|
|
Post by ronmiller on Mar 31, 2020 12:34:18 GMT
I don't know what annual inflation has done in the USA, but in the UK 1950 prices have risen by 3,349.22% to 2020. What would that 1950s $5,000 be worth now? £167,461? Price of a Ferrari. In the USA in the 1950s you could buy a good house for $8,000. In the UK the average was around £2,000. What I am saying is that $5,000 in the 1950s was a vast some of money. Vanity Publishing was a game for the very rich. 'Thankfully' the cost has gone down, a lot. But I suspect that's due to POD and perhaps digital creation. This is what Lulu ask >> www.lulu.com/services/packagesIt was not a "game for the very rich" whatever you may think. Most books published by Vantage Press (who was the largest of the vanity publishers) were by very ordinary people--very much the same sort of people who turn to POD publishing today. One only has to look at the author bios, for starters. Even if the cost was $5000 in 1950 (and I believe that it was in fact significantly less since the number I quoted was from a fairly recent news report---I do know that at least one Vantage book was published in 1977 for $7000 and ca 2010 another cost $9450...so it seems reasonable to assume that the 1950 cost would have been proportionally less), it was something that hundreds of hopeful authors managed to find. In fact, Vantage Press ruled the self-publishing world for decades, with a market share that hovered around 25% from the 1950s through the early 1990s (400–500 books annually at its peak)..which certainly suggests that a lot of authors were able to afford the fees. Fifteen thousand authors, in fact... a lot of "very rich" people. It was, actually, not too hard to find information about many Vantage Press authors. I picked some names at random and found bios of a few. One, for instance, was a retired Army nurse. Another was the curate of a church. Others included teachers, attorneys, journalists and salesmen. Hardly anyone who would be "very rich." |
|
|
|
Post by ronmiller on Mar 31, 2020 12:37:15 GMT
"anyone can learn to accurately put down onto paper what they see in front of them. That's fun for everyone and immensely gratifying. But you cannot teach someone how to be an artist."Ron, I'm not sure that a person is born an artist, writer ,sculpter, singer, etc. I think that at a very early age there has to be an interest in art or some other other creative form. Take Leonardo, he started painting while he was still a very young boy. He was fascinated with art and continued drawing and painting. When he was 14 he became an apprentice to the artist Verrocchio. I remember when I was teaching. In my Junior class was a 7 year old boy who was very good at drawing and painting. His father told me he had shown an interest in drawing at a very early age and his dad had encouraged this interest. If a child starts drawing and painting or some other creative or learning activity at a very early age, their skill as an artist, singer etc. will also develop. I saw this phenomenon countless times in my teaching. The very young girl who would emulate her favourite singer and spend hours practicing, listening to her favourite songstress and copying them. As time went on she too became an excellent singer. Carol King spent hours on the piano thinking up tunes and songs when she was very young and she became famous. I often wish I had started art at a young age, but I was not encouraged at either my boarding school or my grammar school. I think I would be better at drawing and painting if I had started earlier. I encouraged my grandchild when she showed an interest in drawing and painting. I have seen over the years the development she has made. Her friends tell me she is the best at art in her class. (she's intelligent but shows no interest in academia like my son did.) My daughter, son, daughter-in law and I had the discussion of born with talent or nurturing interest and the creative activity. My son and I believe one can develop the creative activity if the child starts very young and shows an interest. My daughter and daughter-in -law felt as you do that an artist, singer, author etc. is born. I think that your examples actually underscore what I and your daughter and daughter-in-law have said! It is certainly true that a creative ability can be encouraged and nurtured but, as you point out, the seed needs to already be there. |
|
|
|
Post by Retread-Retired-Cameron on Mar 31, 2020 12:56:57 GMT
It's kind of like I said before: "The miracle in the equation lies in the chance probabilities of nature, nurture, and context all coming together and producing someone who truly is a master of what they do. The odds of winning the lottery jackpot aren't far different."
If the seeds of a talent are there, if the child shows an interest, and if that interest is cultivated or nurtured, means a lot.
