Writing is Work. A Belated Reaction to the NYT



This weekend a lot of writers took note of the Sunday NYTimes article by Julie Bosman, “Writer’s Cramp: In the E-Reader Era, a Book a Year Is Slacking“. Bosman reported that we writers need to work harder. It’s not enough to be in marketing and promotion mode half the time. It’s not enough to being tweeting and blogging up a storm on the side. If you want to stay a writer, you need to up that output and be prepared to give away more of your work for free. Quote:

The push for more material comes as publishers and booksellers are desperately looking for ways to hold onto readers being lured by other forms of entertainment, much of it available nonstop and almost instantaneously. Television shows are rushed online only hours after they are originally broadcast, and some movies are offered on demand at home before they have left theaters. In this environment, publishers say, producing one a book a year, and nothing else, is just not enough.

To tell you the truth, this article wasn’t a surprising read for me. What did surprise me was the reaction of some other writers.

Chuck Wendig, a writer I dig on Twitter, wrote a post called, “On the Privilege of Being a Writer” detailing the hard lives of labor of his ancestors and telling us writers, to paraphrase his wonderful Wendiggity voice, “Stop crying you stupid crybabies. You aren’t doing mother f*#%ing manual labor.”

Another writer, Marie-Paule Graham, tweeted to me that we needed perspective as we aren’t curing cancer. And, of course, she’s right. Writers aren’t on the path to curing cancer. (Although, it should be noted, the medical and pharmaceutical industry hasn’t cured it either.)

What we writers are, however, is part of the economy, that big, screwed-up, globalized division of labor and allocation of wealth machine. If it makes a writer feel better to take the view that being a writer is like being a privileged escapee from the workforce because we writers can work in our pajamas if we want, well, OK. But it happens not to be true. We’re not that exceptional. Unless you are Ted Kaczynski writing your manifesto on home-pulped paper in the woods, you are part of the economy.

Since the banking crash of 2008, America’s productivity has notably grown in spite of a workforce that now has five million fewer workers. Fewer workers are carrying more of the workload (and without the army of worker mecadroids modernity promised us!) If you’ve ever been the survivor of a layoff, you’ve been told before, “Sure, you get to keep your job. And the reward is you can do Bob’s job too, since he’s fired. Of course, your pay will stay the same. Employment is prize enough!”

It’s simply more work for the same pay. The literary market is demanding the same sacrifices of its workers. While I’m certainly grateful I’m not confined to a career of hard manual labor, these developments are nothing to be happy about. They are a formula for burn-out whether applied to writers or teachers or ‘cubicle creatures’.

But enough with gratuitous rhyming. What happens now to the writers who aren’t machines, who can’t brand-up and hire a team like James Patterson, who can’t turn out literary product like widgets? The literary world has had its share of one-hit wonders. Are publishers even going to take a look at a writer with one fabulous book if they don’t come with a ready-made “platform” or if they can’t be certain that a steady stream of more will follow?

Writers have always lived by “publish or perish.” But like the rest of economy, the current market may be steering towards the entrenchment of a literary 1% in which 99% of writers work away for little benefit and the top 1% sucks the wealth out of the market on the backs of others.

UPDATE May 18:
Marie-Paule Graham wrote me to say she thinks her tweets were misrepresented in my reference to them above. So, you decide. Here’s our brief Twitter stream of 13 May below:

Maryann Breschard @Breschard
@mpg4 2K a day is like rock n’ roll on the road. U can only do it for so long before the burnout comes & u trash a hotel room.

Marie-Paule Graham Marie-Paule Graham @mpg4
@Breschard Tell that to the cancer doc with her never ending stream of patients. Perspective is all I’m saying

Maryann Breschard @Breschard
@mpg4 OK, but tell the cancer doc in question he or she now has to see twice as many patients per year for the same pay.

Marie-Paule Graham @mpg4
@Breschard She does. AND this year she took a pay cut.

Again, I would argue that writers being required to produce more for less pay (no advances, free novella giveaways, etc.) and doctors being required to do more and take pay cuts are both reflective of the something common in the globalized workforce.

Blog to Death

A guy named Miles Lennon has done the science (not really) on the typical life cycle of the blog in “Why are 95% of blogs abandoned?” For me, maintaining a vigorous blog is impossible because of a dozen things every day that make my life thrive better than blogging. What many of the blog-inclined learn is that group blogs work best because constant updating is required. My uncle posts on Salon.com – when he wants. My friend, Valerie, is a publishing expert at about.com. Even a guy like Andrew Sullivan, who often ranks as one of the top individual bloggers, doesn’t do it alone. A while back he had to come clean that he and a staff write his blog. But as a former editor of the New Republic he had the access, means, and know-how to eventually adapt editorial techniques to his blog. (The staff is now credited on his main page and he is listed as “Editor” BTW.)

Due to so few of us being able to call upon staff, we individual bloggers fail. We fail a lot. We fail so much that most of us would be mathematically better off opening up new restaurants which only fail at a rate of 59% in the first year. But for those who cannot cook either, here is what Lennon wants you to know about blogging:

Blog Lifecycle

1) Euphoric moment of inspiration
2) Pseudo-maniacal and self-indulgent perusing of domains
3) Careful consideration of theme and design
4) The inaugural post – “Hello world!”
5) The 2-4 post honeymoon phase
6) Waning and changing interests
7) Feelings of desperation and apathy from low engagement
8) Inevitable abandonment 🙁

It turns out that this cycle may not be uncommon. Surveys have shown that 95% of blogs are abandoned within 120 days and 60-80% of them abandoned within the first month.

Writing 5am to 7am

Writing 5am to 7am is not my habit but the former habit of Brit Raymond Tallis and he’s produced a new book about one of the subjects I love to follow in a pop-culture manner:  neuroscience.    He has a dim view of how publishing and pop culture demands have bent research to what he deems ridiculous conclusions.

Those trends, as Tallis sees them, are like “intellectual illnesses” metastasizing from academic labs into popular culture. He sees the symptoms in neuro-economic thinkers who explain our susceptibility to subprime mortgages by describing how our brains evolved to favor short-term rewards. He sees them in philosophers who claim that our primate minds admire paintings of landscapes that would have supported hunting and gathering. He sees it in neurotheologians who preach that “God is a tingle in the ‘God spot’ in the brain.”

Whatever the case, his book’s title is very pop-culture and most amusing for a guy who disparages pop culture: Aping Mankind: Neuromania, Darwinitis, and the Misrepresentation of Humanity.

Who knew one could have inflammation of the Darwin?