# Writing: Hobby or Profession



## garza (Jun 1, 2010)

There are two ways of looking at writing. 

You may see writing as a hobby, something you do for fun while you work at a job to pay the rent and buy the groceries.

Or you may see writing as your profession, what you do to pay the rent and buy the groceries. Anything else you do is subordinate to or an extension of your writing.

If you see writing as your profession, then there are standards that must be met, just as there are standards to be met in every other profession. Whether fantasy fiction or poetry or a report on poverty alleviation in a developing country, good writing is good writing, and the basic concepts, or rules, or guidelines, whatever you want to call them, do not change. 

If you see writing as your hobby, then any standards can be ignored. If you do not care whether you ever sell a line of what you write, then there is no need to concern yourself with whether there is a market for what you write. Just as a blurry, badly lighted, poorly composed photograph may appeal to the person holding the camera, so too may confusing, poorly focused, badly structured typing appeal to the person pressing the keys. Neither the blurry photo nor the bad typing - not writing, just typing, to quote Truman Capote - will find good and consistent buyers, year after year. But that dosen't matter. 

Of course some very bad typing does get published, but the person who produces such material generally will find the returns to be less than what is needed to pay the rent and buy the groceries year after year, decade after decade. 

If you see writing as your profession then you will want to be as good at it as you can be. You will read everything from the ancient classics to this year's pushing-the-boundaries poetry. You will watch how the words on the page or on the screen work together. You will decide that you want to make the words work so you don't have to. You will study creations of skilled craftsmen to see how they do what they do.

If you see writing as your profession you will keep your tools sharp. Details of grammar, syntax, usage, you will recognise as essentials, not trivia that can be overlooked. You will study the language itself, how it developed, and why it is as it is today, and how it will likely be tomorrow. You will get at least a smattering of understanding of languages other than your own, and discover that turns of phrase in Khmer or Tagalog or Welsh reveal new ways of seeing the world.

If you see writing as your profession, and you devote yourself to it without reservation, then you will never need a day job, and you will never desire a day job unless it is an extension of your writing.      

There are two ways of looking at writing, either as a toy to be played with or as a profession to which you will dedicate your life.


----------



## Robert (Jun 16, 2010)

I write because I feel. If it is worthy of sharing, in my opinion, then I send it out into the "Universe" and hope to have some response from individuals of a similar mind.
I don't always get a response... but I feel better to have at least shared my opinions.


----------



## Loulou (Jun 16, 2010)

One can look at it both ways, not only one or the other.  I write professionally, but it's also a toy to be played with, my passion.  I write for myself and edit with others in mind.  I write first, as it comes, and then look for a market that suits the work, not the other way.  My newspaper column of eight years has a weekly deadline, a word length that must be met, an audience that expects a certain thing, so I'm mindful of this, and professional.  But I'd never submit a peice I didn't love.  My short stories can be more selfish, though I've been lucky enough to see quite a few in print.  I write for love, first and foremost.  Anything else is a bonus.


----------



## JosephB (Jun 16, 2010)

This seems like a rather odd take on things. As if somehow, if you aren't being paid for it, you won't endeavor to do your very best -- that you'll ignore craft etc. That's a profound misunderstanding of what motivates many writers who aren't professionals -- or who aren't yet. The idea that only professional writers want to be as good as they can be is just so wrong. Where are you getting these ideas? 

Sounds like pure guesswork to me. And you're the reporter -- right?


----------



## C.M.C. (Jun 16, 2010)

Is there a point I'm missing, because it seems like a waste of words to me.


----------



## Linton Robinson (Jun 16, 2010)

There are a hell of a lot more than two ways of looking at it.
But I'd say on this parameter, ideal is both.   You might have some hacks and some starry eyed weekend wonders, but you also have a whole lot of people who get a big kick out of writing stuff they get paid for.


----------



## Eluixa (Jun 16, 2010)

I write as best I can, learning as I go, even though it gets put on the back burner for family and looks a lot like a hobby right now. I figure I want it done well that when I finish, it will be worthy of print. Don't know that it is my one and only goal to be a writer though. There is a lot more to do with art that I would love to explore.


----------



## Ilasir Maroa (Jun 16, 2010)

For example, is it a hobby if you plan to live on it, but don't yet?

And I agree with Joe.  Why can't you strive to be good at something you do for a hobby?  I don't play piano for money, but I still try to do more than hammer on random keys--whether or not I succeed is up for debate. 

I'm also curious about your assertion that writing as a profession makes everything else subordinate to the writing.  Plenty of people love their profession, but does that mean they subordinate family and friends?


----------



## caelum (Jun 16, 2010)

This smacks of Garza praising himself for being a professional writer.

The premise is wrong, though.  One trying to make money with their craft doesn't mean their work will be of a higher quality or artistry.  Only that it's catered to making money, which in many instances does just the opposite.  If you're writing for a magazine or paper you're forever muzzled with what you can really say.  There's more freedom in fiction, though, if not absolute freedom.

You know how many world renowned authors never made a cent in their lives with their work, and more importantly never even tried to, but were praised posthumously?  I doubt writing was a toy to them.  That being said, I think trying to make money with one's passions isn't a bad thing.


----------



## Eiji Tunsinagi (Jun 16, 2010)

Usually the best writing is the writing no one expected anyone to actually read.  That's the real stuff -- sometimes one has to say 'fuck marketing' -- and in that, you find your way into the market -- with something unexpected, original, unique.

stephen


----------



## TWErvin2 (Jun 16, 2010)

As has been stated above and I agree, Garza as set up a false dichotomy: The only ways to look at writing = hobby or profession (especially as they were defined). 

Terry


----------



## Reese (Jun 16, 2010)

If you're writing as a profession, then you have already been told what your constraints are. Writing within those constraints are important. However, using those constraints while expressing yourself adequately is "the" gift. That allows you to shine as a writer that is published in some sort of medium.

By the way, many writers need day jobs, because often it just won't pay the bills.


----------



## ash somers (Jun 17, 2010)

well, i do both - but not at the the same time

well, i try not to - sometimes they do overlap


----------



## Eiji Tunsinagi (Jun 17, 2010)

Reese said:


> If you're writing as a profession, then you have already been told what your constraints are. Writing within those constraints are important. However, using those constraints while expressing yourself adequately is "the" gift. That allows you to shine as a writer that is published in some sort of medium.
> 
> By the way, many writers need day jobs, because often it just won't pay the bills.


 
Exactly!  Too much writing follows the rules but sounds... what's the word... boring.  Now, the writer that follows the rules and makes it pop -- that is indeed 'the gift'.


----------



## Divus (Jun 24, 2010)

For some of us, writing is cathartic. I find that an idea or an attititude, even a decision comes to worm its way into my head and the only way to put my brain back into a relaxed state is to write the thinking down. If I try to ignore those thoughts then they hound me. A benefit to me is that very often by writing I can clarify my thinking and perhaps come to a decision about the thoughts. What I do find difficult even unnecessary is to write up my dreams; fiction holds little appeal to me. There have been enough adventures in my life to provide the theme for many a story.