My oldest daughter at age six isn't much of an artist, but she can tell stories. She also shows promise as an interrogator, already being the average height for an eight-year-old boy and as strong as one.
When adults actually take the time to watch and listen the children usually clue them in.
|
|
|
|
Post by And Kevin 2024 on Mar 31, 2020 14:25:21 GMT
It was not a "game for the very rich" whatever you may think. Most books published by Vantage Press (who was the largest of the vanity publishers) were by very ordinary people--very much the same sort of people who turn to POD publishing today. One only has to look at the author bios, for starters. Even if the cost was $5000 in 1950 (and I believe that it was in fact significantly less since the number I quoted was from a fairly recent news report---I do know that at least one Vantage book was published in 1977 for $7000 and ca 2010 another cost $9450...so it seems reasonable to assume that the 1950 cost would have been proportionally less), it was something that hundreds of hopeful authors managed to find.
I really do not know what you class as rich. You are talking about people having a spare one year's, at least, wage knocking around, and that's just going off your 1977 figure with wages greatly increased from the 1950s. Your 2010 example is around half a 'normal' annual wage. Few can actually afford that sort of outlay.
In fact, Vantage Press ruled the self-publishing world for decades, with a market share that hovered around 25% from the 1950s through the early 1990s (400–500 books annually at its peak)..which certainly suggests that a lot of authors were able to afford the fees. Fifteen thousand authors, in fact... a lot of "very rich" people.
That is over a period of 70 years, before they were eventually shut down for what? ripping people off? As I said, not even one book a week. A tiny number of people from the actual population of even the UK.
It was, actually, not too hard to find information about many Vantage Press authors. I picked some names at random and found bios of a few. One, for instance, was a retired Army nurse. Another was the curate of a church. Others included teachers, attorneys, journalists and salesmen. Hardly anyone who would be "very rich."
OK, I have seen TV progs about people who paid for such services. If female, often their well off husbands paid for it to humour them. But apart from the army nurse, who you do not mention the rank of because some are well paid, and their wage is often stashed in the bank during service because everything is provided for them (often the same with curates and vicars, kept people with an average of £25,000 a year 'pocket money') the rest are often highly paid. So, rich people then.
|
|
|
|
Post by And Kevin 2024 on Mar 31, 2020 14:57:36 GMT
Ron, I'm not sure that a person is born an artist, writer ,sculpter, singer, etc. I think that at a very early age there has to be an interest in art or some other other creative form. Take Leonardo, he started painting while he was still a very young boy. He was fascinated with art and continued drawing and painting. When he was 14 he became an apprentice to the artist Verrocchio.
Born artists then. Many people who show an interest are actually never very good at it, because you have to consider what a art actually is. Da Vinci was more than an artist, he was a rare genius in many fields.
I remember when I was teaching. In my Junior class was a 7 year old boy who was very good at drawing and painting. His father told me he had shown an interest in drawing at a very early age and his dad had encouraged this interest.
I was able to create photorealistic drawings as soon as I picked up a pencil. No one was particularly impressed or even interested, but I did not need encouragement, it was just born in me. I don't even recall doing art in primary school, but at least in Secondary school two of my paintings ended up in the Tate due to some school art competition run by the Mirror. I have no idea what happened to them, I certainly got nothing for them!
If a child starts drawing and painting or some other creative or learning activity at a very early age, their skill as an artist, singer etc. will also develop.
The technicals can be taught, but the results can often be the difference between a Vermeer and an Andy Warhol.
I saw this phenomenon countless times in my teaching. The very young girl who would emulate her favourite singer and spend hours practicing, listening to her favourite songstress and copying them. As time went on she too became an excellent singer.
But perhaps it was already in her to be so? I recall being moaned at by a girl I knew who sang in a band. "Why do the likes of Whitney Houston do all that 'warbling' during notes? There's no need!" I replied, "because they can. Some people can just sing and others are born 'musical instruments." She was not pleased with that reply.
Carol King spent hours on the piano thinking up tunes and songs when she was very young and she became famous.
