On the On Dit Facebook page, I posted an editorial suggesting that writers to student magazines should get paid. How? The government should jiggle around their ‘Arts’ funding, and set aside maybe $7000 for every university publication that can demonstrate a commitment to providing a platform for quality writing, photography, and illustration. ($7000 doesn’t go a long way, but I think it would be a fair compromise between burdening taxpayers and ensuring student writers can get a ‘leg up’. Considering there are at least 20 contributors to a standard issue of On Dit, $7000 would allow editors to pay maybe $70 for a well-researched 2,000 article or full-age illustration).
The piece drew a bit of criticism from those who believe the government shouldn’t support writing, full stop. The general argument seemed to be, “If writing has value, then readers will pay for it.” I agree with the general gist of that argument, because, obviously, I’m willing to pay for any magazine that contains quality content. So, yes, if writing has value, some readers will pay for it.
However, let’s work this through. An Australian culture magazine that charges, say, $10 per physical copy, and contains high quality writing, illustration, photography, and literature, is unlikely to have a huge print run. Why? Because you’ll find the vast majority of readers prefer ‘interest’ magazines: ‘men’s interest’, ‘women’s interest’, magazines about cars, or dogs, or hi-fi systems. It should come as no real surprise that you’ll rarely find super high-quality content in an ‘interest’ magazine. You’ll rarely find any probing analysis of social issues, or anything attempting to shift the status quo. That’s not a criticism of ‘interest’ magazines – those magazines have their place.
Now, let’s look through the logistics of writing for a high quality culture/literary magazine (print or online, it’s really irrelevant). Writers must spend many hours polishing their submissions, researching rigorously, pushing out into the world, madly scrambling for evidence and inspiration. Writers for ‘interest’ magazines can often take shortcuts, because readers of ‘interest’ magazines are generally less concerned with quality writing – they just want the juiciest information pertaining to their area of interest.
Thus, we see something curious: those who write for culture/literary magazines spend more time and effort on their pieces than those who contribute to ‘interest’ magazines, but receive less financial incentive to do so. Who knows how many potentially brilliant writers are looking at the state of the publishing market and saying, “Fuck this. I’m going to be a lawyer”? Because we’re undervaluing writing, we’re losing out. And the problem is, a huge number of people just don’t get it. They don’t get why we need to support magazines that are unprofitable, simply on the grounds that the writing is valuable. “If the writing is so valuable”, they say, “why aren’t the magazines (and the writers) raking in the cash?” I can only sigh. Because valuable writing is tricky and challenging, and you just don’t sell magazines by being tricky and challenging. I don’t blame the readers who choose FHM over, say, Meanjin because, fuck it, we all need to relax sometimes. Do I think we’d be better off if more people bought and read Meanjin? Well, fuck yes.
Good writing is key to good thinking. And, duh, the government has a responsibility to support good thinking, if nobody else will. If you don’t believe we need to support writers in this country, that’s okay. But you’re also essentially telling me that you don’t support good thinking, and that’s not.
Comments
2 responses to ““Fuck this. I’m gonna be a lawyer”: On Paying Writers”
Hey Con.
I think your post has taken on some of the criticisms made in regards to the fb post, but not all.
My biggest criticism to this piece is, well, in order to support ‘good’ thinking, the government has to decide what is and isn’t ‘good’ thinking. And I am fundamentally uncomfortable with the government supporting some lines of inquiry over others. I think this gives government way too much control over the type of things that people write.
My second criticism is that, historically, there hasn’t been a need for the government to support new, groundbreaking lines of inquiry. It’s not like if the government didn’t support ‘good thinking’, it wouldn’t happen. Historically this has not been the case. In fact, for most of history, I would argue the government has promoted ‘bad thinking’, and been much more comfortable propping up writing that supports the status quo rather than anything groundbreaking. That has been the job of individuals and private enterprize.
So basically, a) I do not support giving the government that power, and b) I do not think this is necessary. I guess c) could also be that I’m uncomfortable with a minority decreeing that some writing is ‘better’ than other writing (especially when it could be argued that trashy writing, in a utilitarian sense, gives more joy to more people than niche ‘good’ writing), but that is only secondary to my first two major points of criticism.
Myriam,
Sure, there’s a danger of the government controlling discourse in holding open the purse strings for artists and writers. But, at the same time, that’s why we do have an independent Fourth Estate – to call out the government for using arts funding to push their own propaganda.
Historically, I think we’ve seen the government manage arts funding incompetently. That said, there’s still potential to fix the situation. The secret is to ensure that those responsible for handing out the cash are politically neutral, know what they’re talking about, and aren’t afraid to take risks.
There’s a great interview here (http://htmlgiant.com/print-journals/giant-and-i-do-mean-giant-interview-with-ronnie-scott-editor-of-the-lifted-brow/#more-24657) with Ronnie Scott (editor of ‘The Lifted Brow’), where he talks about the state of funding for Australian writers. I think he gets at the heart of the matter when he says that, in government-funded magazines, “competent stories get through, and nobody has any incentive to write idiosyncratic work”.
Essentially, I think, what I’ve been trying to say the whole time (probably rather badly) is: the current funding system is fucked. But maybe, by allowing student publications to pay contribs, we could begin to see more risky, quality content flowing through. If we can’t dismantle the funding bodies, let’s at least use them more effectively.