Some friends and I were discussing this. Forget the gender thing, go strictly with the career. Would you rather be Harper Lee or John Grisham. If you are Lee you write one book and play a major role in the writing of another (Lee wrote To Kill a Mockingbird and was Capote's assistant who helped him greatly when he wrote In Cold Blood). The book is a huge hit and becomes a classic. It wins tons of awards including the Pulitzer Prize and is considered a classic. It is taught in schools is made into a movie that wins several Oscars. Then you just walk away. You live happily every after living a comfortable life on the royalties of your book. You never write another one and just fade away as an Icon of literature.
Or you could be Grisham. You write a bunch of books. All of them sell movie rights and end up on the best sellers lists. Most of them actually end up getting made into movies, some good and some bad. Every now and then you write something good, but for the most part it is pop fiction and you get panned by the critics. You are considered a line cook just churning out the product. But you sell a truckload of books and along the way have amassed a fortune of over 100 million dollars doing it.
So which would it be? Would you rather be an Icon who lives comfortably or would you rather be a pop writer with little cred, but a truckload of cash?
Or you could be Grisham. You write a bunch of books. All of them sell movie rights and end up on the best sellers lists. Most of them actually end up getting made into movies, some good and some bad. Every now and then you write something good, but for the most part it is pop fiction and you get panned by the critics. You are considered a line cook just churning out the product. But you sell a truckload of books and along the way have amassed a fortune of over 100 million dollars doing it.
So which would it be? Would you rather be an Icon who lives comfortably or would you rather be a pop writer with little cred, but a truckload of cash?
Comment