Final Identity has left a new comment on the post "The Millionaire Next Door":
I'm a genius at living below my means. I think extended time as a graduate student is a real boon to anyone who wants to learn to lower their material expectations.
My problem is earning, in the first place. When I say I can live below my means, my "means" are usually below what I should be getting, for someone as talented and bright as myself.
Oh, and about that self-publishing link. The dude says that he is "oblivious" to his own talent as a writer; that he can do it without effort, in the manner that a great discus-thrower would seem effortless to a beginner.
Well, I got news for him. I'm oblivious to his talent as a writer, too. He ain't got none, as far as I can tell.
Self-publishing may allow you to claim, "I'm a published author," or it may even allow you to make a lot of money off your production. But it doesn't mean that your book is any good, even if a jillion people buy it. (I suppose somewhere around a hundred-thousand-google dollars, on the way to half-a-jillion, you start not to care about whether it's any good, as you work out the complicated real estate logistics that will allow you to buy your second Caribbean island, but that's a different issue.)
When I write, I want it to be good. I know that editors at publishing houses, vaguely, in some manner, have a good sense of what "deserves" to be published. I know as well that their desire to publish good literature is mitigated by their need to publish marketable commodities, so it isn't always just a matter of writing well. But at least when the imprimatur is offered by a larger organization than merely myself, a place that has a lot of employees who have some degree of education and expertise in the field, then I start to think maybe I'm doing something well.
Eh, just call me an elitist. I could "self publish" a book of poems tomorrow. That doesn't mean I'm going to be the next Czeslaw Milosz.
Some comments:
I like how F.I. calls himself "talented and bright". I don't understand how some people are offended by others having a high opinion of themselves. Perhaps it is envy because these people don't manage to have a high opinion of themselves, I don't know. I think everybody should have a high opinion of themself. Not an inflated or unrealistic one, but a sound and robust one.
I agree with F.I. that John Reed is not a great writer, prose wise. But, swiftly choosing a standpoint here: so what? He is clearly helping a lot of people with his books, and he is keeping a lot bigger part of the profits than if he had used a separate publisher and distributor (or so he says, and I see no reason to think he is lying or delusional). Is that really less valuable than somebody who is writing the finest prose or poetry known to man, and who is published by some academic press at 500 copies, 23 of which ever get read?
Maybe traditional publishers have a role. But maybe it's smaller than they think. Just yesterday I was on the phone with the talented Gemma Gariel, and she is working with many publishers trying to get several books published, and she is exasperated by the low cultural level of the people she is working with. And when all comes to all, they are just a middle man, whose importance is being undermined by the Internet. If you need an editor, hire one! Probably you can find a better one than whatever 23-year-old a publisher would stick a beginning author with.
14 comments:
for someone as talented and bright as myself.
It's called arrogance and pride. Any person that has to blow his own horn usually has no talent.
Let others praise your talent, then you know you have it.
That's common knowledge and wisdom.
But it doesn't mean that your book is any good, even if a jillion people buy it.
Incorrect. It means just the opposite. That's why they call them "bestsellers." What world do you come from? No argument intended. But our world declares different.
Obviously you don't know as much as you think you know.
Recognition comes from others, not yourself. I've never seen an author present himself with a pulit
prize? Duh.
I don't understand how some people are offended by others having a high opinion of themselves. Perhaps it is envy because these people don't manage to have a high opinion of themselves, I don't know.
Envy has nothing to do with it. Now if your talking self-esteem, that's different.
But those that beat their chests and proclaim, "I am great and wonderful and multi-talented" beware. Pride commeth before a fall.
Why does it sound like the same person just posted under four different names?
There is a distinct difference between saying, "I am talented and bright" and leaving it at that and saying it loudly as often as one gets the chance. The latter is when you know the guy's full of hot air. He's utilizing repetition in an attempt convince himself of his worth by getting others to play along. The former says what he says because he knows it. Whether you believe him or not is of no consequence. You cannot stand in his way. If the world never recognizes his work he knows he still shared something of value. A horribly written work originating from the soul contains far more power than the most beautiful poetry that is only such because the writer had enough mechanical knowledge to make hollow words sound pretty.
