[Prestidigitweeze]

Originally Posted by Catlady

Huh? Where did I compare writers across eras? Or say anything at all about what I like to read or not read? I said I don't care about the author's struggles or lack thereof (except as a matter of idle curiosity). I don't care if this book took the author twelve years to finish or that book took the author twelve months--I care only about the final product.

When you respond to a specific argument, which makes those comparisons, by saying you don't care, you have implicitly stated (as you just did again) that you don't care about the thrust of the argument, including those comparisons. If that's not what you mean, then it's up to you to make the distinction clear.

Secondly, if you truly care about the quality of the book (I won't call it a product -- Faust is not a brand of hairspray) then you do care how long it took to write and how much preparation was involved because, without those factors, you wouldn't be holding that book.

If the alternative is not to have that book at that level of quality, then the time involved matters to you after all and you're not engaged in a silly contest as to who can write the best in the least amount of time in order to disqualify that slow guy in the corner named Flaubert.

If that's true, then you agree with me and it's unclear where your point of contention actually lies.

Really? Sounds to me like you think the more time a writer can devote to writing, without the pesky distraction of a day job, the better the writer's output will be, as though time automatically equals improved quality.

I've known nationally published novelists since I was fourteen years old and the consensus has always been that they want to sell their books so that they can continue to have enough time to write.

Let's apply your reasoning to classical music:

"Really? Sounds like you think the more time a classical pianist has to practice, without the pesky distraction of a day job, the better their playing will get, as though time automatically equaled quality."

In fact, that's exactly what happens -- not because "time automatically equals quality" but because most classical pianists at any level require five to eight hours of practice a day to improve significantly, at least at first.

You make it sound as if I'm a snob who disparages writers with day jobs. That's not it at all. William Carlos Williams was a doctor all his life and, as a writer, he isn't alone in that respect.

But Williams is only one kind of writer. Instead of favoring only his type -- writers who choose to or must have day jobs -- I think it's better to understand and support writers of many kinds.

I'm a writer with other kinds of jobs and I expect I always will be. I doubt I'll be able to quit editing and being a studio musician until I'm old enough to retire. I'm not and never will be a popular writer -- I'm not interested and, besides, writing's the place where I don't have to compromise for anyone else.

I'm not making this argument for myself.

I might be a full-time editor/musician and part-time novelist, poet and critic, but I also have the ability to empathize with and to follow the lives of people who write for a living and have the talent and need to do so.

And I recognize that, without being paid, a lot of writers would never have gotten to do their best work. And that would have been a shame.

Support the talented writers you read and know. If they choose to publish for free and have jobs, then praise them lavishly and take them to dinner. If they're pros or suck at everything else, then pay them for their services. I can't see the harm in that.

Don't do it because the alternative is to be fined, or because some ass at a major publisher feels that all pirates are scum. Do it to be a nice person to the writer who gave you that experience.