Once I used to get paid for writing reports and business letters. These days I don't expect to get paid for writing anything. It is reward enough to see from time to time a composition of mine in print and to hear someone truthfully say: "I enjoyed reading your article". Similarly if a reader gets bored in the reading, then the page can always be turned over and nothing need be said. As for writing in accordance with a style, sorry I can't do it. The words are sent by my brain to my fingers from instinct before I had the chance to think of them. Anyway the problem with writing too succinctly can be that the reader then knows too well what what one is meaning to say. 

Hopefully there is room on the Forum for dabblers such as I to participate.


----------



## MEShammas (Jun 24, 2010)

Divus said:


> For some of us, writing is cathartic. I find that an idea or an attititude, even a decision comes to worm its way into my head and the only way to put my brain back into a relaxed state is to write the thinking down. If I try to ignore those thoughts then they hound me. A benefit to me is that very often by writing I can clarify my thinking and perhaps come to a decision about the thoughts. What I do find difficult even unnecessary is to write up my dreams; fiction holds little appeal to me. There have been enough adventures in my life to provide the theme for many a story.
> 
> Once I used to get paid for writing reports and business letters. These days I don't expect to get paid for writing anything. It is reward enough to see from time to time a composition of mine in print and to hear someone truthfully say: "I enjoyed reading your article". Similarly if a reader gets bored in the reading, then the page can always be turned over and nothing need be said. As for writing in accordance with a style, sorry I can't do it. The words are sent by my brain to my fingers from instinct before I had the chance to think of them. Anyway the problem with writing too succinctly can be that the reader then knows too well what what one is meaning to say.
> 
> Hopefully there is room on the Forum for dabblers such as I to participate.


 
I agree with Divus. Writing for me is something that I do to understand myself and help others understand themselves. All other considerations are secondary at the moment of the actual writing. You must think of grammar, syntax, diction--sure, all of that. But more important during the actual writing, I think, is (during the first draft, of course) to turn down the left side of your brain completely and instead swim in the complex sea of emotions that makes we humans, human.

There are some things people can do to make their writing good, and not all of it has to do with the English language by any means. One can introduce tension. Tension between thoughts and actions. Tension between appearance and dialogue. Whatever. For example:

"How are you?" she asked me.

Bad, I thought, really bad. Really, really bad. "Good," I said. "Couldn't be better."

Anyway, the list goes on and on. 

I think writing solely with it in mind as a profession makes writing worse, not better. You must really enjoy it as a hobby before you can prosper with it as a profession. Your writing will lack any emotion or sincerity if you are just typing away at the keyboard to make a quick buck.


----------



## Divus (Jun 24, 2010)

Helicio said:


> .
> 
> Your writing will lack any emotion or sincerity if you are just typing away at the keyboard to make a quick buck.


 
*Why did I not think of writing that? *That is what writing is all about. One should evoke in the reader an emotion - a laugh, a smile, a tear, a sigh, a memory, maybe even anger. It takes only a word or two strung together sensitively to hit a chord within the reader. The author can't plan it - it comes.

Likewise, if an artist goes to paint a picture and he is in the mood, then he will choose the appropriate colours from the palette - if he is not then he will choose different colours and create a completely different impression with his picture. It is the same with words. 

The danger is always when the writer reads back his own words, as first written, in order to correct any mistakes of formal grammar, syntex , structure etc - he might by making corrections, lose the original train of thought. The meaning will then be lost.


----------



## Linton Robinson (Jun 24, 2010)

> I think writing solely with it in mind as a profession makes writingworse, not better. You must really enjoy it as a hobby before you canprosper with it as a profession. Your writing will lack any emotion orsincerity if you are just typing away at the keyboard to make a quickbuck.


 
Excuse me, but sez who?   What makes you say so?   Experience?  Wild guess?
You do realize that all the authors you read are people who got paid for their work, right?

The whole "oh, just write for yourself" thing is crap, dilettante jabber.  I get sick of it.  
Would you tell a singer of musician that?    "Just sing for yourself, nothing else matters?"

The interplay between artist, audience (and there's a lot of logic behind the idea that it's audience that defines an artist in the first place) and livelihood is complex, but it seems like very kid you run into knows how to define it.  And put down whatever about they can't figure out.


----------



## JosephB (Jun 24, 2010)

The idea that you somehow don’t have artistic integrity or that you aren’t emotionally invested in you work if you make a living at is ridiculous.

  I write because I want others to read my work. Hopefully, a lot for people. So for recognition, I guess. That’s really my primary motivation now – because I make a decent living doing something else, mostly -- although, about 20% of my income last year came from writing copy. But I sure would like to get paid for my creative writing. And wanting that doesn’t have anything to do with the “emotional sincerity” of my work.

  That holds true for a lot of things. A lot of people are emotionally invested and sincere about what they do and care about it a great deal. It’s matter of pride for some people. There’s nothing sacred about writing in that regard.

There was a "why I write thread" going on while back -- and after about three pages of poetic answers, I finally mentioned recognition and money. I don't know why people are so reluctant to say that.


----------



## Sam (Jun 24, 2010)

Helicio said:


> I think writing solely with it in mind as a profession makes writing worse, not better. You must really enjoy it as a hobby before you can prosper with it as a profession. Your writing will lack any emotion or sincerity if you are just typing away at the keyboard to make a quick buck.



I'm going to have to join in on the chorus here. I think this is completely nonsensical. You're making a generalised, sweeping statement and basing it on nothing but your own personal opinion. My writing will not lack emotion or sincerity if the day comes where I'm privileged to make money from it. Why? Because I love writing. Because it's already my profession. I spend more time writing than I do working. 

If you're good enough to write for a hobby, you'll always be good enough to write for a wage.


----------



## Linton Robinson (Jun 24, 2010)

> I think writing solely with it in mind as a profession makes writing worse, not better.



Wild.  So professional writers are worse than hobby writers?
Are professional athletes worse than sandlot athletes?
Are professional musicians worse than backporch musicians?
Are professional dancers and singer and ballerinas worse than students?

Where is your "must" coming from?  I'd LOVE to know.


----------



## Like a Fox (Jun 24, 2010)

Helicio said:


> I think writing *solely *with it in mind as a profession makes writing worse, not better.


Calm down boys. I think the word _solely _speaks volumes here.


----------



## Linton Robinson (Jun 24, 2010)

Why?


----------



## Like a Fox (Jun 24, 2010)

Because he's not talking about writers who make money off their writing. He's talking about writing only with money in mind. Have you read a bad Mills and Boon book? I have. I see his point.


----------



## Linton Robinson (Jun 24, 2010)

I don't.  And don't think it's based on a survey of literature indexed to motivation.  I think it's an a priori dilletante attitude.  (If the word "dilletante" offends anybody, please feel free to subsitute the word "masturbatory").   

Let's not even get into the write off all all the news and magazine and article writers out there making their living.

