/lit/ - Literature

yep, completely unrealistic

Stephen King is only a puppet of the Zionist media trying to discourage new authors from questioning the our Jewish overlords.

>>569655

It's not unrealistic to try. It's unrealistic to expect to succeed.

I don't think it's unrealistic to publish a novel, but I think it's unrealistic to expect to make a living out of it.

Write it, if you can, publish it under some big company, if not, publish it yourself and sell it, but also put it online for free with ads or something.

>>569658
This.
Writing is CREATIVE.
Creative things should be kept as HOBBIES.
I'm not a writer - I'm a musician, but I would never dream of playing music for a living.

most americans don't even read and the ones that do go to the library a lot. so yeah, expect to be broke

>>569655

lulz

>>569668
>Creative things should be kept as HOBBIES.

You are a sad person.

>>569668

Hobbyists are people who gave up.
These are the musicians you go to see and they only play Pink Floyd covers because they want to be "in a band" but can't be assed to put any effort or enthusiasm into it.
What kind of artist doesn't want their work to be seen? One with no confidence in their artistry.

>>569679

For the average person, I agree with this sentiment. It's hard to make a living in the 'creative' industries like music and art unless you are willing to sacrifice--you know the term, "starving artist"?

>>569692

You can be a hobbyist and still have your artwork seen. It's not exactly mutually exclusive..

>>569679
No, I see where he's going. If you try to get by on writing alone, you're concerned less with the quality of your own work and more with deadlines and royalties.

>>569679
What, because I don't want to make music/write books for commercial purposes?

>>569692
Like the other guy said, not mutually exclusive at all. A lot of great music is made by hobbyists.
Would you say Dillinger Escape Plan gave up? They have day jobs.

>>569692
>kafka

I would still write even if you told me there was absolutely no chance of ever getting published.

Most writers I know feel the same.

If you write a novel, have no portfolio, and try to get it published; good luck.

If you're not an idiot, start out small with getting short stories/novellas published in magazines/newspapers and slowly build up, sure you can.

>>569746

Yes, but even though they still have dayjobs (most artists do), it's more than a "hobby". If you have music published by a record label (or even if you give it a serious self-release), at that exact moment it becomes more than a hobby.

>>569746
Hobby = Amateur
Getting paid =/= amateur

>>569799
>>569802
I don't agree. Your job is what brings in the money.
Hobbies are things you enjoy that you fund with the money from your job.
I have had records released and I still consider music to be a hobby.

>>569802
What, so the 15 year olds who play a gig in their local are now professional musicians?

Williams Carlos Williams was a doctor.
Wallace Stevens was a lawyer.
Both were successful poets.

If you love writing then write, whether you want to make a living off of it or not.

>>569814
Getting paid for something makes you a professional, it does not mean you are good.

Just saying, not that I disagree with most of your post.

It is mostly true.

Mosty.

%%%

>>569822
>Mosty

Indeed.

>>569814
Why are you so cemented in not being a writer/musician, artist, whatever, just because they have a day job?

Clark Kent had a day job. Doesn't make being Superman a hobby.

>>569827
> comparing being a superhero with being a music/artist/writer
> lol

>>569827

Well, since he doesn't get paid Superman is still technically an amateur.

>>569827
>Clark Kent had a day job. Doesn't make being Superman a hobby.
That is such an invalid comparison and you know it.

>Why are you so cemented in not being a writer/musician, artist, whatever, just because they have a day job?
I'm not! What I am cemented in is the fact that being an artist does not mean art has to be your job. You can be an artist and have it as a hobby.

>>569816
this
i won't demean my passion by calling it a "hobby" OR by seeing it as a profiteering venture
in other words, you are all wrong

also, stephen king is a ZOG puppet hurrrrr pic related derp derp derp

>>569833
>i won't demean my passion by calling it a "hobby" OR by seeing it as a profiteering venture

Well said!

>>569828
How is it different?

