Skip to main content

Loadsamoney?

I was reading in some authors' publication (I think ALCS News) that an author who writes for the teen audience asked the young people at his talk a question about how much money they thought he earned from booksales.

'You buy a book in a bookshop for £10,' he said. 'How much of that do you think the author gets?'

The most popular answer was 100%, followed by 50%, then 75%, which between them accounted for most of the replies. Now leaving aside the total lack of business sense in 100% (come on, guys, the shop has to make something out of this), it's still quite remarkable how much they believed authors get.

On a paperback, it is often 7.5% of net. Let's assume the bookshop gets a 50% discount - that means that on this £10 paperback, the author gets around 37p. I have to say, when I type that, even I find it shocking. To be fair, it's not always so bad. If you sell above a set number, say 10,000 copies, you might get 10 or even 12.5%, while hardbacks usually start at a higher percentage. But even so, on a £17.50 hardback an author will still only get around £1.

Now I know authors are always whinging on about money. It's an old charter or something. But the trouble is, with only the earnings of people like J. K. Rowling making the media, it's sometimes difficult to appreciate that we aren't all raking in vast quantities of cash. So do us a favour, guv. Buy a book.

Photo by Clare Dudman

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's 2010 gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some exp...

Murder by Candlelight - Ed. Cecily Gayford ***

Nothing seems to suit Christmas reading better than either ghost stories or Christmas-set novels. For some this means a fluffy romance in the snow, but for those of us with darker preferences, it's hard to beat a good Christmas murder. An annual event for me over the last few years has been getting the excellent series of classic murderous Christmas short stories pulled together by Cecily Gayford, starting with the 2016 Murder under the Christmas Tree . This featured seasonal output from the likes of Margery Allingham, Arthur Conan Doyle, Ellis Peters and Dorothy L. Sayers, laced with a few more modern authors such as Ian Rankin and Val McDermid, in some shiny Christmassy twisty tales. I actually thought while purchasing this year's addition 'Surely she is going to run out of classic stories soon' - and sadly, to a degree, Gayford has. The first half of Murder by Candlelight is up to the usual standard with some good seasonal tales from the likes of Catherine Aird, Car...

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5.  However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor...