is it still possible to be author?

[Deleted member 1244]

everyone is an author.

No, everyone can write, not everyone is an author. I write, I am not an author.

Is it over over-saturated now?

No. It's only over saturated if you are not trying to write something different.

 

[Sagacious_Punk]

It does. But I have another question.

This will probably sound agressive, but honestly, I can't be bothered to write it differently. So excuse me for this, it is not my goal, and I hope this small part will help clear potential miscommunications.

Did you not think that the reason why he answered like that is not a lack of skill, but a lack of desire? More than that, I don't consider the meme rude. This one is very subjective, I can see from your replies that you have a different sense of humor, so let's leave it at that. I'm more interested in my question.

Thank you for pre-clarifying your question.

I will both answer your question and ask a counter question.

Answer: If the person replying lacks desire to actually reply, why reply at all? I can speculate a few scenarios, but they all cast an unfavorable light on such an action, and the person who makes said action.

Question: Have you considered that it's not a lack/difference of humor that makes me take umbrage, but rather the fact that I want to discuss this topic in a serious manner? And having someone come and reply "lul, memes!" actually detracts from the conversation in my view?

I'll leave that question a rhetorical one, in order to not derail the topic any further with this semi-topical meta-discussion. I'm open to continuing discussing ramifications in another space - whether private or public - if there is need for that.

 

[fluffypie374]

It's not about competing with others, it's simply finding yourself in the process. Enjoy what you write, and you'll go far on this road. Otherwise, your ship will eventually sink under the barrage of feedback from readers.

 

[Sagacious_Punk]

It's not about competing with others, it's simply finding yourself in the process. Enjoy what you write, and you'll go far on this road. Otherwise, your ship will eventually sink under the barrage of feedback from readers.

If any readers take interest at all in the first place. That's what the OP actually asks about. (If you read between the lines.)

 

[fluffypie374]

Oh, maybe I should have said the ship will crash into an iceberg if you don't enjoy what you write...

 

[Deleted member 1244]

That's what the OP actually asks about. (If you read between the lines.)

Just use the same account! it's confusing when you are the OP but answer in your own thread!

 

[Sagacious_Punk]

Sadly, the OP seems to have retreated from the conversation. (At least today.)

But I do hold the topic dear to my heart, hence why I persist "holding the candle", so to speak.

Oh, maybe I should have said the ship will crash into an iceberg if you don't enjoy what you write...

Silence kills creative output faster than anything else, even if you do write what you like. I (and a few other creative acquaintances) can attest to that from experience.

As for writing what you don't like... it better be a paid job, or this will burn you out fast. Again, I have a friend of mine who has banged his head against this wall for years, and the results weren't good. At best, you become a soulless slop-churning automaton.

 

[Deleted member 84247]

The question the OP probably asks isn't whether writing itself is saturated or not, but rather the readership base available to writers. Which totally is today. OP just worded their post poorly.

I don’t understand.

 

[Sagacious_Punk]

I don’t understand.

Well, I'll try to explain it with a bullet-point list:

• Everyone can write, if they ever attended primary school. It's part of literacy. No argument here.

• Everyone can be an author. The moment you write anything, anything at all, you're the author of that piece of information. Whether is a subway wisdom graffiti, or a thermonuclear astrophysics thesis, or a fantasy novel, or a grocery list. That's the academic definition of "author".

• Everyone can be a writer (technically). Now here, different people derive different definitions about what being "a writer" means; this a different debate, one which deserves it's own topic. For me personally, a writer is someone who has professional-level writing skills and writes for a living/on a regular basis; whether that skillset is in the field of ad copy, creative writing, genre writing, technical writing, academic writing, doesn't matter.

• Everyone can write stories, no matter how original, crafty, or interesting they are. There is no "monopoly" on writing, or anything of that sort. Writing is free, so to speak.

So, far so good? Okay, here is the flip side - reading what writers have written!
Again, with bullet points:

• Everyone can read, if they ever attended primary school. It's part of literacy. No argument here.

• Everyone can go and read a story, no matter how good or awful it is. They can also stop reading at any point, or resume reading also at any point. Whether or not this is a waste of time, or a vital hobby, form of personal growth, both, neither, other, is up to each individual reader.

• However, everyone has a limited time that they can use for reading. Each reader lives a whole, complex life, in endless circumstances and permutations, and no matter how much time one devotes to reading, they can read only so much within a physical span of time.

Doesn't matter if you are champion of speed reading and you set aside 20 hours a day only for reading. Doesn't matter if the only thing you do is read. The human mind has hard biological and ontological barriers that it cannot (at this point) overcome. The chief among them is time.