If you're doing anything for the sole purpose of recognition I have to ask why you persist. So what if you win a Pulitzer? It's another ornament to collect dust on your shelf. It means a committee decided you were worthy of recognition. It says nothing of your readers at large nor does it mean you should be proud of what you've done. It doesn't suggest the opposite either. Only you can know when you're satisfied with what you've accomplished. Winning a prize of that stature is certainly something to celebrate, even a goal to aim for, but to use cake as a metaphor it should only be the icing on the top of it, not the whole of the confection.
It takes a certain talent to follow your passions even if you're not all that good at what you do. It takes an immense amount of courage just to step onto the stage. Anyone who can go that far is certainly worthy of commendation. They are our examples; they understand what it means to be alive. They deserve to smile at their image in the mirror and pat themselves on the back. This is not ego inflation, this is an acknowledgment from themselves to themselves that, according to their heart, they did well. That is the ultimate reward.
So what if you win a Pulitzer? It's another ornament to collect dust on your shelf. It means a committee decided you were worthy of recognition.
You have much to learn. Keep studying.
Thomas Jordache said...
That's why they call them "bestsellers."
The voyeuristic show "Big Brother", and celebrity-based gossip books or tabloids, are bestsellers in terms of volume. That doesn't mean they're any good, it means only that a large enough number of tasteless people are interested in them. Are you a good musician if you play the flute and all the rats follow you?...
The opinion of the majority doesn't define what's good. Before the Shoah, despising the Jews was socially "good". Contempt for black people hasn't even fully receded *today*. Not following these "norms" was deemed weird, at best. But still, it WAS pretty much tasteless, with people's ignorance as the only excuse.
Not that I'm passing any judgement on John Reed's works, I don't even know them. Just reminding that open-mindedness goes both ways.
People whose sole conversation topic is "Magnificent Me" get under my skin. But simply stating that one's "talented and bright" raises a smile. Stating is not rehashing, it could be true.
If Gary Kasparov said "I'm a chess prodigy", it wouldn't be modest, but it would be true.
Braggarts are annoying. But overly humble people are chaining themselves to a rusty anchor at the bottom of the sea and will never gaze upon the stars (ask the Little Mermaid). In spite of the fact that by its own density any human organism will float.
One can rise to the surface, even swim there, without the need to splash everybody else once there by trying to jump like an overexcited porpoise. Or to elbow around during the climb.
If you don't trust in talent that you have, you'll probably leave it to rot just under the soil. That's defined in the Gospel as a sin. Excessive humility is yet another negative consequence of traditional religious culture.
Peaceful Blade said...
"Why does it sound like the same person just posted under four different names?"
Perhaps because it it so? ;-)
"The latter is when you know the guy's full of hot air."
How about when somebody says "Nobody's fuller of hot air than me"? Is it bragging, or sincerity? Or are they stealing my trademark joke? :-)
Moderation is usually the best attitude. In pride as well as in modesty. All extremism is hazardous.
Anyway, nobody's more modest than me, so don't even bother trying!!!
"So what if you win a Pulitzer? [...]Only you can know when you're satisfied with what you've accomplished."
As with any rewards. It represents the opinion or esteem of people. People are sometimes fallible. And on occasion, downright hypocrite! Especially when politics are involved.
I've seen way too many scoundrels receive medals that only said "you're the Presiden't friend".
"but to use cake as a metaphor it should only be the icing on the top of it, not the whole of the confection."
In other words, the prize is the visible part, but it's only skin deep. Like physical beauty. :-)
Eek! I'm a thread subject. :) I'm sorry that I've become the poster-child for self-horn-tooting. I hadn't meant for that to be the direction of my post. When I said, "as talented and bright as I am," it was a catch-phrase, a bon mot, an expression others have used (and not just about me) when they discussed the disaster that is salaries in the humanities these days. "As talented and bright as she is, she should ...". You figure out the rest. My point was more, about how to live below your means, than how to make more money, or even how to make the amount of money one "deserves" to get. The latter is a very thorny issue indeed.