Let's examine two guys who admittedly wrote novels for absolutely no other reason than to make money.  Mickey Spillane sold over 225 million books.  In his heyday he was the best selling writer in the world, 7 or the 15 top selling novels in the world were by him.  His books spawned several movies and a couple of TV series.    Not to mention the comic books he wrote before figuring there was more money in novels.   Ayn Rand considered him a greatly under-rated stylist and praised the moral structure of books like "I, The Jury". German painter Markus Lüpertz claimed that Spillane's writing influenced his own work, saying that Spillane ranks as one of the major poets of the 20th Century.  His Mike Hammer character is one of the most famous fictional detectives of all time and left an indelible mark, as strong as anything by Hammet or Chandler, on the "hard-boiled" genre that survives to the day with writers like James Ellroy.
Famous quote:  "Inspiration is an empty bank account".


Harold Robbins also just sat down to make big bucks, cranking out dozens  of world-wide best-sellers that were made into at least a dozen major films.  (Including, of all things, "King Creole", starting Elvis Presley).    He was also at one time the best-selling author in the world.   


So, you write these guys off?  As opposed to what?  Dreamy kids in dorm rooms?   

It's actually pretty rare to find the "solely" commercial novelist, but that aside, as well.   

I resent the ideas that:

1.  There is something wrong with being able to write well enough to make money at it.
2.  It's somebody else's business to judge another writer's sensiblity or motivation.
3.  The idea that professional work must needs be inferior to heartfelt throbs by those who can't interest anybody other than themselves.

Play your guitar in a locked room and see if you get better.  Play tennis against a mirror and see if you get better.

This whole "write for yourself only" crap is a recent fad, but I've noticed lately that it's mindlessly lurching towards this kind of hyperbole...that masturbation is BETTER than communication.   That amateurs are BETTER than professionals.


But you know... it that's the way you see the arts, you're entitled to it.  
Stuck with it, actually.


----------



## Like a Fox (Jun 25, 2010)

lin said:


> Let's examine two guys who admittedly wrote novels *for absolutely no other reason than to make money*.


Do you have proof of this? Because I don't disagree with anything else you're saying. You're just making a different point. I don't see anything wrong with making money off writing. I hope to do so myself. I just don't think any writer would produce their best if the _only_ thing in mind was the dollar signs.

There has to be more. And I assume there is for every single successful writer. It's a much safer assumption than saying that any writer wrote for "Absolutely no other reason". That's, frankly, absurd.

Helicio's original point wasn't wrong enough to be worth all this chest puffing.


----------



## Linton Robinson (Jun 25, 2010)

Proof?  You're kidding right?   What I have is a pattern of their public statements over several years.  Did you see Spillane's quote?   This is well known and he repeated it over and over.  Robbins said the same thing.   So, no, I don't have proof that they weren't lying or something.  Silly me.

But then, since you made a big deal about the "solely",  can that be proven?   

I have no control over what you believe.   Or what these nitwits talking about "amateurs are better writers than professionals" really believe.

I don't really care if you think I should object (to you have proof of the chest-puffing thing?).    You want to zero in on the ineffable "solely" (instead of the arrogant "must"), that's your business.   But I would have thought I'd have as much right to state my opinion--which I think I've backed up with quite a few arguments and citations (which you can, of course, decice aren't true if you have to)--as do some school kids who have decided that it's some sort of soul blot to write for money and the pros they are reading aren't as good as the pure-hearted self-servers of their dreams.  

But here I am, being admonished by a moderator for having that opinion, and being challenged to prove something that is pretty goddam well known and obvious.


----------



## Linton Robinson (Jun 25, 2010)

And yes, this statement by Helicio is completely and absolutely wrong and I'm amazed that any grownup would serious say it, or a moderator on a writing forum defend it.  





> I think writing solely with it in mind as a profession makes writing worse, not better.



So how about you?  Do you you thing a basketball player shooting for the NBA is getting to be a worse player than the slackers on the playground?   
Do you think a singer aiming for American Idol and a recording contract is getting worse than some dreamer in conservatory?

Do you really?


----------



## Ilasir Maroa (Jun 25, 2010)

And just because it's a profession, it doesn't mean you can't enjoy it.


----------



## Like a Fox (Jun 25, 2010)

lin said:


> So how about you? Do you you thing a basketball player shooting for the NBA is getting to be a worse player than the slackers on the playground?
> Do you think a singer aiming for American Idol and a recording contract is getting worse than some dreamer in conservatory?
> 
> Do you really?


I don't think the comparisons are relevant.

I stand by what I said, though I will admit the 'must' was goofy.

Anyways, you're not listening and I'm not a hearing aid.


----------



## MEShammas (Jun 25, 2010)

Like a Fox said:


> Because he's not talking about writers who make money off their writing. He's talking about writing only with money in mind. Have you read a bad Mills and Boon book? I have. I see his point.


 
Exactly. SOLELY. I thought I had made that very, very clear.

I hope to make money from my writing too one day. If you write ONLY to make a quick buck...that is what I was talking about.

Thanks Foxy.


----------



## MEShammas (Jun 25, 2010)

Lin, different writers have different ways of going about writing. Just like different NBA players have  different ways to shoot. Everyone is motivated by something different. One writer may be motivated by fame, another my money, another by personal fulfillment, and yet another by a combination of the three or more. I didn't mean to anger you. My statements are just opinions, as are yours, and saying something is absolutely right or wrong one way or the next is absurd.

I get your point. Indeed, on many levels I agree with you. Again, I said SOLELY.


----------



## Linton Robinson (Jun 25, 2010)

So, as I mentioned early, how do you determine this "solely" thing?
Better yet, what gives you any information whatsoever to pass ofjudgements in this matter.  How the hell do you kinow what goes on inpeople's heads who write?
Who earn money from it?

Where to you get off saying who gets worse?   What one must do?   Based on what?  Your vast experience as a college student.

Now, after saying how pro writers get worse for it (nobody seems towant to touch why this is true for writers but not athletes andmusicians and such) you're suddenly talking about how gee, differentwriters might have different strokes.   Ya think?

Have you given some thought to the idea that in fact your opinion isbased on absolutely nothing but some a priori artsy-fartsy fantasyabout what writing is like and how real writers function?

I ask because I mentioned some pretty well-known facts about Spillaneand Robbins and was asked for proof.  So I'm suggesting that when youkids start saying what witers must be like, and how writing for moneymakes you worse than writing for your own pleasure (you kind of see howthe "masturbation" analogy works its way in there?)  you just might notknow a rats ass about it.   

But according to the moderator here, it seems my own opinion, based on quite a bit of experience at a lot of different aspects of writing, is just too strong and requires "proof".  

So, yeah, NBA guys have different ways to shoot.   And know what... they're better players than fantasy league players.



> One writer may be motivated by fame, another my money, another bypersonal fulfillment, and yet another by a combination of the three ormore.



Since you're taking the time to inform me, may I ask how you know that?  Interviews with writers?   I think that's germain.  I mean, if I'm allowed to ask without it being a problem.


