Why do (some) people hate and resent writers?
The immediate cause of this post is that, as you can see here, the government has a consultation underway on proposals, basically, to put their hand in authors' pockets and filch the small sums some of them get when their work is copied and used for educational purposes. Those of us who are authors ought certainly to support ALCS's efforts to maintain the principle that writers deserve to be paid for their work.
But there's more, as Mr Carson used to say; when I saw this, I could predict with some certainty what the reactions of many Joe Publics on newspaper forums would be, namely the folk who honestly seem to hate and resent any artists, but especially writers, actually earning anything from their work. Whenever any writer complains online about people nicking their work, someone commenting below the line is sure to protest that authors should think it an incredible privilege to be published and read at all; if they were "real artists" they wouldn't have filthy mercenary motives like making a living (I've seen it, in more or less those words, more than once). Others will suggest they ought only to be paid once, after which it should be in the public domain and copyright shouldn't exist at all. This principle would certainly make a considerable difference in the price of medicines and commercial inventions, but no one ever seems to suggest applying it there.
Nor is it just Joe Public. A while ago on Facebook, a writer complained that having done some freelance work at a university, for an agreed fee, a year had passed and she hadn't seen the colour of their money. Some snooty academic commented that it was the ethos in academia to share one's knowledge for free and if professional writers couldn't live with that, they should avoid working in an academic environment. Ooh, get him, who like all these academics nobly sharing their knowledge for free has a permanent, secure, full-time job - unlike many writers. Anyway, since when does one apply this "ethos" to people coming in from outside? If the University of Wherever find they need the services of a plumber or electrician, do they expect these obliging fellows to supply their expertise free? Not if they've any sense, they don't!
But writers are different. Perhaps this is a hangover from the irritating Romantic image of the writer starving in a garret, but I don't think that is the whole of the reason. I suspect that very, very many people want to be published writers so desperately that they resent bitterly those who are, and feel these writers should be more grateful for what they themselves want - as if getting published were purely a matter of luck and in no way down to talent and hard work. You'd think, in these days, folk who want to be published and can't find an outlet could just do it themselves; self-publication has never been either so cheap or so easy, but maybe that doesn't give them the seal of approval they need.
That's my guess, but has anyone else any theories on why so many people seem to want writers to prove their authenticity by starving in garrets?
But there's more, as Mr Carson used to say; when I saw this, I could predict with some certainty what the reactions of many Joe Publics on newspaper forums would be, namely the folk who honestly seem to hate and resent any artists, but especially writers, actually earning anything from their work. Whenever any writer complains online about people nicking their work, someone commenting below the line is sure to protest that authors should think it an incredible privilege to be published and read at all; if they were "real artists" they wouldn't have filthy mercenary motives like making a living (I've seen it, in more or less those words, more than once). Others will suggest they ought only to be paid once, after which it should be in the public domain and copyright shouldn't exist at all. This principle would certainly make a considerable difference in the price of medicines and commercial inventions, but no one ever seems to suggest applying it there.
Nor is it just Joe Public. A while ago on Facebook, a writer complained that having done some freelance work at a university, for an agreed fee, a year had passed and she hadn't seen the colour of their money. Some snooty academic commented that it was the ethos in academia to share one's knowledge for free and if professional writers couldn't live with that, they should avoid working in an academic environment. Ooh, get him, who like all these academics nobly sharing their knowledge for free has a permanent, secure, full-time job - unlike many writers. Anyway, since when does one apply this "ethos" to people coming in from outside? If the University of Wherever find they need the services of a plumber or electrician, do they expect these obliging fellows to supply their expertise free? Not if they've any sense, they don't!
But writers are different. Perhaps this is a hangover from the irritating Romantic image of the writer starving in a garret, but I don't think that is the whole of the reason. I suspect that very, very many people want to be published writers so desperately that they resent bitterly those who are, and feel these writers should be more grateful for what they themselves want - as if getting published were purely a matter of luck and in no way down to talent and hard work. You'd think, in these days, folk who want to be published and can't find an outlet could just do it themselves; self-publication has never been either so cheap or so easy, but maybe that doesn't give them the seal of approval they need.
That's my guess, but has anyone else any theories on why so many people seem to want writers to prove their authenticity by starving in garrets?
No comments have been added yet.
