> The definition of success was "earned a living wage" but some were much more successful than that. I was thinking about this particular issue recently because

> The definition of success was "earned a living wage" but some were much more successful than that. I was thinking about this particular issue recently because a good friend, one who falls squarely into the "should have quit" category, has recently become homeless. How do you account for artistic disciplines where virtually nobody makes any money? Most poets will never earn a living wage from their work, however beautiful and well made it is, because the market just isn’t there. Does that make them failures?