Does money play a role in your writing?

[osho]

Writing is a hobby of some sort and yet when it comes to a full time writer who cannot ignore the role of money or a big check. Of course writing is a spiritual journey and it is iniquitous to say writers write for money. Yet the possibility of getting a thick advance and the chance of earning social recognition and to be wowed among our friends and relatives is too tempting for us to resist. For instance when I chose to write I never oversighted the kind of luck, financial luck writing could bring in. However I now understand that money is one of the determinants no doubt but when one is swayed by flights of imagination or absorbed in creative faculties money becomes very trifle. When I write I lose myself in a different realm and I fly far and wide freely like the eagle against the blue sky defying the very
expanse of the universe. I feel possessed and I find the rest of luxuries of no consequence, creativity dazzles the rest of temptations and I simply feel inclined skyward in thoughts and imaginations.


I want you to put forth your view on the role of money in your writing

[blazeofglory]

Writing is a hobby of some sort and yet when it comes to a full time writer who cannot ignore the role of money or a big check. Of course writing is a spiritual journey and it is iniquitous to say writers write for money. Yet the possibility of getting a thick advance and the chance of earning social recognition and to be wowed among our friends and relatives is too tempting for us to resist. For instance when I chose to write I never oversighted the kind of luck, financial luck writing could bring in. However I now understand that money is one of the determinants no doubt but when one is swayed by flights of imagination or absorbed in creative faculties money becomes very trifle. When I write I lose myself in a different realm and I fly far and wide freely like the eagle against the blue sky defying the very
expanse of the universe. I feel possessed and I find the rest of luxuries of no consequence, creativity dazzles the rest of temptations and I simply feel inclined skyward in thoughts and imaginations.


I want you to put forth your view on the role of money in your writing

osho, in fact money is a real determiner and in fact we cannot move a step without money, can we? Money is needed to fulfill our instincts. Everyone has an instinct for food, sleep, love, romance, sex, fame and the like and money is out there to fulfill most of your passions. Even to be a successful writer you need money.

With that said, however money has a subordinate role and it must work subserviently not commandingly. In other words money must play the role of a servant not of a master. When you are a great artist you need money and yet it is nor money mostly that occupies your mind. It is your thoughts and imagination that always busy your mind with.

And of course money play a role in writing, not the way it does in business or vocation.

[osho]

The question is whether money can leverage your writing? I often feel it does to some extent to leverage writing. If a writer has a lot of money he can buy lots of books and can frequent visits to distant and exotic lands and can savvy himself technologically. With money you can buy educational materials and can organize program and can earn a reputation and be kind and helpful. Since writers too are socioeconomic animals like the rest of people and of course their writing can be bettered with lots of money at their disposal

[Buh4Bee]

So you are asking do you need to have money to write? One perspective may be the type of person- does a writer need a fancy new computer, a Kindle, I-pad, nice music system... I know that I need a certain amount of pre-requisite stuff to do something well. For example, projects require materials, space, and time. I have to take the money for the project away from something else and the time is also forfeited from one part of the day for this project. Quilting is a basic idea. I need the pattern, material and extra things like ribbon. Then I am not going to clean the house or go grocery shopping. If I had lots of money, I'd send the maid to buy the materials and I'd have her/him do the cleaning or grocery shopping. BUT as I don't have a full time maid... In this case, money would make a difference. I think the most important thing that money can be used for a writer to take classes or attend conference or even just buy books.

[Charles Darnay]

Personally I think money is needed most to get your book from your computer (or stacks of paper if that's your thing) to the shelves. It is becoming increasingly difficult and a good financial situation is an asset. Not just so you can bribe the publishers, but so that you have the time to go through the publishing process, which is a commitment, without having to balance full-time work on the side.

But I think the more interesting question is - and where I thought this thread was originally going - does money influence how you right. That is, do you write with the goal of getting paid in mind, and does this influence the choices you make?

[Buh4Bee]

That's what I originally thought too.

[MANICHAEAN]

I'm lucky in that:
(a) I get paid extremely well.
(b) I also get paid to work in exotic locations that osho refers to.

This gives me independence & enjoyment in what I write & I trust, extra perspectives from the travel.