Many other people also do that, and don't become famous, often because their output is not considered marketable. Carol was the exception. A born creator, who did no doubt have to learn how to play the piano in order to write songs. A shame that many people nowadays have never heard of her.
I often wish I had started art at a young age, but I was not encouraged at either my boarding school or my grammar school. I think I would be better at drawing and painting if I had started earlier. I encouraged my grandchild when she showed an interest in drawing and painting. I have seen over the years the development she has made. Her friends tell me she is the best at art in her class. (she's intelligent but shows no interest in academia like my son did.)
The interest and ability has to be there in the first place, but no one is born a Michelangelo, not even a turtle, they still have to learn how to use the materials no matter how creative they are from birth.
My daughter, son, daughter-in law and I had the discussion of born with talent or nurturing interest and the creative activity. My son and I believe one can develop the creative activity if the child starts very young and shows an interest. My daughter and daughter-in -law felt as you do that an artist, singer, author etc. is born.
It's the very old Nature Nurture argument. Thatcher, as a very old fashioned in thought person, example, believed it is all nurture, so any child can be taught anything to the same level and that really upset teachers who knew better. But in reality it is both.
|
|
|
|
Post by Retread-Retired-Cameron on Mar 31, 2020 15:04:49 GMT
It was not a "game for the very rich" whatever you may think. Most books published by Vantage Press (who was the largest of the vanity publishers) were by very ordinary people--very much the same sort of people who turn to POD publishing today. One only has to look at the author bios, for starters. Even if the cost was $5000 in 1950 (and I believe that it was in fact significantly less since the number I quoted was from a fairly recent news report---I do know that at least one Vantage book was published in 1977 for $7000 and ca 2010 another cost $9450...so it seems reasonable to assume that the 1950 cost would have been proportionally less), it was something that hundreds of hopeful authors managed to find. I really do not know what you class as rich. You are talking about people having a spare one year's, at least, wage knocking around, and that's just going off your 1977 figure with wages greatly increased from the 1950s. Your 2010 example is around half a 'normal' annual wage. Few can actually afford that sort of outlay.In fact, Vantage Press ruled the self-publishing world for decades, with a market share that hovered around 25% from the 1950s through the early 1990s (400–500 books annually at its peak)..which certainly suggests that a lot of authors were able to afford the fees. Fifteen thousand authors, in fact... a lot of "very rich" people.
That is over a period of 70 years, before they were eventually shut down for what? ripping people off? As I said, not even one book a week. A tiny number of people from the actual population of even the UK.It was, actually, not too hard to find information about many Vantage Press authors. I picked some names at random and found bios of a few. One, for instance, was a retired Army nurse. Another was the curate of a church. Others included teachers, attorneys, journalists and salesmen. Hardly anyone who would be "very rich." OK, I have seen TV progs about people who paid for such services. If female, often their well off husbands paid for it to humour them. But apart from the army nurse, who you do not mention the rank of because some are well paid, and their wage is often stashed in the bank during service because everything is provided for them (often the same with curates and vicars, kept people with an average of £25,000 a year 'pocket money') the rest are often highly paid. So, rich people then.Mr Lomas,
I'm not sure how England pays it military personnel, but I know for a fact US Army nurses and other personnel aren't as well-paid as you appear to believe. Forty years ago a WAC officer-nurse, unless she was working in a war zone, had bills to pay and the annual salary and allotments was a lot less than that of a comparable Registered Nurse working a civilian job. Enlisted nurses went through a crash course equivalent to the training a registered nurse would receive, but since it wasn't a two-year course, those nurses didn't receive a commission and were usually lower enlisted, paid a bit less than a comparable civilian LVN.
Between pay, housing allotment, uniform allotment, and such enlisted personnel [then and now] could live okay, but stating that they were kept-people able to stash their pay in the bank is a gross overstatement unsupported by reality.
