AW authors who are writing full-time

AdamNeymars said:

The Passivevoice also have had discussion on this topic

561 Comments to “Indie Authors Quitting Their Day Jobs”
http://www.thepassivevoice.com/07/2014/indie-authors-quitting-their-day-jobs/

http://www.thepassivevoice.com/08/2014/indie-authors-quitting-their-day-jobs-redux/
189 Comments to “Indie Authors Quitting Their Day Jobs – Redux”

http://www.thepassivevoice.com/01/2015/indie-authors-quitting-their-day-jobs-2015/
58 Comments to “Indie Authors Quitting Their Day Jobs – 2015”

It's great to see more and more authors writing full time.

Click to expand...

Why? Why is it great? I'm not sure that it is.

I might feel it's "great" when people succeed at what they attempt, but even that I can't always agree to because there are far too many individual variables.

Adam, what do you write? Are you writing because you love to write? Are you writing because you hope it will be a way to quit your day job? If your reason is the latter, I doubt following the sort of trends you often post links to is going to be of any help to you.

I could be in a minority, but I find myself really bored by the subject matter as posed. I don't really care how many writers are quitting their day jobs (and I do not believe anyone has viable numbers to measure that in the first place.) I am much more interested in individual writers, in you, what you're writing, what your struggles and successes are. Writers as a group are only interesting because of the individuals who make up the group.

Your mileage may vary, and I suspect it does. But please, tell something about your own writing, if you want writers here to connect with the discussion you're trying to initiate.

Kylabelle said:

I could be in a minority, but I find myself really bored by the subject matter as posed.

Click to expand...

+ 1. Yawn.

Plus, it makes me feel left out. I am not making money from writing, myself. And it is incredibly unlikely I ever will, outside of a few coins dropped into my hat outta pity. I am nowhere near good enough, though I do hope to sell a couple of copies of something I've written in years to come.

Even so I feel excluded from a discussion like this and I do not like that. It makes me feel left out and it makes me feel sad and I will not tolerate it ! Fortunately, I needn't. I will not click on this unsettling thread again.

Not now; not ever !!!

Funny you should ask...

I will be writing full time come this June. Why June? Because it is my birthday, my 65th birthday. I won't be taking my ss until later, hopefully not until January of 2016, but most likely in September or October. I will have some income--my pension from a life of teaching-- but I fully expect to scrape bottom at the end of every month. I have done all kinds of preparations and second guessing--new roof on the house, new siding, windows, furnace and a/c. new fridge, stove, washer and dryer. The last five years have been devoted to the house and family. Now it is time to write.

I am not a risk taker, have never been a risk taker--well, there was that time I hitchhiked to Chicago but that was 1969 and even the serial killers were a kinder, gentler bunch back then. Writing full time is something I had always planned to do but I became a widow and head of household instead. The last twenty years have been shaky but now my daughters are through college and able to take care of themselves.


I always have backup plans. I don't sleep well unless I have at least four back ups. I can substitute teach or take an adjunct job at the local junior college. I can teach English and citizenship to immigrants. I can use my Spanish to sell used cars if I have to. I am hoping that I will be able to write four to six hours every day, but with crossed fingers. --s6

Ken said:

+ 1. Yawn.

Plus, it makes me feel left out. I am not making money from writing, myself. And it is incredibly unlikely I ever will, outside of a few coins dropped into my hat outta pity. I am nowhere near good enough, though I do hope to sell a couple of copies of something I've written in years to come.

Even so I feel excluded from a discussion like this and I do not like that. It makes me feel left out and it makes me feel sad and I will not tolerate it ! Fortunately, I needn't. I will not click on this unsettling thread again.

Not now; not ever !!!

Click to expand...

+2 major yawn.

I'm over it. I've seen so many articles recently discuss this. Who cares? Is that all anyone cares about anymore? Plenty of people are leaving their full-time jobs to write. There are plenty of people who don't leave their full time jobs and still write. Again, who cares?

At Writers Village University, there's this online class they have based on John Gardner's teachings of fiction and writing novels. He makes a point to state that getting published shouldn't be the end all, be all for a writer. Instead they should strive for glory, to continuously aim to improve their craft. I'm with Kylabelle -- I want to talk and listen to authors who aim high, regardless of where they are, and by high I don't mean getting published.

Well I care. I cared enough to go full time at the first chance i got. It certainly beats more than twenty years of going out at 6:30 am on cold mornings and not getting home till 7:00 pm, I get to make coffee in my pyjamas ( it tastes terrible ), and I'm my own boss.

8 years now, and you can't make me go back.

You might also check out this recent thread: Are you living the dream?