Fame & a fat cheque? I would not say no, but then I think the pressure of external demands being made to write more of the same high standard would really begin to kick in.

[tomingram]

Money is everything. I think most writers are too poor to have principles; if they have principles, either they come from a wealthy family or they are not getting published.

I'd take a check from Hustler for my stories. Wouldn't bother me a bit; I'd be thrilled. I'd send a copy to my grandmother.

Seriously, though. I get paid for writing for my college newspaper, and the literary journal work, though unpaid, looks good on graduate school applications -- which will eventually pay bills. And bills cost money.

[Alexander III]

Money is everything. I think most writers are too poor to have principles; if they have principles, either they come from a wealthy family or they are not getting published.


That is not true, writers with principles are not from wealthy families, they are from good famillies. A man without principles was raised in a bad family. Plenty of nouveau riche who have more money that one can dream of come out without principles, because their parents did not raise them well. And there are many impoverished families who produce children of the highest principle as well. It is not about money, it is about family.

[Darcy88]

If I had more money I would have more time and energy to practice my writing and so I'd probably write much better. I'm satisfied with things are they are though. One summer I did nothing but write from sun-up to sun-down, and it was nice, but I would not want to do it every day of the year, not at all.

[tomingram]

Alexander: it is one thing to express a principle and another to act in accordance with it. Who among the poor, who express principles against corporate greed, can afford to refuse a decent job with a greedy corporation?

Just an example to consider.

My point is that poor folks, like myself, lack the financial resources to seriously uphold difficult principles. This global warming thing is serious, but I have to drive my car to get to work. Tough luck, eh principles?

[Darcy88]

Alexander: it is one thing to express a principle and another to act in accordance with it. Who among the poor, who express principles against corporate greed, can afford to refuse a decent job with a greedy corporation?

Just an example to consider.

My point is that poor folks, like myself, lack the financial resources to seriously uphold difficult principles. This global warming thing is serious, but I have to drive my car to get to work. Tough luck, eh principles?

That's a load of bull. A lot of the poor are poor because they have principles. I could go work for my rich uncle fracking for gold and make a heck of a lot of dough but instead I bust my *** in a restaurant and on construction sites earning 10-12 dollars an hour. Why? Not to sound all high and mighty, but I have principles. I could go to Alberta and make a lot of money like all my old high school buddies are in the oil fields. I don't, mostly because of principles. I am not the most admirable of people, I have too many faults and weaknesses to mention, but I am principled, and my pay-checks are small because of that.

And I know of plenty of people who don't drive cars because of the environment. Some are wack-jobs, but I know one guy who bikes an hour each way to work 5 days a week because he is passionate about the environment. I do that in the summers, then in the winters I take a long bus ride when I stay here or walk 20 minutes when I stay in town. I have to drive a car when I move next year because I will pretty much have no other realistic option, but after that I'll probably set myself up somewhere so I don't need one.

You're right up to a point though. Put in a situation where there's not enough money to pay rent or feed your children, principles usually go out the window and necessity takes right over. But then being a good provider is just another sort of principle.

[JuniperWoolf]

There are a lot of oppertunities to make money here and there are also a lot of people who care about things like the environment who don't work in the oil and gas/forestry/mining/ect industries for that reason. I think that most people whould have to be in a desperate situation in order to be bought in a way that strongly opposes their moral beliefs. We could do some research on it, someone with money (ie. "hey Alex") go wave ten grand at people and ask them to punch a baby in the face.

[Sancho]

I wouldn't take a million to punch a baby.

I think free time is more important than money in writing well. And freeing up time is largely a personality trait. I see busy-busy rich people and leisurely poor folk (and vice versa). A while back I read an essay about John Steinbeck writing The Grapes of Wrath. At the time he was caring for a sick relative and he was torn because what he really wanted to do was write all day. It all worked out in the end, though.

That said I get a little annoyed when I’m reading a magazine article in which the author has clearly pumped up the word-count for a paycheck. If I were talking to that person instead of reading their stuff, I’d say, “Dude! Spit it out already.”

Revision: Okay, if I somehow knew it was Hitler-baby, I’d punch that little f**ker for free.