Both are done not as a source of income but as expression, being whom you want to be. Being a superhero may be more outwardly directed expression, but artistry and physical philanthropy are the same in regard to leaving your mark, showing how you can affect others lives.

Whether that affecting is through a memorable novel or album or stopping a train is irrelevant

>>569838
Don't get me wrong, I dont have a problem selling my writing, it's just that when I write my book every night, I don't sit down saying "HO BOY I HOPE THIS ONE IS A BESTSELLER OF DAN-BROWN/STEPHEN-KING/STEPHANIE-MEYER PROPORTIONS SO I CAN GET A TOM CRUISE MOVIE AND START MAKING BIG BUCKS $$$$$$
I always say that if my book is a bestseller, I'd consider it a failure

>>569833
>i won't demean my passion by calling it a "hobby"
Yeah, well said. What I mean by hobby is just anything that you are interested in and don't do as a career.

>>569848
Way to ignore the important part, which was
>I'm not! What I am cemented in is the fact that being an artist does not mean art has to be your job. You can be an artist and have it as a hobby.

>>569850
So you'd rather your work only be viewed by a select few who will undoubtedly become elitist and consider themselves intellectually superior to everyone else by 'getting' your writing? What's wrong with a large audience liking your stuff?

>>569853
Your definition of hobby is vastly different than mine.

>>569848

In the first place, I don't think anyone's denying they are musicians/artists/writers, only that title isn't their primary title, or their main career etc. In the second place, you are overglorifying artistry and writing. Being a superhero is about saving the world from evil wrongdoing and crimes. Art is just as much about interpreting society as it can be about being a self-obsessed ignorant whore expressing themselves.

>>569875
Maybe a better three distinctions to use would be hobby, passion, and career.

>>569864
Here is how I break it down
1. Half of all people are by definition below average in intelligence.
2. "Bestseller" books are usually of a low quality in one way or another.
SO, if most people are into something, SOME or MOST of the time it means that something appeals to something stupid in them or is presented and written at a level where it feels comfortable and not too much for them.
ALSO, there is a difference between being "elitist" and being "pretentious", in which the latter involves some degree of artificiality (that's why the word "pretense" is in there). I have no problem being considered "elitist" because that means I only like good things and only try to make good things.
The price of having standards is the resentment of those who do not live up to them.

>>569919
>The price of having standards is the resentment of those who do not live up to them.
I have standards for books, art etc but I don't resent people who live up to them.
Why would I dislike someone because they're stupid? As long as they're genuine they're probably a-okay.

>>569940
Please re-read the sentence.
>The price of having standards is the resentment of those who do not live up to them.
That means the people who don't meet the standards will resent YOU, not vice versa.
Think of the last time you saw a good movie and all the idiots around you were all "that movie sucked wtf was goin on lol too much talking."
Meanwhile the Twilight movies are raking it in.

>>569951
Also, the sentence can also mean people on 4chan who give others grief because they have actual confidence in their intelligence and abilities.

>>569703
That would depend on the person, wouldn't it?
Some people work great within well-defined parameters.

>>569951
Sounds like you're resenting those 'idiots' not the other way around, it's not like you said "Oh hey that movie was pretty good" and you were immediately bombarded with cries to shut the fuck up by a random stranger who was in the theatre with you. Twilight fans notwithstanding of course because rabid fans of anything will attack anyone who attempts to slander said obsession.

Unlike you pretensious hipster faggots I write because I love it, not because there isn't a LOL I WANT TO BE MILLIONARE guartantee of with a writing career. Money is on the least my mind.

And why do you guys keep saying nobody reads books anymore?

DERP DERP DERP?

I'm writing with intentions of publication while I have a full time job. It's very hard to get much done, but I know if I quit and work full time on the novel I'll end up on the street when I can't pay my bills in six months.

>I have no problem being considered "elitist" because that means I only like good things and only try to make good things.

Pretentious fucker detected

>>569832

Hobby suggest a somewhat more trivial activity.

>>569802
Stephenie Meyer=Amateur
What now?