So, you have a finite amount of time (as a reader), but the amount of writers (and written works) increases exponentially. And population expansion is also cannot compensate for the difference in "attention resource", because most of the new generation also strive to be writers. Yes, they are readers too... or are they? Or perhaps they are movie-goers? Or gamers? Or they watch the Superbowl? Or work two jobs and watch two kids, and devote their last scraps of free time writing, instead of reading? (I know such a guy, btw.)

This is the "attention economy" for which the entire capitalistic society wages a fierce war for since the 2000s. We all have a limited time, and we cannot devote it to everything. We have to choose.

And so, there are (among other things) too many books to choose from. Writers are in a deficit of readers, because "everybody is a writer". (Substitute "writer" for any X, and it's the same issue.)

Hence, that's what I think the OP is trying to say, even though they might not be consciously aware of the actual problem themselves.

Ugh, this again became a wall of text. But I hope this makes things clearer?


PS. In uni, while studying library informatics, one of the profs told a statistic about reading: the average active reader can read only about ~6700 books in their lifetime. Assuming a lifespan of 80 and active reading since 20, that makes for several books (~400k words) each month, until death.

From what I've seen statistics wise among my more senior friends (>40yo) who are voracious bookworms, this statistic holds up.

 

[RepresentingWrath]

Well, I'll try to explain it with a bullet-point list:

• Everyone can write, if they ever attended primary school. It's part of literacy. No argument here.

• Everyone can be an author. The moment you write anything, anything at all, you're the author of that piece of information. Whether is a subway wisdom graffiti, or a thermonuclear astrophysics thesis, or a fantasy novel, or a grocery list. That's the academic definition of "author".

• Everyone can be a writer (technically). Now here, different people derive different definitions about what being "a writer" means; this a different debate, one which deserves it's own topic. For me personally, a writer is someone who has professional-level writing skills and writes for a living/on a regular basis; whether that skillset is in the field of ad copy, creative writing, genre writing, technical writing, academic writing, doesn't matter.

• Everyone can write stories, no matter how original, crafty, or interesting they are. There is no "monopoly" on writing, or anything of that sort. Writing is free, so to speak.

So, far so good? Okay, here is the flip side - reading what writers have written!
Again, with bullet points:

• Everyone can read, if they ever attended primary school. It's part of literacy. No argument here.

• Everyone can go and read a story, no matter how good or awful it is. They can also stop reading at any point, or resume reading also at any point. Whether or not this is a waste of time, or a vital hobby, form of personal growth, both, neither, other, is up to each individual reader.

• However, everyone has a limited time that they can use for reading. Each reader lives a whole, complex life, in endless circumstances and permutations, and no matter how much time one devotes to reading, they can read only so much within a physical span of time.

Doesn't matter if you are champion of speed reading and you set aside 20 hours a day only for reading. Doesn't matter if the only thing you do is read. The human mind has hard biological and ontological barriers that it cannot (at this point) overcome. The chief among them is time.

So, you have a finite amount of time (as a reader), but the amount of writers (and written works) increases exponentially. And population expansion is also cannot compensate for the difference in "attention resource", because most of the new generation also strive to be writers. Yes, they are readers too... or are they? Or perhaps they are movie-goers? Or gamers? Or they watch the Superbowl? Or work two jobs and watch two kids, and devote their last scraps of free time writing, instead of reading? (I know such a guy, btw.)

This is the "attention economy" for which the entire capitalistic society wages a fierce war for since the 2000s. We all have a limited time, and we cannot devote it to everything. We have to choose.

And so, there are (among other things) too many books to choose from. Writers are in a deficit of readers, because "everybody is a writer". (Substitute "writer" for any X, and it's the same issue.)

Hence, that's what I think the OP is trying to say, even though they might not be consciously aware of the actual problem themselves.

Ugh, this again became a wall of text. But I hope this makes things clearer?

I didn't read this reply super intently, sorry. Are you, basically, talking about views, fame, reader's attention only? I honestly missed the part about money, if you mentioned it of course.

 

[Sagacious_Punk]

I didn't read this reply super intently, sorry. Are you, basically, talking about views, fame, reader's attention only? I honestly missed the part about money, if you mentioned it of course.

The money part is simple: if you get attention, you get money. You wound't give money to a random stranger, right? Unless that's your personal paradigm in the first place.

If there is no attention, nobody will give you money. If you don't go to KFC to eat (pay them a visit, aka "attention"), they don't get your money. Burger King takes them instead (for example).

Same for books/writers. If nobody is reading them, they might as a well don't exist (in wider public circles).