----------



## ppsage (Jun 25, 2010)

As far as the variations of onanistic practice are concerned, I find writing to be one of the more superior techniques. And I speak from a position of considerable research and experience. Its delicious result in this arena may explain dilettantism's lurching mindlessly to fad status. Who would resist, or why? I also regularly explore the many training manuals available to the dedicated practitioner, often with good improvement in gratification level. However, I do not contend that these practices make me author, nor that I'm hereby using artistry for communication. [The second attitude which, if my cursory examination of his interview serves, I seem to share with one Mickey Spillane, late hero of the genre wars. Although I found his replies so very cagey it was hard to read his actual feelings from them. Seemed mostly defensive and proud and highly theatrical, so maybe I'm wrong. Maybe he did care, a little, about his art.] I guess I think of myself as a journalist, in the archaic sense of the term, keeping a mostly private record of the time which I live. Albeit in an addle-pated psycho-babble suited to a dope fiend. I do have definite, almost vehement opinions about writing, which I, and a few others, sometimes find well founded, and sometimes only entertaining, but which are always unambiguously without utility, for the pursuit of commercial endeavor. A lack of perspective I think must be readily apparent in the tendered opinions and which I doubt threaten in the least even the most hard-boiled professional and which I intend to keep on offer here despite their plebian, hobby, status. I'm also becoming extremely accomplished at typing one-handed. pp


----------



## Divus (Jun 25, 2010)

As an avid young reader of Mickey Spillane, whose books I was careful to keep out of sight of Ma and Pa, I nowadays wonder why more young women of the era were not called Velda.

He was not the greatest writer of detective stories but he was pretty good at writing about sex. 
What we youngsters would have done without Mr Spillane's guidance as to what to do I shudder to think.


----------



## Sam (Jun 25, 2010)

Helicio said:


> I get your point. Indeed, on many levels I agree with you. Again, I said SOLELY.





			
				Helicio said:
			
		

> Your writing will lack any emotion or sincerity if you are just typing  away at the keyboard to make a quick buck.



You're not saying "solely" here, are you? No, you're making a definite statement. "Your writing *will *lack any emotion or sincerity . . . " The point is: You have no idea what my writing will or will not lack. You can only speak for your own writing. So your statement is flawed, and I stand by my earlier comments.


----------



## JosephB (Jun 25, 2010)

lin said:


> But here I am, being admonished by a moderator for having that opinion, and being challenged to prove something that is pretty goddam well known and obvious.


  What is it with you? You keep hammering on this. "Moderators being immoderate." Etc. Moderators are here to see to it that people follow the rules --- and as long as they do the same, they're allowed to participate in discussions just like everyone else. Or is it they're just not allowed to disagree with you?


----------



## Fantasy of You (Jun 25, 2010)

Moderators have the same privileges we all have when it comes to debating. Every post contradictory to someone else's doesn't come with a veiled threat of authority, nor does it necessarily reflect the views of the site. They are here for the same reasons as everyone else, except they are kind enough to ensure rules are upheld also. 

That said, I completely agree with lin. To say writing with the _sole_ ambition of a writing profession is somehow stifling to one's results is ludicrous and impractically limiting. No one is going to pick up a pen with an aversion to the literary arts and successfully make a fortune from writing. But is it that unrealistic to imagine people who are motivated _mostly_ but a desire to become a professional? Of course not. 

Also, writing with the motivation for money doesn't come at the expense of your intelligence and emotional awareness. One can be completely focussed upon the desire for monetary gain and still make great books, the examples lin gave were more than adequate. Though I wish he'd stop throwing leaving and beating his chest with righteous zeal, being right doesn't mean you have to be rude and condescending.


----------



## vangoghsear (Jun 25, 2010)

The word amateur means to do something for the love of it.  I think that most professionals have a talent for writing that has lifted them to a point where at least a publisher enjoys reading their work.  When you have a talent for something, that person must have at least passed through a phase of a love for doing it, or no one would have discovered the talent.  Professionals may get jaded to writing by demands of deadline, contractual obligations to write on a subject for which they have lost inspiration (a character that has run its course for instance), or just writer's block (that feeling that every new idea has been taken), but that doesn't mean that they can't even at their worst, string together words to rival the efforts of the best amateur who lacks the talent to rise to professional.


----------



## The Backward OX (Jun 25, 2010)

I fail to understand why anyone has bothered posting in this thread. Garza has made a statement that cannot create a difference of opinion. It should be just read for its information value, and then put aside.


----------



## JosephB (Jun 25, 2010)

Well, I'm sure there are some folks who do it solely for the money and some who do it purely for the love of it and wouldn't care if another soul read a word of their writing -- and there is likley every shade of gray in between. So on second thought -- who cares?


----------



## Divus (Jun 25, 2010)

Wise PP,  I am eternally greatful for your introducing me to the word 'onanistic'.    I had to look it up.    I am not quite sure whether to associate the use of the word
with Spillane or Jannssen? or is it Jansen? or Jansen?      But Hank must be up there with Mick amongst the greats.    Both prolific producers of Hand Maiden bibles.

I have become a fan of yours but it would help if you would publish a peepee dictionary.  As it is, I am not sure I understand most of what you write, although I am trying.    You are an example to us all.     There but for the grace of whomever go I.


----------



## C.M.C. (Jun 25, 2010)

The Backward OX said:


> I fail to understand why anyone has bothered posting in this thread. Garza has made a statement that cannot create a difference of opinion. It should be just read for its information value, and then put aside.


 
There is no information value to it.


----------



## Linton Robinson (Jun 25, 2010)

> What we youngsters would have done without Mr Spillane's guidance as to what to do I shudder to think.



It would have been just us and National Geographic.


----------



## Linton Robinson (Jun 25, 2010)

If symptoms persist, consult a professional.


----------



## MEShammas (Jun 25, 2010)

Ah, I don't want this to get hostile. Just expressing my opinion and trying to make it more clear. I respect your opinion Lin--and yours Sam W.

I don't understand why this has struck such a huge chord within some people. Sheesh.

And I'm sorry I'm a "college student" Lin. I know I am young, but does that make me unable to express my opinions? I don't get your point. You can attack my opinions all you want, but attacking me personally goes a bit too far. 

Again, I haven't been hostile towards you Lin. I don't understand why I'm being attacked with such bitterness by you. We can agree to disagree without being enemies forever, can we not?


----------



## alanmt (Jun 25, 2010)

I write for a living. I write to persuade. And I will offer a brief bit of advice for those posting in this thread. 

In the absence of binding authority, it is difficult to convince an opponent, although not impossible. It is much easier to convince a third party, whether in the position of an interested observer or an adjudicator. 

However, and this is the important part, vitriolic abuse of one's opponent, while it may be emotionally satisfying to the passionate or small-minded, is not only ineffective as a tool of persuasion, it actually weakens one's position in the eyes not only of opponents, but of third parties and even allies, regardless of the merits thereof. It is a discourtesy, certainly. Even those untrammeled by considerations of etiquette, however, ought to realize that it is a bad habit, a conceit.

The most devastating demolition of an opponent's position is concise and objective, not cluttered with the verbal garbage that proves nothing but the arguer's own lack of temperance.


----------



## Linton Robinson (Jun 25, 2010)

> And I'm sorry I'm a "college student" Lin.



And I deeply apologize for being a professional writer, and thus doomed to inferiority to hobbyists and fanciers.   And sorry you hear that you consider being called a student is a personal insult.  Never mind MY opinion that you don't really have the seasoning to make sweeping statements about the failings of other writers you don't know or understand.  Maybe if you get older and learn more about writing you won't be so quick to put down people who sell their work.