I write full-time... but just that sentence isn't entirely accurate.

I write full-time because I'm disabled and can't hold down a standard job, so my husband financially supports the household while I stay home. I don't *earn* full-time money from my writing; in a full year, I might earn enough to support myself for a month if I was on my own. But it brings in enough money to make me feel useful. Plus it's something I enjoy.

So in my case, "writing full time" is a truthful statement, but it doesn't give the whole picture.

There are thousands of home-based businesses out there. At some point, people will have honed their product to the point where others will want to buy it, and sometimes in quantity enough that they can quit their day job. So it is with writing.

The thing about all these articles about writing 'full-time' is that many writers who quit their day job really aren't paying their full way with writing. They have pensions, investments, partners - ie, they just make enough to cover the deficit, or have decided to cut back in some expenses. Hell, they may be like me, where they're old enough not to have a mortgage so have no major monthly expenses. Making a living solely from their writing does not necessarily mean living better, or even as well. As Kylabelle said, there are too many individual variables to take such articles as meaningful.

I do think it's significant, though, that there is so much energy involved in various ways (including writing) people find the hope to leave behind a grinding work-for-hire existence. And, by the way, hats off here to williemeikle and to shakeysix both! I'm all for people finding ways to live according to their creative dreams.

But I also know there are far too many different life situations for any kind of homogeneity in "success measures" to apply accurately. To those who hope to land publishing contracts, may the force be with you! To those who hope to achieve self-sufficiency through self-publishing, I wish you success!

Ironically, this morning I was reading about novelist David Foster Wallace, who wrote what I think I can safely call a literary bestseller, when he was rather young, went on to a celebrated writing career, and then committed suicide in the midst of writing a novel about boredom.

I don't share that to dampen anyone's dream, either. Living a creative life is something I support with gusto. But it is a pretty clear example of how widely our experiences vary from each other, and all the unknown things that can come and go to make a life and a career happy or intolerable.

I'm always interested in writers who write full;-time, and I'm always interested in how many do so because like it or not, publishing is a business, and the number of writers who can write full time is an indicator of health.

There always seems to be a link between those who don't care, and those who aren't making much, or any, money from writing.

But it really does come down to who cares who cares. Nothing matters less than who cares, or who doesn't. That's the great thing about freedom. If you care, you read, and if it matters, you do everything you can to be able to write full-time. If you don't care, you don't have to do either, and who the heck cares?

There's a lot of pure BS out there about writing full-time, about actually earning enough to support yourself and your family from writing, and most of it is put out by those who can't do it. If you aren't doing it, and never have done it, you have no idea what it's like in any way.

No one is twisting anyone's arm to make them try to write full-time, or part-time, or at all. Any of us can write an hour a month, or sixteen hours per day, and the love of writing, and the freedom of writing, is there either way. Likewise, some will never make money, some will make a little, some will make enough to live comfortably on, and some will make a fortune. There is nothing special about any of it.

There is no virtue, no more love, not one bit more quality, in writing twenty minutes per day, or twenty minute per month, than in writing sixteen hours per day.

I love it when people realize their dreams, and a great many writers dream of writing full-time. If it's not a dream of yours, great. Good for you. But celebrate the dream coming true for those who do have this dream. It's the right thing to do.

And writers who aim high? As if those who write full-time don't aim high, as if there must be something inferior about the writing of those who make a lot of money, or who are in writing purely for the money. Yeah, right. Writer's who manage to write full-time generally are those who not only aim the highest in every way, but who hit where they aim in every way. Aiming high doesn't matter. It's hitting where you aim that gets the job done. Seriously, writers who aim high? I guess this mean a writer who decides to write a book that changes the world. A book can't change anything unless it gets published, and what a writer aims for is meaningless unless a lot of people actually want to read what he writes.

It's those who manage to get published, who manage to please a lot of reads, who do strive for glory, and who actually improve their craft to the point where readers can't wait to read it. These are the writer who not only aim high, but who are good enough to actually hit where they aim.

Who cares? Who cares who cares? If you care, then read the articles. If you don't care, don't read them.

Kylabelle said:

I do think it's significant, though, that there is so much energy involved in various ways (including writing) people find the hope to leave behind a grinding work-for-hire existence. And, by the way, hats off here to williemeikle and to shakeysix both! I'm all for people finding ways to live according to their creative dreams.

But I also know there are far too many different life situations for any kind of homogeneity in "success measures" to apply accurately. To those who hope to land publishing contracts, may the force be with you! To those who hope to achieve self-sufficiency through self-publishing, I wish you success!

