writing for profit

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

Bear with me, I am not very eloquent. So the other day I was at this panel chat. One of the talkers was Ed Ward. He more or less said people who write for free are amateurs. It seemed to me it boiled down to these amateurs being crap. So I would like to know your opinion on it. I was tempted to stand up and give FreakyTrigger as counter-proof (???).

― Helen Fordsdale, Friday, 19 October 2001 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Ed Ward said writers who refuse money are most probably crap. (New answers, hello!)

― Helen Fordsdale, Friday, 19 October 2001 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Man, I hope not. I can't afford to pay the people who write for my site, but I think they're great writers. Well, some of them.

But I can see where he could be coming from. On the whole, if you aren't receiving some sort fo compensation for your writing then what are you, besides an amateur?

― ohj, Friday, 19 October 2001 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Well, here's a simple one to answer.

Not getting paid = amateur.

Amateur does not necessarily = crap. This would only cease to be true if (a) there were always fewer non-crap writers than there were paying positions for them, and (b) there were some magical way for the people hiring for those paying positions to know you were a great writer without your ever writing anything down for free beforehand.

Voila.

― Nitsuh, Friday, 19 October 2001 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

I would argue that most people who write on music/pop culture write crap and that receiving/refusing money to do so has nothing to do with the quality of what's produced. And if there is a quality/compensation relationship, it's generally an inverse one. Writers who depend on the salability of their writing have good reasons to produce crap that sells (so they can eat, for starters); amateurs, who do it for love, don't.

― Dan, Friday, 19 October 2001 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

There you go.

― Tracer Hand, Friday, 19 October 2001 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

"Crap" all depends. In my opinion, Freaky Trigger or say.. glenn Mcdonald's war on silence has some very good nonprofit writing. It's often more personal than your Rolling Stones and NMEs and so... less accessible to the masses (who lack similar hyper-aware frames of reference). I prefer this sort of thing, be it amateur or not... perhaps professionalism just gets in the way for me.

― Honda, Friday, 19 October 2001 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

There are plenry ov crap writers who get paid. See Phil Hogan in thee observer, 4EG, or see india knight. Amateurs = lovers. I am prout 2 b a music amateur. Ed Ward = full ov sh!t in thiz instance, I ph34r.

― Norman Phay, Friday, 19 October 2001 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

I sat on a panel once with Ed Ward. In Berlin. I find it somewhat easier to write for non-money, these days, but I'm not sure if this is a good thing. I don't believe he has taken the net into account, or indeed thought very hard about it. It is almost certainly true that a variety of disciplines learnt as a working journalist which are not necessarily necessary in a blog or a zine are good things to learn at some point. Also DELIVERING ON-TIME a piece you have promised is an EXCELLENT discipline and I haf just thort of several I owe this very board and am shamed. Good writers write a LOT, even if the public does not always see the lot. Glenn M makes me take crack, but that is a temperament thing: in routine professional terms he is streets ahead of many paid journalists I can think of, a clear if stodgy stylist, I just DISAGREE WITH EVERY SINGLE THING HE HAS EVER SAID!!!!

― mark s, Friday, 19 October 2001 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Incidentally the idea that music journalists write for PROFIT is sadly hilarious: yes it is money, but so is a farthing — they write rather for access to exciting scenes, free music (only semi-relevant since napster etc) and to HAVE A VOICE, unfortunately in 95% of the time borrowed. Some of them make money later in life by going into publishing, or doing poxy columns for the sundays.

― mark s, Friday, 19 October 2001 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Also worth noting: Ed Ward started writing professionally about rock music back when there were maybe a few dozen others doing so (around the U.S., anyway)--from what I understand, the competition to get a (paying) gig at Rolling Stone back in its early days was something less than fierce, not even *close* to what it's like now (all those young 'uns from Rock Critic School cluttering up the marketplace). He "hasn't taken the net into account," but he also hasn't taken economics (or even punk) into account. A 22-year-old Ed Ward might not have such an easy time getting paid today, but would that stop him from writing--and from writing good stuff?

― scott woods, Saturday, 20 October 2001 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

That's what you'd like to think about all writers Mark.

I must say though in my class at Uni I notice the people don't care about writing. I mean 40 people in a Journalism class and you'd think they'd be really passionate about something. I don't know its pretty weird, I reckon money is more important to most of my friends and seemingly anyone else I've talked to aswell than say recognition, free stuff, acclaim or anything else.

― Ronan, Saturday, 20 October 2001 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

some of the best writing i do is for free, the wotrst for payment...one drap writer gets paid heaps to ship his stuff to both themag i wrtie for and the smh - same shit for both - it's fucked, and i disagree...would much rather be writing what i wanted then getting paid for shit that had no soul.

― Geoff, Saturday, 20 October 2001 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

problem is there is so much media today that most writers are crap. compare any city's newspaper to that same paper 50 years ago and the difference is marked. granted much of that might be the different view of their audience but still the dissipation of talent has been immense.

― keith, Saturday, 20 October 2001 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

You haven't given us much to go on. If all Mr Ward said was that people who write for free are amateurs, he is, technically speaking, correct. "It seemed to me it boiled down . . . " - chapter and verse, please. I cannot argue with/put the boot into what is substantively a dictionary definition.

― So What?, Saturday, 20 October 2001 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Could he have been thinking on the terms of working for free=exploitation and people willing to be exploited=third-rate talent? That's a seriously dated viewpoint, and it was never quite accurate in the first place. He needs to read _The Cathedral and the Bazzar_ and realize just why many subcultures value work given away higher than work that's sold for profit.

― Christine "Green Leafy Dragon" Indigo, Sunday, 21 October 2001 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Mark, he said he refused to publish articles if the journalist didn't want money in exchange. Basically the message was that you aren't any good. Maybe I was pissed cause he was in a way attacking me. I continued to roll my eyes at him during the entire panel chat. Why? Because he generalised. There could be a million different reasons why someone would not want to become a professional writer. I prefer writing when I want to. I prefer to get some money at the end of the month. (There were a couple of journos moaning about the money they earned.) I wanted to ask if he considered his unpaid work subpar- he must have written some articles that were refused by an editor.

― helen fordsdale, Sunday, 21 October 2001 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Essential presumed Ward subtext: generalises about "these people" in the same way as callers to radio 'phone-ins re. asylum seekers. (1) he's probably past it; (2) he's probably scared that people are prepared to work harder and produce better work for reasons other than financial gain, because it threatens his presumed standing and his little club.

Then again, if anyone offered me money for any of the nonsense which I contribute to these boards, I wouldn't refuse - but it's not the main motive. As ever, understanding humanity is my main motive.

― Marcello Carlin, Sunday, 21 October 2001 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.