It is no coincidence that informational overload is rapidly becoming a psychological and societal problem on a global scale.

 

[RepresentingWrath]

The money part is simple: if you get attention, you get money. You wound't give money to a random stranger, right? Unless that's your personal paradigm in the first place.

If there is no attention, nobody will give you money. If you don't go to KFC to eat (pay them a visit, aka "attention"), they don't get your money. Burger King takes them instead (for example).

Same for books/writers. If nobody is reading them, they might as a well don't exist (in wider public circles).

It is no coincidence that informational overload is rapidly becoming a psychological and societal problem on a global scale.

Yeah, my point is, you don't need as much attention. Obviously everyone wants more. There are exceptions, but in general everyone wants more. However, what you need and what you want are not the same thing. Not everyone lives in a first world country, a point that a lot of people forget. English isn't exclusive to the USA, UK, and you get what I mean.

To live comfortably here, I need 1 thousand dollars a month. I find this number very achievable. And I don't think my country is the cheapest one. Yes, I know there are ecnomic recesses almost in evert first world country, and entertainment is basically the first thing people cut off. I understand this. But even with all that, I seriously doubt you can't become a full-time writer who earn 1k$. But even if I'm not able to achieve this number, as I mentioned before, there are cheaper countries. I don't mean that I will move to a cheaper country, I mean that you can't use same numbers to judge everyone.

 

[Sagacious_Punk]

If we are going to talk about stuff like Brandon Sanderson-levels of popularity vs. the 1000 true fans model, then I'm in the same boat as you. I would like to be a billionaire writer like JK Rowling, but I will be more than happy to have a thousand ppl throw me 5-10 bucks a month through Patreon or someting.

However, this is a stawman's argument to the main issue.

Same for the language based one. How many markets outside the Anglosphere have enough "demand" to support writers? Very few: German, Russian, Japanese, Chinese, Spanish, potentially Indian. And some strange outliers like Finnish. Everybody else, they have to write in English (or one of these mentioned languages) if they want to have a chance of supporting themselves through writing. You want to know my country how many professional writers supports? Less than 10. Discounting people working for a salary as writers (ad copy, technical, game dev), every other "free" writer has no chance in hell of becoming a full-time writer writing in Bulgarian. Everybody either gets a "one hit wonder" (if they are lucky), or a vanity publishing, or nothing at all.

As for how many readers you need to be comfortable... that's for everybody to decide for themselves. Some will be content to have a hundred consistent readers, or perhaps just their friends & family circle; others will need to be top of the world - and everything in between. But that doesn't solve the "market attention deficit" issue.

To give a personal example, my mother loves to read my stuff (I know, I know), but she doesn't have enough time to learn English properly to enjoy my fiction. Attention issue. (Or if you like, priority issue). Another example are my colleagues at work. Several of them are avid readers, but so far no one has even touched my book (even though they like and understand high-concept science fiction). Why? Because they have more interesting (for them) things to read. Or worse, they don't have time to read. That guy with the two jobs and two kids? He's a real life example. Loves reading, hasn't done any reading in a decade.

 

[RepresentingWrath]

If we are going to talk about stuff like Brandon Sanderson-levels of popularity vs. the 1000 true fans model, then I'm in the same boat as you. I would like to be a billionaire writer like JK Rowling, but I will be more than happy to have a thousand ppl throw me 5-10 bucks a month through Patreon or someting.

However, this is a stawman's argument to the main issue.

Same for the language based one. How many markets outside the Anglosphere have enough "demand" to support writers? Very few: German, Russian, Japanese, Chinese, Spanish, potentially Indian. And some strange outliers like Finnish. Everybody else, they have to write in English (or one of these mentioned languages) if they want to have a chance of supporting themselves through writing. You want to know my country how many professional writers supports? Less than 10. Discounting people working for a salary as writers (ad copy, technical, game dev), every other "free" writer has no chance in hell of becoming a full-time writer writing in Bulgarian. Everybody either gets a "one hit wonder" (if they are lucky), or a vanity publishing, or nothing at all.

As for how many readers you need to be comfortable... that's for everybody to decide for themselves. Some will be content to have a hundred consistent readers, or perhaps just their friends & family circle; others will need to be top of the world - and everything in between. But that doesn't solve the "market attention deficit" issue.

To give a personal example, my mother loves to read my stuff (I know, I know), but she doesn't have enough time to learn English properly to enjoy my fiction. Attention issue. (Or if you like, priority issue). Another example are my colleagues at work. Several of them are avid readers, but so far no one has even touched my book (even though they like and understand high-concept science fiction). Why? Because they have more interesting (for them) things to read. Or worse, they don't have time to read. That guy with the two jobs and two kids? He's a real life example. Loves reading, hasn't done any reading in a decade.