Ironically, this morning I was reading about novelist David Foster Wallace, who wrote what I think I can safely call a literary bestseller, when he was rather young, went on to a celebrated writing career, and then committed suicide in the midst of writing a novel about boredom.

I don't share that to dampen anyone's dream, either. Living a creative life is something I support with gusto. But it is a pretty clear example of how widely our experiences vary from each other, and all the unknown things that can come and go to make a life and a career happy or intolerable.

Click to expand...

All that is true of any job, and any profession, and it's all meaningless. Of course our experiences vary. That's the whole point. But only a tiny few of us are David Foster Wallace, and what he was, or the fact that he killed himself, has nothing to do with writing. People in every profession commit suicide.

Most people are normal, well-adjusted, and know exactly what they want, and getting it will make them happy, whether it's being a full-time writer, or a research scientist, or a farmer.

I feel for those with mental illness, or those with severe health problems, but they have nothing to do with the great majority of us. Sure, anything can happen to anyone, but that's just life. Most live to a ripe old age, do not suffer from mental illness, and are made very happy by realizing a dream.

Great post, James, well said. ETA: I was referring to your first post.

I care, despite being nowhere near that point yet. TBH, I'm in that thread that the OP posted.

This might turn into a derail, but in general there's a significant difference in tone between AW and kboards. I'm not sure what to make of it, but it means the dialog on the two forums will tend to be very different.

ETA: Sorry, my bad. I was thinking of a very similar thread: http://www.kboards.com/index.php/topic,209320

Kylabelle said:

I don't really care how many writers are quitting their day jobs (and I do not believe anyone has viable numbers to measure that in the first place.) I am much more interested in individual writers, in you, what you're writing, what your struggles and successes are. Writers as a group are only interesting because of the individuals who make up the group.

Click to expand...

Just repeating here: it's the bare numbers that I said I don't care about (partly because I don't believe they can accurately be measured). I do care about people achieving their goals and would not like that to be misunderstood.

James made the only answer so far to my question of why it's "great" that more writers are writing full-time, and it's a good answer. There may be others and I'd like to hear them. I still maintain, though, that such numbers gloss over much that is significant to those very people who hope to succeed in that way.

There was a time in my life, 15 years ago, when I did write almost full time. We had five hospital stays in six months shared by two family members. I was spending whole weeks in Wichita, Kansas City and Garden City, camped out in hospital rooms, ICU units, hospital chapels, Ronald McDonald houses. No laptops back then even if I had thought to pack one. Despite the stress and sadness, writing every day was what kept me sane.

I was all alone.The stress of the whole thing was unbearable--2 of my daughters were in college; one was very sick. My husband was dying. I picked up a legal tablet and a pen--Bic Fine Point Accountant, at a Target store and I began to fill one tablet after another. I wrote every minute I wasn't crying or holding someone's hand. A lot of the writing was in bits and jagged pieces but I could see that those scraps had promise.

The thing is, I suddenly became head of household and had no time to write more. I did manage to fit some pieces into novels-- my characters spend a lot of time in hospital waiting rooms-- but I have never had the time to develop new stories. Now I am able to retire on a shoestring and that is a scary thought for someone who has been as broke as I have been in my life. I am determined to take this chance but, with me, I can't take a leap without five or six safety nets under me. By nature I am shy and prone to worry. I applaud and admire anyone who writes, whether full time or part time. I love to hear the stories. In fact I have a character who drives around with four boxes of rejected manuscripts in the trunk of his 86 Impala.

My goal is not in the clouds. I don't aim to be wealthy, or even famous. I want to be a regional writer-- I write stories about Western Kansas. Not a lot of money in it but, fortunately, it doesn't take a lot of money to live out here. God and Brownback willing, I will not starve.--s6

Jamesaritchie said:

There always seems to be a link between those who don't care, and those who aren't making much, or any, money from writing.

Click to expand...

I totally agree! I am one of those authors who has started revising old stories, writing new pieces, and submitting some short stories, too. For the first time in years, I've submitted two short stories to separate literary journals. So no, I haven't made any money (yet). I don't care about whether writers going full time or not because that's not what I want to focus on right now. I place that energy on writing better stories.

There is no virtue, no more love, not one bit more quality, in writing twenty minutes per day, or twenty minute per month, than in writing sixteen hours per day.

Click to expand...

This! Also another reason why I don't care if one writes full-time or not. Because quite honestly it doesn't really matter that much.

And writers who aim high? As if those who write full-time don't aim high, as if there must be something inferior about the writing of those who make a lot of money, or who are in writing purely for the money. Yeah, right. Writer's who manage to write full-time generally are those who not only aim the highest in every way, but who hit where they aim in every way. Aiming high doesn't matter. It's hitting where you aim that gets the job done.