If I had come on here and said,  "Unpublished hobbyists are wankers, not real writers" it would have unleashed a storm of protest.

But my reaction to somebody laying down cheapshot "musts"  and saying that professionalism WORSENS a writer (however uninformed their blanket write-off) goes a little beyond just finding it really stupid and insulting.  Which I think I've made it clear that I do.

I also find it a really messed-up attitude in general, and one that poisons a lot of discussions on writing. The whole "the only legitimate reason to write is to jerk your own chain"  fad is as harmful to those who spout as to anybody else.

So I argue against it.  And I didn't just say, "Eat me"  or "Wow, you're so mean, disagreeing and all".  I compiled a list of analogies I think are pertinent, capsulized Spillane and Robbins as examples.  (And got the "proof" crap from a moderator).

Tellingly, nobody has chosen to take a stand on whether professional athletes, musicians, actors, scientists, engineers or real estate salesmen become worse by doing it for money.  (Or the equally bizarre stance that somehow writing is unique among all endeavors in that being good enough to do it for a living is some shameful degradation)    Probably because nobody wants to KNOWINGLY look stupid.

But there is this about that uniqueness quality.  I see no other field in which somebody would say that professionalism degrades quality.   It's a sick little concept in the writing community and I speak against it.

And yes, I think inexperience means something when making sweeping statements denigrating other writers.    And yeah, I think having some experience in a lot of different aspects, phases and levels of writing means something.

If you want to call it vitriolic denigration to object to insulting and ill-taken remarks (and actually, if you want to read back, to the reaction to my opinions) fine. Call me an asshole to bolster your arguments against discourtesy.


----------



## Linton Robinson (Jun 25, 2010)

This, too.   I realize that sniveling about anybody saying that being scolded by a moderator sends a mixed message that's a little different from somebody else telling you what you should and shouldn't do is a sort of pastime of Joseph's.

But I think you look at this and what you come up with is, there is no discussion that can't be turned nasty by mods getting into it.   I actuall post citations to back me up and here's a mod demanding "proof"  (of quotes that can be found on wikipedia)    Another mod yapping about how it's okay to dis professionalism, but not to argue with it.  Another telling me I'm an asshole.

Speaking for the 10% of people who post here who are NOT moderators, I think it's a good idea to keep in mind who you are in a forum.   You can say what you want, real people know that there's a big difference between the next guy in the bar saying, "Watch your mouth"  and a uniformed cop saying it.


----------



## MEShammas (Jun 25, 2010)

lin said:


> And I deeply apologize for being a professional writer, and thus doomed to inferiority to hobbyists and fanciers.   And sorry you hear that you consider being called a student is a personal insult.  Never mind MY opinion that you don't really have the seasoning to make sweeping statements about the failings of other writers you don't know or understand.  Maybe if you get older and learn more about writing you won't be so quick to put down people who sell their work.
> 
> If I had come on here and said,  "Unpublished hobbyists are wankers, not real writers" it would have unleashed a storm of protest.
> 
> ...


 
You said it in a derogatory way. Don't even pretend. And you are taking my comments to an extreme. I never put down professional writers. I WANT TO BE ONE. I respect you for being one. I see this is getting no where, so I'm done posting in this thread.

Meh.


----------



## Baron (Jun 25, 2010)

lin said:


> This, too.   I realize that sniveling about anybody saying that being scolded by a moderator sends a mixed message that's a little different from somebody else telling you what you should and shouldn't do is a sort of pastime of Joseph's.
> 
> But I think you look at this and what you come up with is, there is no discussion that can't be turned nasty by mods getting into it.   I actuall post citations to back me up and here's a mod demanding "proof"  (of quotes that can be found on wikipedia)    Another mod yapping about how it's okay to dis professionalism, but not to argue with it.  Another telling me I'm an asshole.
> 
> Speaking for the 10% of people who post here who are NOT moderators, I think it's a good idea to keep in mind who you are in a forum.   You can say what you want, real people know that there's a big difference between the next guy in the bar saying, "Watch your mouth"  and a uniformed cop saying it.


 
I';m not sure that there's really any topic for discussion here but I strongly advise that someone tries to find it and get back on it.  Keep the personal comments out of it.

Lin, moderators have taken part in this debate but I see no evidence of anyone being scolded by one.  Given the amount of ad hominem that's come into this thread, I think there'd be infractions by now if that were the case.

E=mc2 -  Flaming can produce similar results.


----------



## Linton Robinson (Jun 25, 2010)

I already mentioned them.

And I was under the impression that calling somebody an asshole is against the rules.   For us non-mods, only?   

Alan's entire post had nothing to do with anything except dissing me.  Same with Josephs.  I've been arguing a point since this strarted and doing what I can to make a point I think is valid.

But perhaps I missed the part where I'm  Mr Ad Hominem here.  Perhaps somebody could point it out?

And, again, I didn't come in here saying there is anything wrong with writing as a hobby.   I reacted to the idea that writing for money is a negative thing.   

But, hey, what do I know?


----------



## Ilasir Maroa (Jun 25, 2010)

The problem was, there was never a discussable topic to begin with.  I think it's worth noting that at least two mods sided _with_ Lin.


----------



## Linton Robinson (Jun 25, 2010)

Guess I missed that.  It's tough when they outnumber unofficial posters.


But again, I'm not talking about "siding with"   or argumentation.   I'm talking about insults, and posts that are nothing but personal attacks and name-calling.


So, is "asshole" okay for the rest of us to use?  It's hard to keep up.


----------



## Baron (Jun 25, 2010)

Lin isn't being singled out by me.  The warning against ad hominem applies equally to all.

Being a professional just means you get paid for what you do, being an amateur means you don't.  any suggestion that either category is a measure of quality is fatuous except that most professionals at least produce something that someone else wants to read.


----------



## Linton Robinson (Jun 25, 2010)

Hey, that makes sense!   Is that allowed?

Probably a good time to drop this, but I do think it's worth adding one more thing, and it has to do with a word I've used here:  "livelihood"; 

Extremely important, and in a way an end run around the mind-melt that Art vs Money provokes in young artists.  (And writing more than most, as I've also mentioned).

You get around grizzled arts council types, people who pay their rent by painting or writing and other things people would do for free, and you run into the concept.  "I think it's right to get paid for what I do."

And here's where that moves a little beyond Baron's last line there.  Because it's interactive.

When I was about nineteen I remember thinking about the Beatles vs musicians I knew, many playing for peanuts in San Francisco.   I'd long been intritugued by the process by which the extremely creative come together at a young age, and as the Beatles moved out into a area past what bands previously identical to them, like the Dave Clark Five.

At some point it hit me... that's all they do.  All they have to think about.   If you're eighteen and making a living playing whatever you want to play, then yeah, you're going to get better at an advanced rate and pull ahead of the pack of day-jpobbers.   

I often caution young writers about rushing into full time jobs doing journalism or copywriting and such that they don't really want to do, thinking they'll write their novels at night.

But if you can make a living selling what you want to write, then you've stepped up a rung above the sea of wannabes.     Nothing mystical about it.   You could say the same about selling real estate or doing cancer research.

