So says Kos. You might want to try to say things that at least seem true.
The most famous quote on the subject is nearly the opposite: "No man but a blockhead ever wrote except for money." I've never believed that one either... although if you say it fast enough, it might sound like "No man but a blogger ever wrote except for money." And that's got truthiness.
March 14, 2006
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
34 comments:
The greatest writing though is that which is done from passion.
That's why I like blogs. Yeah, I've seen a lot of trash around, but I've seen a lot of good ideas on blogs.
Remind me please, where did "truthiness" come from? (Thanks in advance.)
Sure, right, Markos, but they at least want people to read them!
I'm sure those people who did buy your book are passing it around to millions of their friends. :)
No one ever writes a book to make money.
That is a particularly funny quote. I know three people who are presently writing books specifically to make money. One of them went so far as to build the plot and characters around market factors in hopes of maximizing sales.
"Almost every man who writes started to do it to impress women. To an extent, most who still do write still do."
You mean like Truman Capote, Oscar Wilde, Jean Genet, Gore Vidal, Marcel Proust, William S. Burroughs, Christopher Isherwood, Somerset Maugham...
Ok, ok. I get your point.
Matt and Palladian:
Are you suggesting that most women are liberals?
Or that they view conservative men as a bunch of knuckle dragging, slackjawed neanderthals?
Or is it that they think that liberal men are better lovers?
I'm perplexed as to what your point is, but whatever it is, I'll take it. ;)
Eli: My point was that not all writers are/were trying to impress chicks.
Maybe I'm not being clear enough. I didn't mean to imply that the writers I listed went into writing for loftier reasons than getting chicks. I meant that they were GAY GAY GAY.
Does subtlety not work on blogs?
Hey, I got it, Palladian. And I was totally lost on the whole brick shithouse thing.
I'm betting that making money was the only reason for books like those by Donald Trump. Frankly, any bookstore is littered with books that were written for no other purpose than to make money.
"No one ever writes a book to make money."
So says Kos. You might want to try to say things that at least seem true.
The most famous quote on the subject is nearly the opposite: "No man but a blockhead ever wrote except for money."
So you don't believe Kos, and yet you don't believe Johnson either, and your echo chamber fills with commenters trying to take Kos's statement literally instead of figuratively.
Jebus, this is just another of your cheap smear attempts.
"You might want to try to say things that at least seem true."
Lol!
From my personal experience I have to say it is a lot easier to get women, rather than money, by writing novels.
Lol at palladin's dialogue too. classic!
Okay.
Does this work?
"Almost every man who writes started to do it because of sex. To an extent, most who still do write still do."
"No one ever writes a book to make money."
LOL. That's not even true if you take this out of the realm of non-fiction or so-called "hack" fiction.
You brought up Johnson already. What about Dickens, who thought, on principle, that writers should write for pay and made conscious efforts form groups to combat amateurism and patronage among writers? (Brief reference to this.)
Then there's this:
"Modern poets talk against business, poor things, but all of us write for money. Beginners are subjected to trial by market."--Robert Frost
And this:
"I'd like to have money. And I'd like to be a good writer. These two can come together, and I hope they will, but if that's too adorable, I'd rather have money."-- Dorothy Parker
And .... well, thanks for giving me an excuse to wallow in literary quotes.
One more:
"In the same way that a woman becomes a prostitute. First I did it to please myself, then I did it to please my friends, and finally I did it for money."--Ferenc Molnar, on how he became a writer
Robert Heinlein once said the the most wonderful words were "Pay to the Order of".
Sounds like Kos has a bit of Insta-envy.....
Almost every man who writes started to do it to impress women. To an extent, most who still do write still do.
Dude.
You really believe Plato was thinking, "Yeah, this polis-thingie will really impress the chicks".
Your comment does remind me, however, of how much of a modern Western man's comment it really is, and bless your heart for thinking what you do.
Cheers,
Victoria
LOL. That's not even true if you take this out of the realm of non-fiction or so-called "hack" fiction.
Or how about just journalism, yellow or otherwise?
For every Rube Goldberg, there were 1,000 ink-stained churners in back offices typing out whatever would make the 5 o'clock deadline.
Once again, MarKOSito talks utter, blinkered baloney.
Cheers,
Victoria
Althousefan: How about "Crashing the Bore; The Kos Kronicles"
Almost every man who writes started to do it to impress women. To an extent, most who still do write still do
To gender and orientation neutralize Matt's earlier comment;
Nearly all authors when starting to write do so with one or two things on their mind, either to get laid, or get paid, and many times both.
(this formulation of that idea allows for an evolutionary process in motivation for the author as they gain in prestige and recognition)
Clearly everyone is missing the clarity of vision and singleness of purpose in Mr. Zuniga's selfless sacrifice in taking the time to write down and get published his passionate thoughts on how to reshape the polity in the United States.
What other activities can you say 'no one ever does to make money'?
Sex? nope.
Acting? nope.
Politics? hell, no.
Preaching? unfortunately, no.
Becoming a Philosophy Major or Prof.? That should do it, I think you could safely say 'no one ever became a philosopher to make money'.
So that must mean Crashing the Gate isn't a book, it's a philosophical manifesto, and therefore no pecuniary interests are considered by either of the co-authors of this earth-shaking tome.
(and like all great philosophical works, it will only be properly appreciated in the fullness of time)
And one last comment within this comment, Quxxo's skin has been developed using the latest in nanotech manufacturing processes to ensure that it's exactly the thickness of a single molecule.
Why would anyone go to so much bother to be that thin-skinned? (only Quxxo knows)
That silly Kos guy. Can someone remind me why we're talkin' about him again?
