The Dreaded Writer
November 27, 1998
5:34 a.m.
Recovering from too much dinner last night.   There's always at least two sides to everything, it seems. And to really make matters worse, both sides are always at least a little bit in the right (given, at least, that you can find a way to see things from both perspectives). A friend of mine at work has a database of quotes made by people like General Patton and C. S. Lewis, and folks like that. He distributes one quote early each morning, and people respond with their thoughts throughout the day. Recently, the quotes have run in the vein of science's inability to describe or understand the origin of life vs. the idea of a universal designer (a.k.a. God). Needless to say, it's a topic that's created a good deal of . . . er . . . "thought" among all the engineers who partake in the exercise. Scientific arguments get really convoluted when people start talking about the origin of life, what with all those stray lightning bolts being tossed around and with the messy remains of cosmic soup mucking up the place. But then, engineers (as well as others I suppose) aren't known for their ability to accept as the truth that which they do not actually see. What's got me off on this kick, eh? You want the truth? It's all this stuff about being a writer and not being a writer and self-validation and all that stuff. On one side it's "a writer writes." On the other it's "a writer is someone who sells their work." I've stated my opinion as clearly as I can previously, and I think my actions have consistently supported it. But my opinion is not what I'm thinking about today. Instead, I'm sitting here wondering what the big deal is about this matter that makes people get so emotional. The surest way to get into an argument with or to hurt someone who writes but is not yet published is to tell them that they aren't a writer until they get paid to do it. If you don't believe me, try it sometime. Drop into a group of unpublished writers and make an off-hand comment in this vein, then run for cover because the stuff is going to hit the fan. What's even more interesting is that it doesn't matter if the speaker is published or not. I know this because it's always been my opinion that I'm not a writer until I'm being paid to write. Heck, I've sold some fifteen tales counting those that somehow didn't see print, and I still wonder in my heart if I qualify for the lofty title of "writer". But before I became a published writer I would occasionally support my opinion amid other unpublished writers. It's a truly ugly scene. I just don't get it. And I never will. So, what is it about writing that makes people who write go ballistic when the line of payment or publication is broached? A lot of folks talk about writing as their art. Their suggestion is that art needs no commercialism to qualify as art. And I certainly agree with that. Then there's the argument that says "I write for myself." I don't have a problem with that either. Some of my favorite pieces are things I wrote for myself, especially a few things I've written for release on this site. Writing for myself feels good. Writing to find out how I feel about something may be the main reason I keep this page so active. If I didn't love to write, I certainly wouldn't undertake it. This argument says that writing is writing, and, if one picks up a pencil and makes words, that person is a writer. Other folks write as a release, or as protection, or as therapy. All of these are great reasons to write. But why do we get upset when a professional (or unprofessional) writer says that you're not a writer unless you're getting paid for it? The reason, I think, is that new writers take the comment as somehow denigrating their attempts, they take these comments as being made by the professional in order to put them down a notch. Among the problems--and this really strikes close to home for me--are writers who make this type of comment from a framework that makes sense to them. You see, it makes sense to me that I'm not a writer until I get paid for it fairly consistently. But it makes sense to me because I got into this world from almost day one with the idea that I was going to make my living from what I write. I'm looking at the act of writing as a vocation. But I forget that people write for various reasons. And I forget that writing is a terrifying thing, really. No matter what the topic or the market, it's a very personal thing, much more so than, say, working to design embedded software (which I do to pay the bills). I never called myself an engineer until I got paid for it, either, and no one thought that was very odd. But when a guy drives his Cummins truck down the road, I don't feel the same sense of excited terror as I feel when I know someone is reading one of my stories. So, I understand, believe me, I do. I understand the sensation of dread and horror that can accompany writing. I understand the desperation that pulls at your stomach as you go to another convention hoping for a little breathing room, a little break. I can empathize completely with the niggling doubt that crawls up your spine when you see other people doing well. And I'll try to d a better job of phrasing my opinion so as to be less inflammatory--I certainly owe every writer that common human courtesy. But I also need folks to bear with me when I stick to my opinion. You don't need to adopt my position, okay? But I need you to see my perspective just as much as you need me to see yours. Because if we can agree to at least understand the perspectives from which we speak to each other, then maybe we can each manage to avoid letting anger keep us from doing the one thing we all want to do. And that is, of course, to write.  Daily Persistence is © Ron Collins |
|
"That's the whole problem with science. You've got a bunch of empiricists trying to describe things of unimaginable wonder." Calvin (& Hobbes) |
BACK TO 
|