[MarkBastable]

When I've been paid to write, I wasn't writing for the money - but I was quite happy to take it, because what money represents is approval. It's the way the world has of letting you know that they like what you do. It doesn't mean it's any good, but it does mean people like it.

I never quite trust a writer who says that he doesn't care whether or not people like what he writes. "I just write what I want to write, and that's the only reason I write..."

So, if you really are writing only for yourself, how come we're talking about what you write? How do I even know you write? It's because you put it out there in some form, to be read. And I simply don't believe that at the moment you did that, you didn't care whether or not people liked it.

[Kingbob]

Money is one of your supporters in your writing career，you cannot live or write without money. However，if you write for money at the beginning of your career，then mostly you‘ll fail to be a great writer.

[Darcy88]

Revision: Okay, if I somehow knew it was Hitler-baby, I’d punch that little f**ker for free.

Yeah Sancho! You beat that Hitler baby good.

[Sancho]

Hell yeah! I'd be Hitler-baby punching fool.

I'd even punch the Hitler Baby Mama in the stomach, or in the very least I'd drive her down a bumpy road really-really fast while she's in her third trimester.

[tailor STATELY]

Being a person of simple pleasures, and more simple poetry, I write for fun... but always leave the donation box open - not unlike the minstrel playing on the corner with his case open... only less rewarded.

Ta ! (short for tarradiddle),
tailor STATELY

[Haunted]

Writing is a hobby of some sort and yet when it comes to a full time writer who cannot ignore the role of money or a big check. Of course writing is a spiritual journey and it is iniquitous to say writers write for money. Yet the possibility of getting a thick advance and the chance of earning social recognition and to be wowed among our friends and relatives is too tempting for us to resist. For instance when I chose to write I never oversighted the kind of luck, financial luck writing could bring in. However I now understand that money is one of the determinants no doubt but when one is swayed by flights of imagination or absorbed in creative faculties money becomes very trifle. When I write I lose myself in a different realm and I fly far and wide freely like the eagle against the blue sky defying the very
expanse of the universe. I feel possessed and I find the rest of luxuries of no consequence, creativity dazzles the rest of temptations and I simply feel inclined skyward in thoughts and imaginations.


I want you to put forth your view on the role of money in your writing


Never got a penny for my poetry. "Little magazines" usually pay in copies. It was alright. A New York literary mag that featured such names as Bokowski published a few of mine. For a 24 year old it was better than money! Well, any age for that matter...

To tell you the truth I enjoyed commercial writing more. No "social recognition and to be wowed among our friends and relatives" for me — some of the stuff I worked on was so high profile, they had me sign nondisclosure agreements before they let me in the door. But I got my kicks nevertheless, and a decent paycheck.

That said I wouldn't sneeze at a $3 million book deal. Hmm make it 5 mil and we'll talk :D

[Darcy88]

Never got a penny for my poetry. "Little magazines" usually pay in copies. It was alright. A New York literary mag that featured such names as Bokowski published a few of mine. For a 24 year old it was better than money! Well, any age for that matter...

To tell you the truth I enjoyed commercial writing more. No "social recognition and to be wowed among our friends and relatives" for me — some of the stuff I worked on was so high profile, they had me sign nondisclosure agreements before they let me in the door. But I got my kicks nevertheless, and a decent paycheck.

That said I wouldn't sneeze at a $3 million book deal. Hmm make it 5 mil and we'll talk :D

That's something I've never understood. We literary-inclined people often look down upon writers who "sell out," who write commercial trash and make a boat-load of money doing it. I want to ask who wouldn't do that? The things we do for money..... Being a writer of brainless solely-plot-driven novels is no different than building houses, working as an accountant, performing surgery and other such occupations. People like to read the stuff, someone has to write it, there are a plethora of jobs more ethically compromised and degrading than being a commercial writer. I think it was Lawrence Durrell who wrote a romance book or some such non-literary novel in order to support his young growing family. So what?

[stlukesguild]

This question always brings out the pretensions of those who wish to appear "holier-than-thou" when it comes to artistic sincerity. Dr. Samuel Johnson declared that "No man but a blockhead ever wrote, except for money." While I would never go so far... surely William Blake would have disagreed... I do assume that most writers... most artists in any field... create with a certain notion of financial success in mind. I, for one, have no illusions of fame and fortune... but would be more than satisfied if I could simply live off of my art... and never need to enter the classroom again.