Subject-matter-appropriate word verification: tool
Charlie: I'll have to assume you didn't do too well on multiple choice exams. Hint: "no one." And the question isn't how much money people make, it's the original motivation. I could do something for the money and still end up losing money. Do people play the lottery for the money? In your logic, the answer would have to be no.
I'll bet Kos is trying to extract money from the popularity of the blog. Denying he's trying to make money from the book is just part of the sales pitch. He's sincere, you know.
I roughed some numbers as PJM was getting started, and yeah, Glenn could live on what he makes on ad revenue alone. Not high, but live.
it for sure pays for the RX-8 and the other toys.
I'm sure those people who did buy your book are passing it around to millions of their friends. :)
Both of them.
Ann: I've told you this before.
Fran Lebowitz never wrote a sentence. Her books were fashioned out of other people copying what she wrote on napkins and dinner parties. All of her published material came from notes on a napkin.
I see you as the waspy Fran Lebowitz of our time.
Follow the money; it's not in blogging. You've got to be published.
Call your Agent, immediately.
Peace, Maxine
A friend of mine who writes under the pen name Lydia Joyce says that you should write what you love, but that you should write what you love that will *sell*.
I'll bet Kos is trying to extract money from the popularity of the blog. Denying he's trying to make money from the book is just part of the sales pitch. He's sincere, you know.
That devious scamp.
When Kos uses definite articles he really means indefinite articles. I HATE that fucker!
Actually, most writers write because we can't stop. The perqs (if any) are just that. It looks as though the crowd of Kos-pessimists are actually quite optimistic about his book, though.
Ever heard of the law of diminishing returns in publishing? No? Basically, it means if you write a book that sells 4000 copies out of an initial print run of 5000, which is a very good return indeed, the best you can hope for with your next book is that the major chain bookstores who hold the publishing companies' leashes will say, "The maximum number of copies of so-and-so's next book we'll order is 4000," which probably means the author won't get offered a contract next time around.
In other words, Markos is more or less right, if inexact in his phrasing. I think L. Ron Hubbard actually nailed it, saying that writing for a penny a word was ridiculous, and anyone who wanted to really make money would start their own religion. We all know how that turned out.
If Markos makes $25K from his book, I'd be surprised. He's hardly a household word, and run-of-the-mill political writers (that is, not people like Safire and Coulter and Moore and Chomsky) rarely command even moderately big advances, and don't usually see much in the way of royalties after the advance anyhow.
Matt (4:46):
I'm sorry that you feel you had to get involved for the wrong reasons.
I got involved politically because I want to build a better country, and I don't care what the 'chicks' think (I'm a married guy anyway). I'm a Democratic precinct committeeman and I do it because it's important work that has to be done. And that's the only reason.
There used to be a basement cafe at Princeton, back in the '80's, that was decorated with posters crudely drawn by (apparently) the janitorial staff's small children. This was, I presume, supposed to give it some sort of atmosphere. I've never forgotten one shining nugget among the dross, though. A leering college guy sits on a couch with his arm draped around a girl whose vapidly earnest expression is instantly familiar to anybody who has been around undergraduates trying to take themselves seriously. The caption:
"Dan is a feminist. Chicks are suckers for feminists."
(No offense, Ann.)
cb,
a moralist's own propensity for immoral behavior does not discredit his moralism
Since practically nobody manages to make it through life, or even any given week, without doing something that violates his/her own moral code, to hold the validity of a set of moral propositions hostage to the moral perfection of the person who formulates the propositions, would in essence render all moral propositions invalid.
Perhaps when he says "moralism" you hear it as "when someone says they're better than you"? That's the way a lot of people use the term "moralizing," i.e., to mean "saying you're morally superior to somebody else." The moralizer's own moral failings would very greatly inhibit his ability to moralize in that sense, of course. But I don't think that's the sense in which Taranto is using the language.
Why do I suspect that Kos would be singin' a different tune if his book was making money?
Money or fame, or chirping chickies, we presume you characterize authors' motives as they pertain to non-junk fiction or non-fiction.
No, it seems more reasonable, indeed historical, to think that substantive authors are "artists" in the true obsessive-neurotic sense: Regardless of readership, regardless of sales, they draft their manuscripts because there's no help for it... and if some publisher's fool enough to think that there's a market, well and good.
At the moment, I am completing a 150,000-word work, not a "novel" but a Fable (distinction with a difference) having to do not only with Two Worlds but with "wise choice". Learn how to learn, set your path and act accordingly... there is none of Hitchcock's "McGuffin" here, not is this theme sectarian or chronocentric in any way. Because such issues are inherently and radically un-PC, if anyone attends at all there will probably be controversy.
Who cares? Tocqueville didn't, nor Thoreau, and if their works aren't precisely "fables", then what is? Mine is meant as a "good read", but let's face it-- an author is the absolute worst judge of his own product. Except for editors... the most egregious recent example was Rowling's 21 rejections for the best-selling "fictional analogy" (not Fable) in the history of English literature. We include Dickens, and understand that Rowling does not "scale the heights". Cavil as you will, the fact that someone comes from nowhere with such results
testifies to potential in the arts.
Van Gogh never sold a painting. Did he burn his palette? Understand Samuel Johnson's quip-- he is not saying, "write only for money", but calling HIMSELF a fool. As a man of principle and spirit, he knew the truth of that, but under no circumstance, fool or no, was England's great Lexiphanes about to quit his project.
Writing a Fable? I'm a fool. Should Rowling's ten trillon nuggets splatter down, they would change nothing. So, advice to "artists": Stick with it, maybe you're worth more than you think. In any case, you'll learn more than you might have otherwise. What is "literature"? Hint, almost never is it words that merely sell.
Post a Comment