this post was submitted on 28 May 2024
258 points (95.7% liked)

Today I Learned

17804 readers
1320 users here now

What did you learn today? Share it with us!

We learn something new every day. This is a community dedicated to informing each other and helping to spread knowledge.

The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:

Rules (interactive)


Rule 1- All posts must begin with TIL. Linking to a source of info is optional, but highly recommended as it helps to spark discussion.

** Posts must be about an actual fact that you have learned, but it doesn't matter if you learned it today. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.**



Rule 2- Your post subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.

Your post subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.



Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.

Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.



Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.

That's it.



Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.

Posts and comments which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.



Rule 6- Regarding non-TIL posts.

Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-TIL posts using the [META] tag on your post title.



Rule 7- You can't harass or disturb other members.

If you vocally harass or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.

Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.

For further explanation, clarification and feedback about this rule, you may follow this link.



Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.



Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.

Let everyone have their own content.



Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.

Unless included in our Whitelist for Bots, your bot will not be allowed to participate in this community. To have your bot whitelisted, please contact the moderators for a short review.



Partnered Communities

You can view our partnered communities list by following this link. To partner with our community and be included, you are free to message the moderators or comment on a pinned post.

Community Moderation

For inquiry on becoming a moderator of this community, you may comment on the pinned post of the time, or simply shoot a message to the current moderators.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 21 points 5 months ago (2 children)

Given the respective numbers of professional book writers and billionaires, I doubt it very much.

[–] [email protected] 21 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

I am sure there are many more people who are writing books than who are billionaires. His point was, how many are making a living at it as their primary career.

Did you read his breakdown? He made a pretty compelling case that that number is about 500.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

Frankly the whole article is just bizarrely defining metrics to fit the narrative.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 5 months ago (3 children)

Well, you’re just stating your narrative, with 0 metrics; why is that any better?

[–] [email protected] 7 points 5 months ago

My metric is based on “how many bizarre metrics are in this article”.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Just one then, there are 43 billionaires in France (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_French_billionaires_by_net_worth).

And there are around 40 people in the French Academy alone. That's only a small part of French writers.

And 43 billionaires is a rather big number. Compared to Pakistan or Colombia where the comparison would be even more skewed.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (2 children)

Just looking down the list of academy members and grabbing some at random I see:

  • Claude Dagens, 84-year-old priest
  • Dany Laferrière, working writer who lives in Miami
  • Jean-Luc Marion, retired professor
  • Andreï Makine, working writer
  • Christian Jambet, philosopher, IDK what he does to pay the bills but his last published work was an essay in 2016

It looks to me like 20% of the part of the list I examined is made up of working writers in France, i.e. one of five. So extrapolating out, we know somewhere in France there are 8 well-known people in this one group who make a living just on writing. I don't know that that means that it is hard to make a living as a writer, but it definitely isn't an argument that it isn't hard to any particular level to make a living as a writer.

Again: The argument is not that writers don't exist, it is that it is a real difficult (like astronomically difficult) field to break into and make a full-time living at. I don't know why that statement is provoking this incredible level of resistance -- maybe because he phrased it so provocatively, I guess, and ignored some plausible ways you can work as an academic and also do writing and the two can support one another, which okay, fair play -- but regardless of that if you didn't like that guy's fairly detailed metrics, and instead are holding up this as your argument, I think you need to try again.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

You're really getting out of your way to miss my point. The number of professional writers is some orders of magnitude bigger than the number of billionaires, so much so that taking some arbitrary subset of writers of approximately the same size is easily done.

Another counter example (because I'm really nice like that): some contemporary French writers, just from memory:

  • Annie Ernaux
  • JMG Le Clezio
  • Amélie Nothomb
  • Michel Houellebecq
  • Erik Orsenna
  • Virginie Despentes
  • Patrick Modiano
  • Christine Angot
  • Jean Echenoz
  • Sylvain Tesson
  • Marie Ndiaye
  • Virginie Grimaldi
  • Marc Levy
  • Alain Finkielkraut
  • Michel Onfray
  • Mélissa da Costa
  • Andrei Making
  • François Cheng
  • JC Rufin

Yes I know, it's not 43, but I could easily go to my local bookshop and find 180 more, and again 43 billionaires is a lot for 70 million inhabitants. In any case the number of 500 writers in the article is laughable.

But that's not the main point. What gets on my nerves is that the author of the article is cherry picking facts to entertain an idea. I could deliberately try something like "but you know there are more astronauts than true painters" and refute everything opposed to this with No true Scotsman fallacies.

The article proves absolutely nothing and the author makes a mess of logical thinking, while managing to blur what the wider perspective is supposed to be.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 5 months ago

How many of those people are making more than $50k per year at it though?

It’s not “no true Scotsman” if there’s a defined dollar value that makes someone, so to speak, a Scotsman. I mean for all I know you are right and there are plenty who are supporting themselves doing it- but the point is not that writers don’t exist; it is that the number of them who are making a living without some other means of support is way smaller than it should be.

[–] [email protected] -3 points 5 months ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 4 points 5 months ago

Come on, have another go! It's fun to critique things and tell people they are wrong; I wanted to have a turn.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

Because they didn't write an article, they're just critiquing one.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 5 months ago

"Critiquing" is a pretty charitable description

[–] [email protected] 13 points 5 months ago

It kind of gets into the napkin math. But it's sort of silly.

If most writers can spend the first third of their career focusing on journalism or some type of corporate writing, and then the middle third on publishing novels or whatever, and then the last third teaching, or maybe just riding the fame of the one book that got turned into a movie... Yeah I think trying to be a writer sounds easier than becoming a billionaire.