I ought to know, because while I'm a citizen of this country I've been a "male war bride" of sorts [male civilian spouse], twice. I am fully aware of how easy our personnel don't have it, just as I am aware that these days personnel basically pay for everything from housing to uniforms to meals. It isn't the picnic you described and never really was.
|
|
|
|
Post by ronmiller on Mar 31, 2020 17:38:36 GMT
It was not a "game for the very rich" whatever you may think. Most books published by Vantage Press (who was the largest of the vanity publishers) were by very ordinary people--very much the same sort of people who turn to POD publishing today. One only has to look at the author bios, for starters. Even if the cost was $5000 in 1950 (and I believe that it was in fact significantly less since the number I quoted was from a fairly recent news report---I do know that at least one Vantage book was published in 1977 for $7000 and ca 2010 another cost $9450...so it seems reasonable to assume that the 1950 cost would have been proportionally less), it was something that hundreds of hopeful authors managed to find. I really do not know what you class as rich. You are talking about people having a spare one year's, at least, wage knocking around, and that's just going off your 1977 figure with wages greatly increased from the 1950s. Your 2010 example is around half a 'normal' annual wage. Few can actually afford that sort of outlay.
You are the one who used the phrase "very rich."In fact, Vantage Press ruled the self-publishing world for decades, with a market share that hovered around 25% from the 1950s through the early 1990s (400–500 books annually at its peak)..which certainly suggests that a lot of authors were able to afford the fees. Fifteen thousand authors, in fact... a lot of "very rich" people.
That is over a period of 70 years, before they were eventually shut down for what? ripping people off? As I said, not even one book a week. A tiny number of people from the actual population of even the UK.
400-500 books annually is nearly ten books a week. That's about one quarter of what a major traditional publisher such as Simon & Schuster will release each year.
And what possible difference can it make what proportion of the population was publishing books?
accrispin.blogspot.com/2013/01/venerable-vanity-publisher-vantage.htmlIt was, actually, not too hard to find information about many Vantage Press authors. I picked some names at random and found bios of a few. One, for instance, was a retired Army nurse. Another was the curate of a church. Others included teachers, attorneys, journalists and salesmen. Hardly anyone who would be "very rich." OK, I have seen TV progs about people who paid for such services. If female, often their well off husbands paid for it to humour them. But apart from the army nurse, who you do not mention the rank of because some are well paid, and their wage is often stashed in the bank during service because everything is provided for them (often the same with curates and vicars, kept people with an average of £25,000 a year 'pocket money') the rest are often highly paid. So, rich people then.You are only speculating now, and when you say that if a woman published a book it must have been paid for by her husband in order to humor her I will wait to see what Larika and Maggie have to say about that little dollop of sexism. And "rich" salesman, teachers and journalists? Besides, I thought that I made it clear that I had looked up the bios of several Vantage Press authors. I found a scant few who anyone would classify as being remotely "rich." Most were solid middle-class working people.
Looking up a few more (not everyone has bios available), I found a physical education instructor, an historian, a widowed grandmother, a college instructor, another attorney, a missionary (we know how wealthy missionaries are), elementary school principal (another lucrative profession), lion tamer(!), another college lecturer and a musician. All to say nothing of an apparently endless supply of hopeful poets. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 1, 2020 3:22:43 GMT
Ron is an early interest in a creative activity such as drawing the same as being born with an inborn talent for drawing?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 1, 2020 3:44:58 GMT
OK, I have seen TV progs about people who paid for such services. If female, often their well off husbands paid for it to humour them.
I will wait to see what Larika and Maggie have to say about that little dollop of sexism
"Ambivalent sexism is a theoretical framework which posits that sexism has two sub-components: "hostile sexism" and "benevolent sexism". Hostile sexism reflects overtly negative evaluations and stereotypes about a gender (e.g., the ideas that women are incompetent and inferior to men)" Wikipedia
So Kevin according to Wikipedia that remark could be taken as sexist.