>>569997
In the strictest sense Stephanie Meyer is indeed a professional writer, her writing SKILL is amateur, but she gets paid to write so she is a professional writer.

Why does everyone think amateur means low quality?
I thought /lit/ was literate. Amateur means you don't get payed to do it PERIOD. Professional means you get payed to do it PERIOD. Amateur and quality are not mutually exclusive.

>>569919
the irony in this post is staggering as you sound like a gigantic idiot

>>570021
>implying ignoring obvious cultural biases in a word means you are "literate"

>>569850

>I always say that if my book is a bestseller, I'd consider it a failure
You always say that? You must be insufferable.

>I have no problem being considered "elitist" because that means I only like good things and only try to make good things.

I think a lot of folks think "elitist" means "elite". If that's true, I suppose Objectivists are right after all. After all, their philosophy glorifies rationality!

>>570042
I'm not seeing the connection...

>>570048

He wants to reach a tiny minority he thinks is "elite". But that's all elitism is, recognition of, or glorification of, this elite. It doesn't make you smarter, or more thoughtful, or anything to do with this elite. It just makes you a dude with one specific belief.

But he's saying that he "only likes good things", which implies that he thinks he's a part of this elite.

>>570079 here

and that being an elitist makes him an elite. That's what's ridiculous.

>>570085
what does it have to do with objectivism?

ITT: one guy aspires to write well
everyone else
>implies there are no "good things" and trying to write something great is pretentious, insufferable, and makes you a prick
good nigh guys. try to shake off some of the post-modernist brainwashing

>>570092

Objectivism is just a type of elitism - roughly, you either get it, or you don't. There are elites and non-elites.

And, since our friend tells us that being an elitist immediately makes him an elite, then all Objectivists must be...part of their postulated elite. And this elite is supposed to has objective knowledge of reality.

So the Objectivists are right.

>>570121

*have

>>570113
Try to samefag a little less obviously next time.

>>570021

In common parlance, amateur means you do not earn a living at it. Crossing the threshold into being a "professional" writer means it your primary occupation and that you earn enough to live from it.

To put some real numbers on this: mid-list authors get advances in the range of about $5000 to $20000, paid in quarters or thirds over the 1 to 2 years it takes to get the book actually published. An agent takes about 15% of that. On top of that, you might be able to sell foreign sales and translation rights, which all told might double the total you net from a single novel.

In the event that your novel were to earn out (that is, earn royalties more than the advance you've already been paid), then you get royalties which don't add up to much unless it's a major hit.

What this means altogether is that you have a pretty lousy chance of going pro unless you crank out about a novel a year or have a major hit.

Just write erotica.

>>570113

>Implying "elitist" implies "elite"

So I was right. Seriously, they are not the same word. There's having standards for your work, and there's implying that your (i have to assume) inherently self-important, elitist outlook is the same as having high standards. Some of the great novels from history have never been read much in proportion to their greatness, and some of the great novels have been read in amounts perhaps even exceeding their considerable greatness. There's simply no correlation there, except for what publishers historically have selected for, and going forward what Internet markets select for. Or at least the correlation is harder than "OMG Popular = Twilight rabble sux You must be an elitist or you are postmodern brainwashed"

ITT: elitists arguing over elitism

it's not unrealistic to try and publish a novel. if you really want it and are really willing to work hard, then yeah, there's a good chance you can get something published.

the vast majority of novels DO get rejected, but probably not for the reasons you think. from reading editor's blogs and articles i have gathered that:
- 85% of people get rejected because their submission is fucked up. they didn't read submission requirements, wrote a terrible cover letter, and/or are submitting something inappropriate for the house.
- 5% get rejected for bad grammar.
- 5% get rejected for bad pacing/plot.

94% of these rejections are made before the editor even gets past the summary.

so the trick is to just make sure you're not doing any of these things. hell, if you make sure your submission is correct and complete and you're not making any egregious grammatical errors, you're already way ahead of most other people.