Anyway, I'm agreed on the low cultural level of the typical publishing employee. I speak from experience. I sought out a job at a high-falutin' academic publisher, only to find that most of my co-workers hadn't finished a BA and weren't really mentally prepared for the work because of their lack of education. We had a few editors who valued "the life of the mind" but only in their own discipline -- the musicologist couldn't identify Shakespeare, the literary critic couldn't understand Beethoven. I eventually got fired [I think it was for my high standards: I couldn't publicize literally 100 books a year, when most publishers assign a staffer no more than five]. The reason that low-tier thinkers are gravitating towards publishing is, that there's very little money left in it (the economics of book-selling having plummeted in the 1980s and 90s) and consequently the less-desirable workers end up there. Smart well-educated people leave for higher-paying jobs.
You don't see too much discussion of the disaster that is the computer-business salary scale, for example; or of the low level of education in that field. People gravitate toward their level of ability amid their own capacity for self-promotion or -destruction, in, say, tire manufacture. Can't say the same for publishing. Everyone gravitates downward, except for a few very dull dogged determined accountant-types who are cagey about destroying the careers of others, in publishing. It's become cut-throat, with the morons wielding most of the knives, merely because there's not enough money to go 'round. Bright and well-educated people arrive with optimism about doing a good job; then learn the hard way that this particular field doesn't reward it. I would recommend that anyone who wants to write a novel or a non-fiction serious book and get it published, should take a job in publishing for six months first.
Other points. I don't know where I stand on the subject of the "best seller." Sometimes catering to the masses is merely a crass commercial appeal for profit without content. Sometimes the definition of content is, that which the masses can appreciate or, better yet, that which turns out to be very appealing to the masses. Shakespeare and Beethoven both were huge successes during their own lifetimes, among the uneducated public, and we still value them for their "mass appeal" as well as for their more erudite "critical success" and all that other fancy stuff. They're both high-falutin' and low-falutin' all at once. Mozart, Shaw, Austen ... you can say the same about all of them. Can you say the same about Britney Spears or Christina Aguilera? Maybe the critics have just lost touch ... but I, for one, can't see that Britney will attain to Mozart's status ever. Not even to Walt Disney's.
Is it all about status? Plenty of people are talking about doing writing only in the name of becoming famous, getting credit. I do want to be famous, for three reasons. I want to be famous in order to be famous. I want to be famous in order to be successful, thus attaining leisure, by working less for more money (I'm figuring about US$125,000.oo per year and about 25 or 30 real hours of work a week). And, I want to be famous in order to have access to beautiful women. I currently am relegated to dating girls I don't find attractive, because I am not a "super" successful dude. I want the girls that appear on (for example) Domai.com, and THAT caliber of appearance, to enter into my life. Then, I'll choose among them the ones I would like to get to know on the basis of their character, outlook, and our compatibility (as I'm sure they'll be doing for me, too). But as it stands, I can't choose among a set of viable options in the dating world, because no viable options exist. The girls are too unattractive. So, I need to be famous. Reasonably speaking, I doubt it will ever happen, but a dude can hope, can't he?
Anyway, those are my three reasons for seeking credit: fame itself; leisure through less work and more pay; women. Freud would be proud. I have to admit, I don't actually WRITE in order to do this. I write what I write because I have to write. Can't help it. There the dang text-box is, blank and begging for fulfillment, so away I go, fingers ablaze (I can do about eighty words per minute accurately, if I have a good backspace key, on an average wordprocessor). Umm, can't remember why I was writing about fame ... guess I just got started. :)
Anyway. One problem I have with the idea, that I shouldn't toot my own horn, is that consistently I see, that people judge me ill for the fact that I don't. In publishing it may be worse, than in tire manufacture, but what I've found is that the craven whose crusade is themselves, are horn-tooting themselves to successful salaries, high levels of pay, more leisure (and perhaps more fame and women, too?). And I'm not. I learned the hard way, that NOT promoting yourself, means nobody is promoting you.
I don't know how to balance that out. I don't walk around all day talking about how I'm greater than everyone else. But right now, I DO walk around all day knowing that I haven't yet found a field where the money (and eventual leisure, fame, and women) is what I COULD get in some other field, or is what I feel like I "deserve." Thorny issue. Wish I were better at self-promotion.