But, for the last time, I'm going to say this:  when you denigrate the livelihood side of the arts--whether out of some half-formed concept of Artiste purity, or an excuse for not producing anything anybody wants to read, or whatever reason--you're doing a diservice to the overall field of art, and to yourself, as well as the artists you put down.


----------



## garza (Jun 25, 2010)

Sheesh. I'm gone a few days and all hell breaks loose over a few misunderstood words of mine. The original post was written in haste in reply to someone who said, in effect, that there are no rules that apply to writing. My greatest error was in using the word 'hobby', and in giving the impression that I won't write unless I'm paid for writing. I write. That's what I do. I have been fortunate enough that people have been willing to pay me to write, and pay me enough that I've never had to look for the day job. 

I'm not ashamed of being paid for writing. I also spend a good deal of time writing for myself just for the pure pleasure of watching the words on the paper, or on the screen. Some of the artsy types I've crossed paths with in the past have called me a prostitute because I take money for my 'art'. I always have to tell them that I'm not an artist. I do try very hard to be a craftsman.

I'm getting my personal notes together and early next week will have some comments about where I've been, what I've seen, and what I've heard over the past week and a half. I'll not give you the hard news, you can get that from the telly. And I hope I don't start another fight.

edit - I just noticed Lin's comment about starting young and having a one-track life. The Beatles were just kids when they started playing together, and look where that led. The same idea worked for me, though on a different level obviously, and I see nothing wrong with spending your life from early on trying to be good at a craft that you love.


----------



## ash somers (Jun 25, 2010)

*Off Topic:*

Hello, Garza, 

Good to see you back on home turf, I was wondering how your 
assignment up north was going and if and when you would return


----------



## RomanticRose (Jun 26, 2010)

There's no such thing as a 'quick buck' in writing.


----------



## garza (Jun 27, 2010)

RomanticRose - Please define 'quick buck' as it would apply to writing.


----------



## The Backward OX (Jun 27, 2010)

garza - you're asking RR to define a negative - the "no such thing" by which she described writing's fast buck.  It can't be done. The mind cannot perceive the opposite of an idea.


----------



## garza (Jun 27, 2010)

The Backward OX - I'm asking her to define 'fast buck' as it applies to writing, and I gather from what you say that 'fast buck' as it applies to writing cannot be defined as it does not exist, then may I rephrase my question: What does she mean? 

I can name several 'fast bucks' in writing. There are the formula romances. The publisher sends you a plot outline, character sketches, and setting descriptions. You fill in the blanks, like paint by number. You send in the typescript, the publisher sends you a cheque. Cash sale for all rights, no residuals. I did it once, the only long fiction I've ever had published. I felt dirty afterwards. I cleaned my typewriter and put in a new ribbon to try and get rid of the bad odour. I was paid six hundred dollars, which I gave to Goodwill.  

There were the fellows in the '60s and '70s who wrote first-hand battle reports sitting in the bars in Saigon. I met their type this past week sitting in the bars in Morgan City and Venice and filing first-hand reports on the oil spill. That's 'fast buck' writing, in my opinion. Let the other fellow get out and risk being shot or getting oil on his shoes, then rewrite what's on the telly and file it as first hand reporting. 

But that sort of thing may not be what she meant. I'm curious about what she had in mind when she made that statement.


----------



## MEShammas (Jun 27, 2010)

garza said:


> The Backward OX - I'm asking her to define 'fast buck' as it applies to writing, and I gather from what you say that 'fast buck' as it applies to writing cannot be defined as it does not exist, then may I rephrase my question: What does she mean?
> 
> I can name several 'fast bucks' in writing. There are the formula romances. The publisher sends you a plot outline, character sketches, and setting descriptions. You fill in the blanks, like paint by number. You send in the typescript, the publisher sends you a cheque. Cash sale for all rights, no residuals. I did it once, the only long fiction I've ever had published. I felt dirty afterwards. I cleaned my typewriter and put in a new ribbon to try and get rid of the bad odour. I was paid six hundred dollars, which I gave to Goodwill.
> 
> ...



I think she was trying to disprove me because of my use of the term. Of course there are "fast bucks" in writing. You outlined some of them, and there are countless more, even in the writing of novel-length fiction.


----------



## RomanticRose (Jun 27, 2010)

The closest thing I have found to quick bucks is in ad copy, but I consider that more of a marketing job.

I bounced the hours (interviews, research, writing, editing, and formatting) put in on an article against what I got paid for it and it came out a little better that sweatshop wages, but not by much.  Articles are something to do for publication credits and some of them get some of my travels at least partially deductible.  Non-fiction is a completely different animal, in my mind.

In sixteen years of writing category romance I've never been sent plot outlines, character profiles and setting descriptions.  Unless, of course, you consider "girl meets boy, obstacle prevents their being together, obstacle is overcome, happily ever after" to be a plot outline.  I've also never been paid a flat fee for all the rights.  I wouldn't consider signing that sort of contract.

Hypothetically, if I did work under those terms, I still wouldn't consider it a quick buck.  I produce 3 or 4 titles a year without having the plot, character and settings provided for me, so if it was provided I could perhaps produce 5 or 6 a year for a yearly take of $3000 to 3600. ($2550-$3060 after Mr. Fifteen-percent's commission.)  Bounce that amount off the hours worked to produce the books.  Not what I'd consider a quick buck.

Royalty checks are payed quarterly, and you don't even get them until you've earned out your advance.  Also not quick.

For extra added fun, if the author gets a first quarter royalty check for X copies and a bookstore returns X-200 of those copies, the second quarter royalty check will reflect whatever amount the first check was overpaid.

I may get paid to write, but that is a bit different from doing it for the money.  If I were doing something just for the money, I'd hang out my shingle as a psychologist.  The hours and the money are better.


----------



## garza (Jun 27, 2010)

RomanticRose - A long time ago, maybe 40 or so years,  I had a list of four or five supermarket paperback romance publishers who did what I'm talking about. I don't know if they still do, but my guess is they are still around. You have to contact them first, if there are any of that breed remaining. You might ask your agent. There apparently is, or was, a big market for junk romance novels written strictly to formula. 

Not only was the book I wrote that way the only long fiction I've ever had published, it's the only writing I've ever done just for the money. Writing just for the money is what made me feel dirty when I got paid for that romance and I promised myself I would never do anything like that again. The money went to Goodwill.

I would have been writing all these years anyway, even if I'd had to ride the back of a garbage truck to buy groceries. But I've been very lucky. There's always been someone ready to pay me for what I write, so I've never had to worry about money. 

I mentioned the junk romance book just as one example of quick bucks, and the barroom journalists as another. 

Non-fiction is my world, and I've been very happy there for many years. The money has been good, and I've been to places I'd never have seen otherwise. Two or three times a year a call will come for a special project that will take a week or two with all expenses paid and a substantial fee at the end.


----------



## RomanticRose (Jun 27, 2010)

None of the US publishers of category romance use the flat fee/all rights system, anymore, even though the formats are strict.  ("Formula" is a word Harlequin frowns on, though I consider the difference a prime bit of semantic masturbation.)  Lots of songs were sold that way in that era, as well.  I think lots of copyright issues came up from the system and it was discontinued in music.


