- cross-posted to:
- eudaimonia@lemmy.dbzer0.com
- cross-posted to:
- eudaimonia@lemmy.dbzer0.com
Found here, where the image also has the text as an ALT image description. https://chaos.social/@saxnot/112349120606446433
Found here, where the image also has the text as an ALT image description. https://chaos.social/@saxnot/112349120606446433
The main thesis here is good, but that’s a mischaracterization of what people consider “failed” writers.
Someone who wrote one novel and had it published is not considered a failed writer, no matter if they then stop writing immediately. “Failed writer” is pretty much reserved for people who tried writing and couldn’t get anyone interested enough in it to publish it.
I’m not sure what labels would be applied to someone who exclusively pursued self-publishing, but that’s not really the common way.
Salinger is a classic example of this. One of the most celebrated authors of all time. He really only wrote one full novel and then essentially disappeared from public view. Despite this I don’t think anyone would consider him a failed writer by any definition
That’s who I was thinking of when I wrote this!
I think a better, but still not perfect, way to define it would be “This person wants to do X, but can’t support him/her/itself doing it.”
Of course, if you are already rich it doesn’t matter and then it is a bad metric (one of the reasons it isn’t perfect.) However, I think it is a better way to define it. Someone writing a few books as a hobby and then stops are not a failed writer, but someone that wants to be a writer but just can’t support it is.
Basically I think the intent matters, but that is impossible to measure (and people lie about it). So being able to do it as a profession is an ok metric.
It’s pretty cheap to “self publish” your own book. You basically pay printing fees instead of it being covered by the publisher.