Fact is, those people who are TRULY gifted at self-promotion are so good at it that you don't even know they're doing it. And yet, they're the MOST self-obsessed of the lot. Kind of like the guy who is a total genius at picking up women through manipulative psychological techniques. Most women who sleep with him do so because they didn't feel manipulated by him ...
Maybe you should watch "The Secret".
I can't believe I'm recommending it, because I hate that movie. But that's mostly its style. It is a good introduction to mind over matter.
I apologize if you are already a student of those things.
Final Identity, the above is one of your more honest, and therefore better, posts in this forum.
I think you make the mistake of detaching your self from your desired results. As if you could send a part of yourself to the field to experiment, and have the other part stay home and monitor the results. And if it should work, only then the authentic you would become involved -- in collecting the rewards. You write:
"... those people who are TRULY gifted at self-promotion are so good at it that you don't even know they're doing it. And yet, they're the MOST self-obsessed of the lot."
The best definition for marketing I ever heard was that it is all the things we do.
The reason for us not knowing (in your example) when they "do it" is that they don't 'self-promote'. They live it. It's their authentic self. We all should be "obsessed" about our authentic selves. Heck, it is the very goal of many ~isms and religions.
Trusting one's abilities is key. Believing yourself to be "talented and bright" is wonderful. On the other hand, declaring it to others serve's little purpose. It nearly always stems from the frustration with one's actual output, and is therefore a form of procrastination. Also, it is counterproductive in that it takes energy away from actually 'showing them'.
Here's the secret method of success that has been passed from guru to guru for thousands of years and that was given to me by a Tibetian monk living in the mountain with a pet tiger, and for which I normally charge thousands of Euros, but which I now give to you for free because I want you to succeed, and because I am such a great guy:
1. Do your stuff
2. Show us the results
There. Now you know the secret to success. When you follow the above method you will discover that there is no need to "self-promote". No need to explain what you "could do". No need to whine about not earning as much as you deserved. Using this method you always receive the exact right amount in return -- in money and attention, including attention from the opposite sex.
But what if, after following this advice, you discover that you want more. More money, more beautiful ladies in your life, more happiness, a Red One camera and a Bugatti Veyron car. What do you do then?
I will now let you in on the second part of the secret. I received this from the monk after I continued to press for more information. After two days of nothing to eat or drink, in the hot sunshine, and after the tiger had bitten me on the leg twice, and after the monk finally realised I wasn't giving up, he imparted with these additional words:
1. Do more of your stuff
2. Show the results of that to us
The profundity of these simple words almost took my breath away. And by now I hardly had the energy left to walk. But realising that I now possessed the secret in its entirety I knew I had to deliver it to my fellow students of life here in Eolake Stobblehouse blog.
All I ask is that you treat this information with respect. For it is extremely powerful. Do not casually part with it. But when a serious and humble student approaches you, tell them about my meeting with the monk in the mountains, and about my struggle with the tiger, and then let them in on the secret.
I get the feeling people have accidentally gotten invited over here from that party of psychoanalysts in the next building. I wonder why folks think they need to upbraid and correct me ... and whether or not they've noticed that I've never taken any one of them individually to task for any grand generalizations that are neither supportable nor contradictable, at least not to the degree of implying that they're living their lives all out of whack and irresponsibly.
Gee thanks for the support.
Final Identity said: "I wonder why folks think they need to upbraid and correct me"
You indirectly asked for it by the following two statements in your original post.
"... my means are usually below what I should be getting"
"I could "self publish" a book of poems tomorrow."
... and at the same time critisizing a guy (a favourite author of mine) who is actually doing it, shipping 15,000 books from his home year after year, and keeping all the proceeds.
I am just trying to help you by pointing it out to you that you may be deceiving yourself.
Nice. Now I'm deceiving myself, too. Mister Glass House, meet mister Stones, you two should get along fine, thanks. Geez, people, the discussion is about the quality of writing these days, the nature of publishing, the direction that marketing books is going. Not me.
By the way, when Eolake suggested (can't recall where) the guy in question was "helping" others to self-publish, although he was taking a quick side and not necessarily offering the whole gamut of reasons to agree or disagree with him, I did have one quick reaction.