----------



## garza (Jun 28, 2010)

RomanticRose - It's just as well. There were probably a few hack writers attracted by that, but can you imagine the amount of pure junk generated? Pity the trees.


----------



## Linton Robinson (Jun 28, 2010)

> "Formula" is a word Harlequin frowns on


Thanks for my laugh of the week


----------



## JonathanBing (Jun 29, 2010)

I see this thread has strayed far from its original purpose.  Not unusual for any internet forum topic, but all the same, I'd like to add my own experiences before it dies of irrelevance.

I have been trying to get my books published for longer than I care to think about.  It's a frustrating, maddening, tormenting process, but I keep at it because my goal is to be published -- by a reputable publisher, not some fly-by-night vanity press.  I have no illusions about being able to live solely from my writing, but at the same time, the money would be nice.

I certainly don't write _only_ for money. Looking at it from as objective a viewpoint as I'm capable, I'd say I write for many reasons.  I want to share my work with as many people as possible.  I want others to enjoy my fantasy worlds as much as I do -- and to enjoy them enough to actually buy my book.  I want to leave something of meaning behind when I'm gone.

I also want the personal satisfaction of knowing that I'm talented enough to buck the odds and actually have something published by an industry that's becoming harder to crack all the time.

It isn't enough for me to write "simply for the love of writing," as some have lectured me.  I _do_ love writing, but I also want all the accomplishments I've listed above.  I like money as much as the next guy, but it's not my primary motivation.  

So I guess that puts me somewhere in the middle.  I enjoy writing, but at the same time, getting published and seeing my name on the shelves of Barnes & Noble is very, very important to me.  I will happily take a publisher's money, yet it's not my primary motivation.

I've taken heat for both sides of this equation.  Some have accused me of being somehow morally suspect for not writing solely for writing's sake.  Others have accused me of being an unrealistic dilettante because I'm not going straight for the bucks.

So no, I emphatically _don't_ consider my writing and all the long, grueling hours/days/years I've put into it a "hobby."  But until I actually sell a book, I don't consider myself a professional, either.  It's not such a black-and-white situation, particularly for a writer who's not yet published.


----------



## garza (Jun 29, 2010)

My mistake in starting this thread was the use of the word 'hobby'. What I meant was, 'something you do without any regard for whether it's done right or follows any standards or rules', and that is not the definition of 'hobby'. 

Writing, for me, is simply what I do, and it's what I try to do well. I do not always succeed in what I try to do, as the gross misinterpretation of that first post indicates. 

Writing for me is not an art. It's a craft. It's a craft I practise for several hours every day. How much of that is for pay? Very little. But fortunately enough of it has always been bought that I've never had to work.   

It's difficult for me to see your point of view. You make writing sound like work, and while I can't stop writing, I have no desire whatever to start working. If I ever lose the desire to write, to continue putting words on the page and playing with them to see how they fit together, then...

A client is here to talk about another project. I'll get back to you.


----------



## Steerpike (Jun 29, 2010)

Writing is both, for me. For pay, and for my own personal enjoyment.

I disagree that the for-pay writing has to follow standard rules or rules.  You have to know what the standards or rules are before you try to break them, but I think a perusal over the last 100 years or more of literature will demonstrate that there are no hard and fast rules or standards.  The first fiction piece I ever sold was roundly criticized in a writing forum for not "following the rules." Of course, I broke the "rules" with purpose and, in my view, effectively. It sold, so I was happy. I was happy with the story, whether it sold or not.

What I tell writers who are just starting out in fiction - you need to learn the mechanics of good writing and learn them well.  You do not need to then limit yourself to those mechanics or to the idea that there is a set of rules or standards that constrain you.  What matters is that the story you write is effective.


----------



## Linton Robinson (Jun 29, 2010)

Good points, Jonathon

Working towards publication is no more "hobby" than going to law school or serving an internship.  It's part of the process.  

There are those who undertake things with no other motivation than recreation and enjoyment:  your weekend painter, your church league softball player.

There are others who might have pro visions, but at some point lay them aside:  little theater actors, semi-pro and serious amateur league athletes, garage bands are often populated by this type of aspiration--to have fun and compete at the level that offers itself.

And...  there a million who just can't lay away the dream.   Writing is especially friendly/cruel in this respect since pro aspirations don't have the shelf live that sports, dance, and popular music involve.

This is one reason I tend to champion pro/am venues and activities which allow people to be published and read early on.


----------



## garza (Jun 29, 2010)

Steerpike - This is frustration coumpounded.

I have never, ever, said, in private, or in public, in these fora or in any other place, that only 'for-pay writing has to follow standard rules or rules'. That's you talking not me. You can go back through everything I've ever written about the craft of writing and you will never find anywhere that I have said such a thing. 

What I aways have said is that _all_ good writing must meet certain standards, that anyone who is serious about writing will strive to meet those standards. My mistake was using the word 'hobby', which I should not have done, and 'profession' without qualifying what I meant. 

The original post was, and I'll say this again, written in response to a person who said, in effect, that there are no rules that a writer has to obey, no standards to follow.

Here are the words I used: 'If you see writing as your profession, then there are standards that must be met, just as there are standards to be met in every other profession.' 

Why should I be satisfied with sloppy writing any more than my son, who is a builder, should be satisfied with sloppy construction? When he built a kitchen extension onto his own house the work was just as 'professional' as the work he does when he signs a contract to build a strip mall or an office building.* Whether it's in my private journal which is unlikely ever to be read by anyone, or in the commission I was just handed today for which an advance has already been paid, there are standards that need to be met. 

Now what could those standards be? And have those standards changed in the last five thousand years?

The answer to the second question is, 'no', the standards have not changed. Not even a little.

What standards am I talking about? That ought to be obvious. 

Good writing bridges the mind of the writer and the mind of the reader. When I read Horace I connect with Horace. When I read a poem by Wallace Stevens or a novel by William Faulkner I connect with Stevens and Faulkner. That is not to say that I get the exact meaning from their words that they may have intended, but it does mean that their words bring us closer together and bring their world, at least partly, into focus for me. Writing that gives me no glimpse whatever into the mind of the writer fails to meet this basic standard. Should paid-for writing meet this standard? Of course. Should writing that is only for the writer's benefit meet this standard? Of course it should. 

Good writing touches the reader, prods the reader, shakes the reader, maybe even confuses the reader, but never leaves the reader exactly the same as the reader was before. Read the Iliad, Romeo and Juliet, Dubliners, Absalom, Absalom, and tell me you are not touched, prodded, shaken, perhaps confused. I will wager that you will never be quite the same again. If writing fails to affect the reader in any way, it fails to meet this standard. 

Good writing respects the language. That means staying close enough to the customs of good usage that the words are not gibberish. The good writer understands how the rules came to be written down, understands the reasons for the rules, and deviates from the rule when the need arises. When enough writers, good writers, find that deviation more useful than the old rule, then in time the rule will be changed. The rules of grammar, syntax, spelling, and pronunciation extant in Shakespeare's day were different from the rules we have today. But hear this. _*The standards of good writing have not changed since Shakespeare's time*_. 

