Posted in June 2009

Making it: just because it’s hard doesn’t mean you’re any good

abandoned Royal

(Picture by avlxyz, used under Creative Commons licence)

When I decided to launch myself as a freelance writer in February this year, I chose a shockingly bad time to do it. A recession, collapsing advertising budgets, online competition – at one point, it looked as though magazines were going under as fast as I could query them. I’ve been fortunate enough to have got as much work as I need every month since I started, but every week includes as many disappointments as triumphs. For every pitch that leads to a commission, I’ve probably made five or six that went nowhere. Honestly, the ratio could be even worse: if I kept a full tally, I’d probably burn my keyboard in despair.

Or, maybe, I’d send a letter like this one from “Scared Journalist”:

I spent the last four and a half years studying print journalism in college and watching vacantly as the newspaper/magazine industry crumbled before my eyes. The decline never bothered me. I always figured I had what it takes to get a job even in an extremely competitive market: Before I ever graduated, I had completed four internships at newspapers, magazines and a Web site, published almost a hundred clips (including longer, high-quality pieces), and left a good impression with everyone I worked with. I knew I wanted to be a journalist, and I knew that I wanted to write for a living.

Now, six months after graduating, my parents still pay my cellphone bill and I am working full-time making ice cream. I make a couple hundred bucks here and there freelancing for a magazine I interned at, but otherwise my “freelance” career, as well as my journalism career, is dead in the water. I find myself despondent and unable to send out any more cover letters, and I can’t find the time or motivation to research a story idea enough to send it to an editor because I assume he or she will simply reject my half-baked idea. I’m panicking, but I fear failure so much that I can’t even get started. Freelancing seems to be my best option career-wise, but I can’t summon the willpower and enthusiasm to do it. Plus, I lost my license to a DUI conviction (that got me fired from one of those newspaper internships), which has immobilized me and left me unable to relocate to a new job until October. The DUI also contributes to my job-hunting anxiety.

What I see is that my passion for journalism and writing is waning. Working full-time has taught me that work is work and play is play, and that I need to maximize the efficiency of my hours I spend at work in order to maximize how much I can play outside of work. I am looking into jobs in other fields that pay better. Is it healthier to stick it out working at an ice cream store and desperately try to make it as a writer, or should I pursue a career where financial security is more realistic?

Salon, “I studied print journalism: Now what?”

Weirdly, Cary Tennis’ answer to this isn’t a brisk “grow up”: it’s a mythopoetic stream-of-consciousness about the role of the journalist and the times in which we live, reassuring Scared with the promise that “If you are a true journalist, you  are supposed to be having a hard time. This is how the world makes writers. It kicks their ass long enough that they start finally telling the truth.”

Apparently Tennis missed an ass-kicking session, because his reply misses a few obvious truths. If your passion for your chosen field in on the wane because you haven’t got a job you want six months after graduating, then maybe you don’t love the field as much as you thought. Six months is a fairly minimal delay between finishing education and launching a career. Scared has been able to get paid work in journalism during that time, too – despite the industry being in quite the tight spot.

And the main barrier that Scared identifies to the job hunting process is a driving ban which lasts until October. That’s not “having a hard time”. That’s being a reckless moron and being suitably punished. So, if Scared finds it that painful to take a parental stipend on the phone bill, they’re probably not cut out for trying to make it as a writer. Let it go, Scared.

orphan typewriters

(Picture by Telstar Logistics, used under Creative Commons licence)

Making a living as a writer isn’t hard because the universe is trying to make you a better journalist. It’s hard because there are more writers than paid work, and plenty of aspiring writers willing to do the equivalent of a paid job for no money at all (that’s those internships Scared was so pleased with). You might come through the apprentice period more experienced, more determined, more skilled – but whether you’re actually any good after all that depends on how much talent you started with. And even if you are good, the work still might not exist.

The Onion AV Club offered a more pragmatic, and wiser, version of the same live-through-this counsel:

Becoming a critic, an essayist, an editorialist, or a screenwriter isn’t the kind of career that you come to via the want ads, any more than you can follow a conventional up-the-corporate-ladder job track to become a novelist, painter, or songwriter. These aren’t the kind of jobs where anyone’s ever “hiring,” really. By and large, if people want you to write for them, they’ll call you.