Click to expand...

Just to be clear, I'm not suggesting even in the slightest that a writer who writes to make money is somehow inferior. That's pure nonsense.

Hitting where you aim definitely gets the job done. Aiming high may not matter to you, but it matters to me. Nothing wrong with that, I think. Actually, nothing wrong with either scenario. Hell, if you can do both, even better, I would think.

I can definitely see your point about full-time writers aiming higher, though. I'd love to know what that looks like rather than resting my attention on the full-time aspect exclusively.

Seriously, writers who aim high? I guess this mean a writer who decides to write a book that changes the world. A book can't change anything unless it gets published, and what a writer aims for is meaningless unless a lot of people actually want to read what he writes.

Click to expand...

Nope. You actually get to the heart of what I meant in your next quote.

It's those who manage to get published, who manage to please a lot of reads, who do strive for glory, and who actually improve their craft to the point where readers can't wait to read it. These are the writer who not only aim high, but who are good enough to actually hit where they aim.

Click to expand...

That's what I meant by aiming high. And this is what I want to care about... not if someone is writing full time or not. Publishing is part of it (and can happen whether you're writing full time or part time), but it's not the end-all. When I read a lot of these articles or comments about people going full-time, the conversation stops there. But there's more to it than that (basically what you've pointed out) and I would like to see more writers speaking on those particular elements.

Again, I don't mean to take away from full-time writers.

And, to not care I had to see what the links led to. When I got there and read the comments I thought, "Wow... good for them but I don't care."

williemeikle said:

Well I care. I cared enough to go full time at the first chance i got. It certainly beats more than twenty years of going out at 6:30 am on cold mornings and not getting home till 7:00 pm, I get to make coffee in my pyjamas ( it tastes terrible ), and I'm my own boss.

8 years now, and you can't make me go back.

Click to expand...

Same here. I was sort of thrown into it -- my husband and I were transferring overseas, and civilian jobs weren't available. We agreed that if I could make a part-time income out of writing, that I didn't have to get a full-time job when we came back to the States three years later. Considering I was miserable at all of my previous jobs (9 years of customer service/tech support), that was all the motivation I needed.

That was late 2008. I wouldn't trade this job for the world, and I'm thrilled whenever I see another writer who can make the switch, go full-time, make it work, and be happy.

I just read your posts in that other thread, thinker, and if you'll excuse me I'm going to quote a tiny portion of one of them here:

thethinker42 said:

The backlist is a huge part of that. When your books don't go out of print, they stay out there and keep making money. I have a book that came out in 2009 and still earns $1-2K a year. Another came out in 2010 and consistently earns about $100 per month. Not a ton of money by any means, but when you figure in the other 70+ backlist titles that also continue to steadily earn, it adds up.

I can't speak for those with larger publishers, and I'm no authority on advances. In my career (roughly six years), I've had maybe $1,500 in advances because most of my publishers are royalty-only. But with a large and growing backlist (I release 10-15 books per year), those royalties add up to a much better income than I anticipated when I went into this. I know quite a few authors who are in the same boat.

Click to expand...

My bold.

I find your output extraordinarily high, and am not at all surprised that you're a full-time writer if you're adding so many books to your list every year! I write almost full-time (I edit some, too, and do a few other things) but finish two, three, perhaps four books each year, most of which are to commission and do get published.

I am a slow writer, I know: my books are between 50,000 and 90,000 words, usually, and the non-fic ones do involve a lot of research, which also takes time. But oddly, when I write long fiction I find it takes me much longer than non-fic even though there's far less research required, and I can write on the hoof, without needing access to that research. So there are more opportunities for me to write, which should make it quicker, not slower.

I wondered how long your books are, what your average daily output is, how heavily you edit your books or if your first draft is pretty much ready to go. That sort of thing. Because these things, I think, influence whether a writer is going to be successful if working full-time.

Also, there's the issue of one's route to publication. I am almost entirely trade published, by the bigger publishers. I think you write for digital-first or digital-only publishers, which will consider shorter books than print publishers as well as longer fiction; and self publishing seems good for a wider variety of length of book, which again would influence the number of books one could publish in a year.

In other words, how does how one's books are published affect the number of books one can write and publish each year?

That was longer than I expected. I feel I've rambled. I hope it makes sense.

Old Hack said:

I find your output extraordinarily high, and am not at all surprised that you're a full-time writer if you're adding so many books to your list every year!

Click to expand...