I'm sorry, but I can't see how it is a strawman's argument.

 

[Saberfang]

To be an author, yes. To be a successful author, that's more difficult.

 

[Deleted member 84247]

Well, I'll try to explain it with a bullet-point list:

• Everyone can write, if they ever attended primary school. It's part of literacy. No argument here.

• Everyone can be an author. The moment you write anything, anything at all, you're the author of that piece of information. Whether is a subway wisdom graffiti, or a thermonuclear astrophysics thesis, or a fantasy novel, or a grocery list. That's the academic definition of "author".

• Everyone can be a writer (technically). Now here, different people derive different definitions about what being "a writer" means; this a different debate, one which deserves it's own topic. For me personally, a writer is someone who has professional-level writing skills and writes for a living/on a regular basis; whether that skillset is in the field of ad copy, creative writing, genre writing, technical writing, academic writing, doesn't matter.

• Everyone can write stories, no matter how original, crafty, or interesting they are. There is no "monopoly" on writing, or anything of that sort. Writing is free, so to speak.

So, far so good? Okay, here is the flip side - reading what writers have written!
Again, with bullet points:

• Everyone can read, if they ever attended primary school. It's part of literacy. No argument here.

• Everyone can go and read a story, no matter how good or awful it is. They can also stop reading at any point, or resume reading also at any point. Whether or not this is a waste of time, or a vital hobby, form of personal growth, both, neither, other, is up to each individual reader.

• However, everyone has a limited time that they can use for reading. Each reader lives a whole, complex life, in endless circumstances and permutations, and no matter how much time one devotes to reading, they can read only so much within a physical span of time.

Doesn't matter if you are champion of speed reading and you set aside 20 hours a day only for reading. Doesn't matter if the only thing you do is read. The human mind has hard biological and ontological barriers that it cannot (at this point) overcome. The chief among them is time.

So, you have a finite amount of time (as a reader), but the amount of writers (and written works) increases exponentially. And population expansion is also cannot compensate for the difference in "attention resource", because most of the new generation also strive to be writers. Yes, they are readers too... or are they? Or perhaps they are movie-goers? Or gamers? Or they watch the Superbowl? Or work two jobs and watch two kids, and devote their last scraps of free time writing, instead of reading? (I know such a guy, btw.)

This is the "attention economy" for which the entire capitalistic society wages a fierce war for since the 2000s. We all have a limited time, and we cannot devote it to everything. We have to choose.

And so, there are (among other things) too many books to choose from. Writers are in a deficit of readers, because "everybody is a writer". (Substitute "writer" for any X, and it's the same issue.)

Hence, that's what I think the OP is trying to say, even though they might not be consciously aware of the actual problem themselves.

Ugh, this again became a wall of text. But I hope this makes things clearer?


PS. In uni, while studying library informatics, one of the profs told a statistic about reading: the average active reader can read only about ~6700 books in their lifetime. Assuming a lifespan of 80 and active reading since 20, that makes for several books (~400k words) each month, until death.

From what I've seen statistics wise among my more senior friends (>40yo) who are voracious bookworms, this statistic holds up.

But webnovel sites make it super easy for people to get found.

 

[Sagacious_Punk]

But webnovel sites make it super easy for people to get found.

Well, I do beg to differ, seeing how nobody's finding mine. Or they keep awfully quiet about it.

PS. And before you point out how this is wrong in the absolute sense, please bear in mind that <10 comments, a couple of reviews, and some X amount of "views" (what an arbitrarily opaque statistic) amounts to nothing. Nobody is discussing the stories, nobody is waiting for their continuation, and nobody is certainly pestering me to "get on with it, writer! moar story!".

I'm sorry, but I can't see how it is a strawman's argument.

Because you argue whether writers need an X or a Y amount of readers, while the general thesis is about whether there are enough readers for all the writers across the globe.

 

[RepresentingWrath]

Because you argue whether writers need an X or a Y amount of readers, while the general thesis is about whether there are enough readers for all the writers across the globe.

Oh, yeah. That I can see. But then it turns into argument about definitions of who is writer and who is not, so I dip. Not keen on arguing about definitions of words.

 

[Sagacious_Punk]

Fair enough.

I'll also take this opportunity to withdraw. It's 1:30 am here, and I need to be at work tomorrow.

 

[J_Chemist]

If I weren't at the gym, I'd contribute, but that was good regardless.