I share an art studio with one older artist who embraces the notion that the purpose of art is to "give the finger" to the wealthy and the middle-class. At least that's the image he tries to convey. In reality, he spends more time and effort in attempting to gain attention of art dealers and galleries... and ultimately their wealthy and upper-middle-class clientele... than any of us. He also falls back upon the ego-saving excuses for his own lack of success: "My work is simply too cutting edge... too challenging... too dangerous for these dealers and the "moronic" public to recognize."

My other studio mate is far more pragmatic... as am I. The first older studio mate put forth a question that he imagined would present a great ethical dilemma for the artist. "What would you do," he asked, "if a collector were to tell you I really love this painting you did, but it doesn't match my couch. Could you make me a copy of it... a bit smaller... and in blue?" Without thinking, the second artist declared, "My response would be "F*** you. How soon do you need it, and what shade of blue do you prefer?' ":rofl:

We all need money... and whether we wish it to be true of not, money impacts a majority of our actions. I would be hard-pressed to create the sort of art I currently do if I were strapped for money... unable to purchase the materials I do... unable to afford a sizable studio space... unable to travel and visit museums and galleries... unable to properly present my art work, to photograph it and send copies to prospective dealers and buyers.

Perhaps the question asked by my studio mate is a bit more telling: "Would you change your work for the right price?" Some may see this as an insult to the very concept of what art is... but answering such a question is easy... until you are actually placed in such a situation. How willing would you be to change something for a profit? How willing would you be to continue to churn out the same "product" for continued financial reward? I suspect that many of those who have labored for years in the real world... in the job market... where they have continually been forced to abandon certain ethical ideals... may be quite a bit more pragmatic about such a question than the young idealists who have never yet faced such.

[Darcy88]

This question always brings out the pretensions of those who wish to appear "holier-than-thou" when it comes to artistic sincerity. Dr. Samuel Johnson declared that "No man but a blockhead ever wrote, except for money." While I would never go so far... surely William Blake would have disagreed... I do assume that most writers... most artists in any field... create with a certain notion of financial success in mind. I, for one, have no illusions of fame and fortune... but would be more than satisfied if I could simply live off of my art... and never need to enter the classroom again.

I share an art studio with one older artist who embraces the notion that the purpose of art is to "give the finger" to the wealthy and the middle-class. At least that's the image he tries to convey. In reality, he spends more time and effort in attempting to gain attention of art dealers and galleries... and ultimately their wealthy and upper-middle-class clientele... than any of us. He also falls back upon the ego-saving excuses for his own lack of success: "My work is simply too cutting edge... too challenging... too dangerous for these dealers and the "moronic" public to recognize."

My other studio mate is far more pragmatic... as am I. The first older studio mate put forth a question that he imagined would present a great ethical dilemma for the artist. "What would you do," he asked, "if a collector were to tell you I really love this painting you did, but it doesn't match my couch. Could you make me a copy of it... a bit smaller... and in blue?" Without thinking, the second artist declared, "My response would be "F*** you. How soon do you need it, and what shade of blue do you prefer?' ":rofl:

We all need money... and whether we wish it to be true of not, money impacts a majority of our actions. I would be hard-pressed to create the sort of art I currently do if I were strapped for money... unable to purchase the materials I do... unable to afford a sizable studio space... unable to travel and visit museums and galleries... unable to properly present my art work, to photograph it and send copies to prospective dealers and buyers.

Perhaps the question asked by my studio mate is a bit more telling: "Would you change your work for the right price?" Some may see this as an insult to the very concept of what art is... but answering such a question is easy... until you are actually placed in such a situation. How willing would you be to change something for a profit? How willing would you be to continue to churn out the same "product" for continued financial reward? I suspect that many of those who have labored for years in the real world... in the job market... where they have continually been forced to abandon certain ethical ideals... may be quite a bit more pragmatic about such a question than the young idealists who have never yet faced such.

