wealthy person decide what you write. You're mistaking publishing for writing. You need money to publish, because publishing is selling decorated paper. Or rather, you did need money to publish. Now you don't, but instead we throw up artificial barriers in order to preserve the status quo.