Hey, my heart's not bleeding for the "recording artists" –show me a band that's getting paid and I'll show you a band that's getting overpaid.
I'm pointing out that iBooks will have a different effect on indie writers than iTunes has had on indie musicians.
I think the predicament for the musician may nevertheless be better than for the writer.
Musicians, except for the Madonna's and the U2's, make very little money off of their album sales (due to the record company's double and triple dipping with recoupable expenses). Donald Passman goes through a line-by-line estimation (see citation) of where the money goes for an act that manages to release a gold album –he concludes that the act (i.e., this is not per person) brings home about $40,000 from the album, after the record label has recouped expenses. Further, the act is signed to several more albums under the same financially dismal relationship (the record company may also choose not to release further albums, leaving the act in a limbo). [See Donald Passman's book "All You Need To Know About The Music Business" for a much more complete explanation].
And yet, we see musicians everywhere, eating caviar in their butler-driven flying mobiles – this is because a sufficiently popular musician can tour and get a much better cut of the venue's revenue and merchandise sales. The industry view is that bands release albums to raise awareness for their tours. This is also why very old, very sad "rockers" tour into their 90s –they make good cash on shows.
I know less about the publishing industry, but my understanding is that there is no make-your-money-on-tour equivalent for writers. There are speaking tours, but these are chiefly to raise awareness (and possibly seduce B&N employees, baristas/ers, other hangers-on), not as a means of raking in cash. Notoriety may bring a writer opportunity (such as writing a column some place where everybody knows which are the really good ascots), but not in the form of further profit on the existing art.
No wonder women are not satisfied.
By contrapositive, existential: Wonder Woman is satisfied. Well, sure, with the lasso and the cuffs, who wouldn't be?
Real women like real men are actually very difficult to deal with. Most people would want a faithful companion that matched them over an interesting companion who might show them up, leave them, or screw around on them.
Don't take anything as an attack; your comment sounded, to me, a bit pessimistic regarding the ladyfolk and (perhaps unintentionally) a little bitter, specifically the cost incurred for showing them up. Probably good relationships with humans of any gender (sorry non-humans) doesn't involve a great deal of showing one another up.
It seems many males (let's exempt anyone in this thread), especially when they're younger, are frustrated when common male/male dynamics ("I dunked on him", "I benched more than him," "I destroyed him at Street Fighter" –read: dominance) do not translate to successful male/female dynamics ("Greetings, I destroyed your boyfriend at Street Fighter - I assume you'll be wanting to date me now."). But we certainly wouldn't want to be held to the same standard with common female/female dynamics ("You really spread some great lies about her, let's date.").
These comments in no way apply to other types of relationships, in which ritual abuse, et al, may be a principle highlight.
You are in a maze of little twisting passages, all alike.