|
|
|
|
Post by Retread-Retired-Cameron on Apr 1, 2020 12:23:34 GMT
OK, I have seen TV progs about people who paid for such services. If female, often their well off husbands paid for it to humour them.I will wait to see what Larika and Maggie have to say about that little dollop of sexism"Ambivalent sexism is a theoretical framework which posits that sexism has two sub-components: "hostile sexism" and "benevolent sexism". Hostile sexism reflects overtly negative evaluations and stereotypes about a gender (e.g., the ideas that women are incompetent and inferior to men)" WikipediaSo Kevin according to Wikipedia that remark could be taken as sexist. Lady Elizabeth,
I take it the following would be an example of "Hostile Sexism" ["Women: Know Your Limits!", Harry Enfield, BBC]
|
|
|
|
Post by ronmiller on Apr 1, 2020 12:49:41 GMT
Ron is an early interest in a creative activity such as drawing the same as being born with an inborn talent for drawing? I would think it would surely be symptomatic. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 1, 2020 13:23:12 GMT
I take it the following would be an example of "Hostile Sexism" ["Women: Know Your Limits!", Harry Enfield, BBC]
Harry Enfield's remark was definitely sexist in the guise of comedy. By the eighties, (Harry Enfield's era) we were very slowly becoming aware of sexual comments in the UK. However in mine and Cliff Richard's time (!940s and 1950s) actually he is 3 years younger than me. Anyway look at this extremely famous song of his. It has a very catchy tune and was my brother's favourite song, We women just accepted it, but Cliff would never have got away with it today. Women would unite and condemn it as sexist.
Livin Lovin Doll
Cliff Richard
Got myself a cryin', talkin', sleepin', walkin', livin' doll
Got to do my best to please her just 'cause she's a livin' doll
Got a roamin' eye and that is why she satisfies my soul
Got the one and only walkin', talkin', livin' doll
Take a look at her hair, it's real
If you don't believe what I say, just feel
I'm gonna lock her up in a trunk so no big hunk
Can steal her away from me
Got myself a cryin', talkin', sleepin', walkin', livin' doll
Got to do my best to please her just 'cause she's a livin' doll
Got a roamin' eye and that is why she satisfies my soul
Got the one and only walkin', talkin', livin' doll.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 1, 2020 13:45:37 GMT
 I would think it would surely be symptomatic.Ron, I went to several sites on google and posed the question of talent or development and it would seem that my son and I are in the minority. However several people said it was a combination of nature and nurture.
According to Theravada Buddhism, even extraordinary talent or ability is the result of nurture, repeatedly doing or practicing for a long time!! (And there are many, many budhists in the world)
|
|
|
|
Post by ronmiller on Apr 1, 2020 15:29:51 GMT
I would think it would surely be symptomatic.Ron, I went to several sites on google and posed the question of talent or development and it would seem that my son and I are in the minority. However several people said it was a combination of nature and nurture.
According to Theravada Buddhism, even extraordinary talent or ability is the result of nurture, repeatedly doing or practicing for a long time!! (And there are many, many budhists in the world) Well, by that theory, anyone can become a Jascha Heifetz, Igor Stravinsky, Rudolf Nureyev, Pablo Picasso or Ernest Hemingway just by practicing enough. I think there is more to it than that! A combination of nature and nurture certainly makes sense, since that would start with an innate ability that is then encouraged. |
|
|
|
Post by Retread-Retired-Cameron on Apr 1, 2020 15:48:37 GMT
I would think it would surely be symptomatic.Ron, I went to several sites on google and posed the question of talent or development and it would seem that my son and I are in the minority. However several people said it was a combination of nature and nurture.
According to Theravada Buddhism, even extraordinary talent or ability is the result of nurture, repeatedly doing or practicing for a long time!! (And there are many, many budhists in the world) Well, by that theory, anyone can become a Jascha Heifetz, Igor Stravinsky, Rudolf Nureyev, Pablo Picasso or Ernest Hemingway just by practicing enough. I think there is more to it than that! A combination of nature and nurture certainly makes sense, since that would start with an innate ability that is then encouraged. Nurture, nature, and context: nurture being the encouragement, nature being the innate ability, with context being the availability of of resources the individual needs in order to learn the skill and apply it properly.
A child prodigy can be encouraged all day long, but if there is no materiel available to learn and practice with or daily life is a constant struggle to simply survive, the child is unlikely to grow up to be a Picasso, or Hemingway, or Stravinsky.
|
|
I would think it would surely be symptomatic.