The standards of good writing have not changed since Cuneiform was invented. To say that the standards have changed is to look only at the surface, to have only a shallow understanding of language and the craft of writing.  

When there is need, good writing provides a direct, clear, link between writer and reader. This is a different kind of link from the one mentioned earlier. The is not the communication of an idea, but the transfer of information.

_Yeah, well, you know, like these little electron thingys push, you know, when there's bunches of them all crowded around together like, you know, an English football crowd, and that, like, pushes some along faster and faster, but if the gate's closed part way well, you know, they, like go slower, and they have to go all the way 'round the track, you know..._

Now do you understand Ohm's Law? 

But what if I say that if you increase the voltage in a circuit you will increase the current flow, and if you increase the  resistance in a circuit you will decrease the current flow, will you begin to get the idea? 

Communication can only be established if certain rules are followed. I can say that I equals E over R, and the electricians in the house will know exactly what I mean. In the right context I equals E over R is superbly good writing. Saying the same thing to a class of liberal arts majors will likely draw blank stares. Then it fails to meet the standards and becomes bad writing.

In my original post my intention was to say that _either you try to be the best you can be at what you do, or not_. 

And here's where the 'for pay' bit comes in. Those who respect their craft enough to study and practise many hours every day are more like to make a living writing than those with a don't-give-a-damn attitude about their craft. Last week I wrote four 30-second radio ads for a new line of agricultural chemicals certified organic. Okay, I hear you. That's not real writing. But I enjoy seeing how much meaning I can get into 30 seconds. I spent about an hour on them, and it was fun to do, playtime, really, plus it netted me 200 dollars. If I did not have the reputation of being able to produce quality product in a timely manner, then the job would have gone elsewhere.

And when you talk about writers breaking all the rules and succeeding, those writers aren't breaking any rules that matter. They communicate. They touch the reader. They change the reader. 

Now I'll shut up and try to dodge the brickbats.

*I suppose it's only fair to mention that while David did not build the kitchen extension for money, it was his wife who wrote the job specification. And if you want to see the sort of thing I get paid for a lot these day, take a look at my post today in New Media.


----------



## Steerpike (Jun 29, 2010)

I don't necessarily disagree with the value of the standards you set forth here, garza, but they are subjective, whereas you seem to treat them as though they are objective.

1.  Bridging the mind of the reader and of the writer.  Suppose you connect with Faulkner and I do not.  Suppose I connect with Conrad and you do not. One person may feel a strong connection with respect to a given work, whereas another reader may feel little or nothing.  Is it only good writing if I feel connected?  Or if you do?

2.  Touching, prodding, shaking the reader.  Again, people may have vastly different responses to a work.  I found THE BROTHERS KARAMAZOV to be a tremendous novel in this regard.  I know others for whom it did nothing.  I know people who were moved practically to tears by what I'd call drek.  Subjective.

3.  Respecting the language.  You mention Dubliners as a moving work (and I agree; the stories are wonderful).  Let me throw out another by the author - Ulysses. People may disagree on whether it is a great novel or not, but I think it is safe to say that it doesn't exactly follow the customs of good usage.  Is Ulysses bad writing, then?

The standards are fine, but whether or not any particular work satisfies them can vary widely from reader to reader.  So they're not exactly "standards" in that regard.


----------



## garza (Jun 30, 2010)

Steerpike - This is probably why I've never been successful at writing fiction, though I enjoy reading good fiction. Give me a political race, a revolution, an oil spill, anything I can nail down, and I have no problem describing who what when where how and from them deriving the wherefores. 

That which is not firmly connected to the real world I have problems describing. Thus my ranting about writing in the first post failed to communicate the idea 

I abhor the writings of Jane Austin, but I recognise her standing as a good writer because generations of readers have acclaimed her as such. So perhaps over time the collective mind is the mind that must be touched; the collective mind with which the writer must connect. 

My quite lengthy background essays on the oil spill and its cultural implications are topical and thus fragile. They are like tropical fruit that must be picked, packed, shipped, bought, and eaten within a rigid time frame. Fortunately for me I happened to have the right connections, the right background, the right experiences to be able to profit from the situation. 

There's a level of guilt in such a situation that my son and I discussed at length. He's a builder by trade, and when Hurricane Katrina hit the Gulf Coast he was instantly assured of all the work he could handle. He told me at the time that he felt guilty because what was a life-changing disaster for thousands of people was a literal windfall for him. On my recent trip north I pulled David away from his business for a week to take photos for me. He's a damned good photographer -- after all I taught him -- and during the week we talked long about the fact there here we were getting paid to write about and take pictures of a situation that is ruining so many lives. 

The essays I wrote and the pictures David took will be stored away in an archive somewhere. Will they ever surface again? Perhaps in time some researcher will uncover them, use bits and pieces, but for now they are last week's news, like last week's mangoes left in the market and ready to be tossed away. 

So is my writing about the oil spill good writing? Of course I like to think it is at least well crafted, but will it be of much value in the future? Probably not. You see, I'm not Shakespeare. I'm not Faulkner. I'm certainly no 'artist' of any sort. 

So maybe everyone is right. Maybe there are no standards. Maybe my core thesis, that either you try to be the best you can be at what you do, or not, is faulty; a flawed concept that has no merit.

But to answer one of your points, with 'Ulysses' Joyce produced a timeless classic that, like much of Faulkner's work, will be remembered when most of what was written in the 20th Century is forgotten.


----------



## Steerpike (Jun 30, 2010)

You make good points, garza.  And from the standpoint of non-fiction, I think the idea of standards come much closer to the mark.  Even though I earn more money with non-fiction, I tend to think of these issues in terms of fiction, which represents my passion in writing.

Here's an interesting and somewhat related question.  When it comes to connecting with and "touching" readers, an author who has produced a literary phenomenon has done this more successfully, in terms of numbers of readers, than the vast majority of authors will ever do in their lifetimes (and more than the vast majority of deceased authors ever managed as well).  Think Harry Potter.  Or, to be more current, think Stephanie Meyer.  There's no doubt that the Twilight series has made more connections and touched more readers than 99.9% of authors will ever hope to approach, much less surpass.  But I hardly think the books represent great writing.  So it is a bit of a conundrum, I suppose.  If one hallmark of being a great author is establishing that connection and touching readers, Meyer has surpassed the wildest dreams of most fiction writers. So in a sense one can't argue that she hasn't done something right. But in terms of my own subjective assessment of the books as literature, they are certainly nothing special (to be fair, I only read the first one when my daughter picked it up and I wanted to see what it was all about). 

Thoughts?

((NOTE: I just made a thread on this topic in debate, so as not to derail this one further  ))


----------



## woomia (Jul 4, 2010)

Writing is my hobby and my part time profession though I still have a day job. Writing is what I do for fun. I'm writing all the time.


----------



## MeeQ (Jul 4, 2010)

If I don't write, I talk to myself. And while It is socially stimulating to converse openly with yourself, it's not morally understood by the general public.

Answer: Hobby.


----------



## aurora borealis (Jan 5, 2016)

Writing is a hobby for me. I enjoy writing and would like to get published in the future (once I actually finish something ) but it would be on the side of a full-time career.


----------