I think your view concurrs with mine. I spent several summers loading bails of hay on to the trailer of a tractor for 12 hour days in mid 20s to low 30s heat. I worked in a lumber mill that everyday when 5 o'clock struck would have me all but collapse in an exhausted panting heap. Men spend their lives in factories turning a single screw, going up ladders carrying so many pounds of roofing materials, shipping off to combat zones in Iraq and Afghanistan because their girlfriends got pregnant when the economy took a dive and no other options were left. To look down on a hack writer is just plain unempathetic to the point of amounting to a gross error and great stupidity. No serious critic or person of taste is going to place John Grisham up there with Stendhal. The two categories of literature are so sharply and patently distinguished there's no need to judge one writer by the same criteria by which we judge another. I respect Stendhal more than Grisham, but my greater respect for the former does not mean that I must necessarily disrespect the latter.

Its nice to have a wife and kid, it really is. They gotta eat and they need a roof over their heads. Only a fool would criticize an artist for doing whatever it takes to provide that for them.

[blazeofglory]

In fact money has a role, indeed a major role in anything and of course it can drive me to write more if it can end up in being a means of living. When people see a prospect of being rich or if they see forward to being affluent they indeed do write. Writing is indeed recompensing in many cases and of course every writer must be paid exorbitantly since they too come from an economic society where they have to meet certain expenses.

When the spirit of creativity possesses you and you sit up late past every other event circumscribing you writing becomes the nub of your life and you write absorbingly and the rest of vocations become dazzled by your writing spirit. Imagine when Tolstoy wrote or there was no money matter. Of course Chekov wrote with a little monetary gain but once he is on it, he became totally lost or else he could not write the kind of literary pieces he did to startle us today.
Of course I become tempted by the glittering lucre that allured really some of the great thinkers, yet there is a limit and beyond that money has no role and the joy I can get by writing verses or reading masterpieces is really incomparable.
Osho, you raised an interesting question and it is really testing me yet I solemnly say money has in the end almost no role to play. There were writers who had been intoxicated with writing and no reward, even the most coveted prize like the Noble Prize too cannot be an equivalent of the joy one can get from doing something creative

[Francie]

My step-dad believes that you can't be a great writer unless you've suffered. This has inevitably caused him to believe that writers don't come from rich families.

Personally, I call bull on that. It certainly seems as though monetary suffering has an interesting impact on the ability to create heroic, lovable and memorable characters. It's also probably to do with the sense of community and comradeship that the working class are known for.

But writing is something unique to a person, right? It shouldn't matter what family background you come from, it's about the art.

[MarkBastable]

My step-dad believes that you can't be a great writer unless you've suffered. This has inevitably caused him to believe that writers don't come from rich families.

Which would imply that he believes that the only source of suffering is poverty.

[Francie]

That is why I've never agreed with him.

[blazeofglory]

Suffering as he spoke of might be the kind writers have to undergo before climbing the ladder of success. Of course to succeed in a writing career is not an easy job and one has to work more than the common man since there is a lot of competition in this profession to stand out in the crowd.

One can be mediocre writer and yet to write in the degree and quality that set Tolstoy, Dostoevsky and the kind demands a lot of endeavors or else one gets lost in the sands of time. That is why most those who did not work enough are forgotten and those have left legacies might have gone through a great amount of hardships in their lives. They might have gone through many sleepless nights and lived through familial, social, financial pressures.

[Alexander III]

Money is one of your supporters in your writing career，you cannot live or write without money. However，if you write for money at the beginning of your career，then mostly you‘ll fail to be a great writer.

Silly me, here I was thinking that Dickens and Fitzgerald were great writers. Now I have learnt.

[MarkBastable]

Money is one of your supporters in your writing career，you cannot live or write without money. However，if you write for money at the beginning of your career，then mostly you‘ll fail to be a great writer.

So, how have you arrived at that conclusion? I mean, if I were to list great writers who wrote for money at the start of their career - I'd add, say, Wodehouse, Vonnegut, Rushdie, Amis and a few more to the rundown that Alex has already started - then presumably you'd list a whole bunch of hacks that got paid and were never any good.

And we might be forced to the conclusion that getting paid at the beginning of your career has absolutely nothing at all to do with whether or not you turn out to be a great writer.