I'm not 100% sure which is the chicken and which is the egg, TBH. When I started writing full-time, it was pretty much ALL I did. I didn't have my own car, so I only really left the house when my husband was off work. Not much of a social life. No kids. Very, very few obligations. So I just...wrote. When I left my last day job, I started writing and just didn't stop.

But yes, being prolific is definitely helpful.

I wondered how long your books are, what your average daily output is, how heavily you edit your books or if your first draft is pretty much ready to go. That sort of thing. Because these things, I think, influence whether a writer is going to be successful if working full-time.

Click to expand...

My first drafts are pretty clean (I edit as I go), and of course, I have editors. I aim for 5,000 words a day, and my books are anywhere from novellas to 100K+. I go through periods where everything I write is 50-60K, and periods where everything is 90-100K. There are a handful of short stories in there, but mostly novels of varying lengths.

Research depends on the book. My Roman historical took quite a bit of intense research, but the writing only took about 2-3 weeks. One of my co-authors and I wrote a WWII historical, but it didn't require much research upfront because we both know WWII well enough to shoot from the hip. Most of my stuff is contemporary romance, though, and generally just needs some cursory research (i.e., if it's military, info about specific jobs/health conditions/settings/etc). On my own, I can write most books in 2-3 weeks, with some of the suspense/historicals stretching to 5-6 weeks. Co-written books (which make up about 25% of my backlist) can be insanely fast (5 days for an 85K novel) or they can take months if we're sending chapters back and forth.

Also, there's the issue of one's route to publication. I am almost entirely trade published, by the bigger publishers. I think you write for digital-first or digital-only publishers, which will consider shorter books than print publishers as well as longer fiction; and self publishing seems good for a wider variety of length of book, which again would influence the number of books one could publish in a year.

Click to expand...

Yes, that absolutely makes a difference. The book I'm working on right now is already contracted and will be out in September. The turnaround is fast in the digital world. Plus, as you said, extremely short/long books can be published without much issue (I have 5,000 word short stories and 120K novels out there).

In other words, how does how one's books are published affect the number of books one can write and publish each year?

Click to expand...

As I said above, the turnaround is generally faster on the digital end. Plus I contract most of my books well in advance, so the vast majority of my books are sold before I write them. Which means there's no querying, no waiting for a response, etc. It's not unusual for a book to come out within 6 months of me handing in the manuscript, and that's taking the editing process into consideration (I only work with publishers who actually take editing seriously and don't just do a cursory check for typos and comma abuse).

What this means for me is I can operate on a "1 in, 1 out" schedule: in a given month, I will produce one book (which will come out later in the year) and release another (that I wrote a few months ago). Of course that schedule is all jacked up right now thanks to being sick for a few months and then moving to another country, but it'll even itself out before the second half of the year.

Hopefully all of that makes sense. TL;DR - I write fast (because it's comfortable for me) and publish fast (because the ebook side of things doesn't take as long).

Also wanted to add: at least in the romance ebook market, it's not unusual at all for authors to be extremely prolific. It's not necessarily *mandatory* in order to make a good living in this genre or format, but the majority of authors I personally know who are making 6 figures (or high 5 figures) are very prolific.

Angry Guy said:

I care, despite being nowhere near that point yet. TBH, I'm in that thread that the OP posted.

This might turn into a derail, but in general there's a significant difference in tone between AW and kboards. I'm not sure what to make of it, but it means the dialog on the two forums will tend to be very different.

Click to expand...

The original poster often posts links/stats, but doesn't want to really talk about stuff. As he has a history of this, people tend to react to his links/stats by asking him questions (in the hopes of getting a discussion going) or getting frustrated (as it's not really worked to date). It doesn't mean the topic frustrates people. More that the approach frustrates them.

I can understand why someone posts links/stats. It's often meant well, as a way of saying if these people made it, maybe you can make it. But I don't find it hopeful seeing others have succeeded. I didn't succeed, and a statistic or article won't change that. The right piece of advice might change things, which is why discussions often help more in the end.

The advice has been very helpful for me. --s6

A decade ago, I tried full time writing for about three years. I wrote articles, short stories and novels as fast as I could to increase my output. Turns out that my output was nearly the same as when I was writing part time and the money didn't really improve. Mostly that's because I realize I can only create at a certain pace. Kudos to those who can jump from reality to reality seamlessly and can work on multiple projects simultaneously. Unfortunately, I'm not one of them. I write fast, but create not so fast.

That lesson, combined with the frustration of letting bills build up until a check comes in prompted me to go back to work. Now, had I tried it in today's age when self-pubbing was a viable option where I could get checks every month, it might have been different.

Maybe I'll make another go at it one of these days. The day job is getting oppressive to my writing. We'll see.