11–20 of 29 posts
With so many unfilled positions - in restaurants, retail, construction, etc. - is yet another government program really the answer? There's plenty of opportunity in the free market to be had. This reads like an ode to a more romantic time, as misguided as even that might be.
Yes, I'd rather a skilled writer or artist make art than serve food, build homes, or work retail.
With so many unfilled positions - in restaurants, retail, construction, etc. - is yet another government program really the answer? There's plenty of opportunity in the free market to be had. This reads like an ode to a more romantic time, as misguided as even that might be.
You'd rather a promising writer serve dishes than write? Would you say that about someone who could code?
Low-value post on my part but I'm pretty sure that's supposed to be foment, not ferment.
With so many unfilled positions - in restaurants, retail, construction, etc. - is yet another government program really the answer? There's plenty of opportunity in the free market to be had. This reads like an ode to a more romantic time, as misguided as even that might be.
You'd rather a promising writer serve dishes than write? Would you say that about someone who could code?
You’re far more likely to hire a bunch of “writers” who don’t want to do work they consider beneath them than to give the next Hemingway who is stuck at McDonald’s their big chance.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You'd rather a promising writer serve dishes than write? Would you say that about someone who could code?
In the age of Amazon print-on-demand, social media, and Patreon, if you cannot make money writing I sincerely question your promise as a writer.
TL;DR patreon makes things worse not better. Kindle destroyed the revenue stream in traditional publishing, for Amazon's net benefit.
Actually, I doubt you can get the states to accept money for construction projects like the TVA and the grand coolee dam because they'd be hugely unpopular with some voting segment in the state.
IF you replace dams by something more current, I wonder if you can "new deal" replacing Gas peakers and the like with Solar and Wind, and building new homes to replace ageing house stocks, and re-planting forests, and the like. Maybe you can.
(I did some make-work on a youth employment scheme in 1978 which was amazing, but was a giant boondoggle to take me off unemployment lists: I went to the seaside in Scotland 70 times doing water quality sampling, and the government paid for my gumboots. I then went to university. The school of hard knocks was pretty kind to me, fish-and-chips and pub-lunches included and I kept the wellington boots: can't share footwear, government health regulations)
Edit the New Deal photographers had their work severely censored. There was a post a while back about how we assume they're documenting the poverty-life, but it was a whitewashed documentary.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In the age of Amazon print-on-demand, social media, and Patreon, if you cannot make money writing I sincerely question your promise as a writer.
Precisely because of the explosion of non-professional writing in these channels, paid writing has dropped in income and effectiveness. That said, the story of the impoverished author was old when "new grub st" was written by George Gissing in 1891 (its a good, depressing read btw) TL;DR patreon makes things worse not better. Kindle destroyed the revenue stream in traditional publishing, for Amazon's net benefit.
(Disclosure, I worked with and attended university on the dime of the folks who built Amazon’s POD acquisition - so I have some fealty (and insight), I suppose)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Precisely because of the explosion of non-professional writing in these channels, paid writing has dropped in income and effectiveness. That said, the story of the impoverished author was old when "new grub st" was written by George Gissing in 1891 (its a good, depressing read btw) TL;DR patreon makes things worse not better. Kindle destroyed the revenue stream in traditional publishing, for Amazon's net benefit.
How did it destroy revenue streams exactly? I’ve just never understood that to be the case. (Disclosure, I worked with and attended university on the dime of the folks who built Amazon’s POD acquisition - so I have some fealty (and insight), I suppose)
Imagine you have 100 troubadours, touring the kings domains worldwide, for a free food in return for a song, of which only Blondel makes a mint. Then imagine you allow anyone who can play the penny whistle to join: you now have 10,000 touring musicians, all chasing the same meal, but only 10 of them can play as well as Blondel: in aggregate there;s more music but less of it is earning the price of dinner.
Kindle has 1,000,000 authors. 999,000 of them write $2 romances or how-to books which earn them side-gig money. 1000 of them will ever be good enough to enter the booker prize. Authors overall are earning on average, less because instead of being essentially broke hobos who live off the advance, they're living off the profits on $2 sells but have to work bloody hard to be "seen" in amongst the success stories. Philip Pullman and Dan Brown aside, on average Authors are not entirely happy with Kindle. Yes, there's more money out there but the jam is being spread thinner.
(I was told this by a retiring authors agent here in Australia btw. She was adamant her "list" did worse overall. Other people might say thats not true, and it may be about dis-intermediation. She said the kindle rights were abysmal compared to traditional publishing)
"And yet it was built and defended, with the still-unpopular argument that writers are in fact people, and they need to eat, too." I understand "freelance writer," or "professional writer" as definitions - but in the age of social media, is it accurate to still think of "writers" writ large as a contiguous defined class of special people separate from the general public?
I hate hate hate this kind of sophistry. I really wish English had a concise word to describe this kind of underhanded rhetoric.
I don’t think the federal government should be employing writers simply to employ people who write. Therefore, I do not think writers are people, and furthermore, they do not deserve to eat.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You'd rather a promising writer serve dishes than write? Would you say that about someone who could code?
How about both? I’m not being glib but it’s not like you can’t have a blue collar job and write during your downtime. Especially if it is your passion. You’re far more likely to hire a bunch of “writers” who don’t want to do work they consider beneath them than to give the next Hemingway who is stuck at McDonald’s their big chance.