Maybe the self-publisher is HURTING, not helping. His writing is dreadful, we all kind of agree. Then some of us say, "So what? His books are out there being read." Well, maybe his poor writing is interfering with his message, to the point that all that knowledge which he has, of how to get money that one's books don't deserve or earn, is spreading to thousands of people who really should be working in duct-tape distribution or carpet cleaning, and further disenfranchising deserving authors who have talent and skill.
Maybe not. But it's a thought to contemplate. The mere fact that his manual, on how to self-publish, has sold a lot of copies, doesn't mean either his advice is effective (maybe lots of authors are trying to self-publish according to his suggestions and failing miserably) or his advice is worthwhile (maybe lots of bad authors are getting bad books out there ). The mere out-there-ness of it (a thing which the internet makes more and more viable every day) isn't equivalent to the value of it.
Sure, he's earned a lot of money for himself. Is it possible that his book is so bad that nobody else will ever earn anything from self-publishing if they follow his advice? Could be. Unlikely, of course -- the ideas can come through to some degree no matter HOW obtuse the writing (and frankly, I haven't actually assessed all of his writing carefully; I'd have to buy the book to do that!). Some of us just seem to be on a band-wagon of "down with the traditional" and then, by extension, on the bandwagon of "Since Final doesn't laud the fellow who lauds self-publishing, he must be an old fuddy-duddy who hates the internet! Call him a Luddite!"
That's not my attitude at all. In fact, I went pretty far toward lambasting the traditional publishing universe a few posts back. If we were working a little less hard at psychoanalyzing me, and a little more at investigating intelligent (supportable, verifiable, factual) ideas about publishing or writing or ... gee, anything NOT ad-hominem (ad-FINALem) maybe we'd be getting somewhere instead of talking about what we're talking about over and over.
Final Identity said...
"Eek! I'm a thread subject."
Under the Patriot Act, that's way safer than being considered a threat subject!
..."I've become the poster-child for self-horn-tooting."
I don't know what that is, but it sounds kinky! :-)
Is this from The Kama-Sutra for Contortionists?
"The latter is a very thorny issue indeed."
I genuinely hope that's not a typo!
Am I straying off-topic? (Gee, THAT would be a first!)
"Bright and well-educated people arrive with optimism about doing a good job; then learn the hard way that this particular field doesn't reward it."
Don't even get me started there.
I was once fired from a hospital internship for "giving my patients time and attention". Made the big-shot docs look bad by comparison, I guess...
Okay, I'm done already. Hope that was brief enough. :-)
"I would recommend that anyone who wants to write a novel or a non-fiction serious book and get it published"...
What other categories are there left? Comics? ;-)
"I want to be famous in order to be famous. I want to be famous in order to be successful, thus attaining leisure, by working less for more money (I'm figuring about US$125,000.oo per year and about 25 or 30 real hours of work a week). And, I want to be famous in order to have access to beautiful women."
Scratch the first one for me. But the other two sound quite interesting... :-)))
"Freud would be proud."
Ach, ya, ich concur! Ziehr gutt case, you are.
TTL said...
"The reason for us not knowing (in your example) when they "do it" is that they don't 'self-promote'. They live it. It's their authentic self."
I believe this is usually achieved by deciding at some point to BECOME "it".
Because, let's be honest, unless you're some kind of Renaissance heir prince, you won't be raised into such an attitude. Usually, education's all about fitting in the group/society and knowing your place.
Mine was.
Hated it.
"A Tibetian monk"?
Well, then it wasn't me. My pet tiger and I live in the mountains of Lebanon.
Less tall, but takes more guts to inhabit!
Final Identity said...
"I get the feeling people have accidentally gotten invited over here from that party of psychoanalysts in the next building."
My bad. I forgot to shut the communication door after delivering them the booze, the strippers and the psychedelic, um, "experimental medications". Some of'em must've strayed.
Still, Final, I'm sure I'd love to see your stuff anyway. I'm curious by nature. You must admit, nobody ever became famous by deciding NOT to "show the world" what they can do.
Oops! Gotta go. Tiger's back, and he's hungry. (Ouch! Down, boy, down.) Nobody ever became famous and lived to enjoy it by ignoring a pet tiger's hunger.
Post a Comment