And why do they decide to call you? Usually because they’ve read your writing, or because a mutual acquaintance recommended you, or both. That may seem like a paradox, but it really isn’t. Up above, I said that the number of paying media outlets is narrowing, but there are more opportunities than ever for aspiring writers to ply their trade, via blogs and the like, and our modern wired lifestyle is such that you can develop collegial relationships with fellow writers that you’ve never actually met in person. But it all takes time and effort, and in the meantime, yes, you’re probably going to have to get “a real job.” To put it on a personal level: I started getting paid to write criticism and features while I was still in school, but I wasn’t able to do it full-time until about seven years after I graduated, and that was only because I was being partially supported by my wife. It took another seven years before I started making enough that my parents stopped asking when I was going to go back to work.

Onion AV Club, “Ask The A.V. Club – April 17, 2008″

There aren’t really any access courses for a life in letters (well, apart from being born with a daddy who can supply the start-up for My First Style Rag). Just working, networking, dusting yourself off, and hoping you’ve got the means of your own self-belief.

Tagged , , , ,

Linkblogging: the King is dead etc

How did I feel about Michael Jackson dying? Relieved, as though a huge matter of collective guilt had finally expired and could be shrugged off at last. However baroque the revelations of the house-clearing are, however outrageous the posthumous exposés, he’s not going to do anything worse. The area of doubt which stops Billie Jean from going the same queasy-making way as I’m The Leader Of The Gang  (a bigger area anyway, because Billie Jean is in entirely another realm of brilliance) might be able to stay intact.

Also interpreting and commemorating, but much less self-serving than I am:

k-punk on what changed with Jackson:

The death of this King – “my brother, the Legendary King Of Pop”, as Jermaine Jackson described him in his press conference, as if giving Michael his formal title – recalls not the Diana carcrash, but the sad slump of Elvis from catatonic narcosis into the long good night. Perhaps it was only Elvis who managed to insinuate himself into practically every living human being’s body and dreams to the same degree that Jackson did, at the microphysical level of enjoyment as well as at the macro-level of spectacular memeplex. Michael Jackson: a figure so subsumed and consumed by the videodrome that it’s scarely possible to think of him as an individual human being at all… because he wasn’t of course… becoming videoflesh was the price of immortality, and that meant being dead while still alive, and no-one knew that more than Michael…

k-punk, “… and when the groove is dead and gone…”

MagCulture on how the most radical editorial line on Jackson is the most mundane:

But the cover of next week’s Time does something different. This cover is the best memorial for Jackson I’ve seen yet. No hype, no weirdness, no judgement. Just a stripped down normal-looking human posing and smiling in jeans and vest.

magCulture, “Human”

And Queenie and Popjustice say, let’s listen to some music. Ok then.

A hunger artist

How can self-destruction be explained? What rationalisation can we put on something as brutal and seemingly-voluntary as starving yourself? Bishop Martin Shaw attempts to constrain the extreme asceticism of radical and mystic Simone Weil within religious terms:

Some would say that Simone had an obsessive/compulsive personality that led to the eating disorder: anorexia nervosa. Whether neurotic or anorexic, such labels come nowhere near a true understanding of this refined soul who dared to face the darkest of human circumstances and there find the Light of Christ.

Simone WeilIt’s not an eating disorder if you do it for God, apparently. Shaw’s distinction feels unfair, as though he has to wrangle Weil free from the anorexics, with their reputed vanity and girlish lack of substance. But saying that Weil couldn’t have been an anorexic because she was too serious simply feeds the romance of anorexia and the valourising of self-harm.

In fact, the language used by Shaw’s interviewee to explain Weil’s transcentant not-eating was easily reconcilable with the self-justification of anorexics: Sara Maitland (not included in the transcript) described Weil as being concerned with bodily purity. Well, quite. Out of all the complicated physiological and social causes of anorexia, I’d argue that this sort of celebration of the frail heroine is probably more dangerous than any number of size zeroes on the catwalk. Even a mystic can be sick, but for supposed-critics to echo that sickness and turn a horror of consumption and flesh into a devout experience – that’s just stupid.

Related: Paperhouse reads: Wetlands

Text © Sarah Ditum, 2009

 

Some would say that Simone had an obsessive/compulsive personality that led to the eating disorder: anorexia nervosa. Whether neurotic or anorexic, such labels come nowhere near a true understanding of this refined soul who dared to face the darkest of human circumstances and there find the Light of Christ.

Sara Maitland is a writer who has a special interest in Simone Weil – and I asked her whether the eating disorder was significant in Simone Weil’s spirituality.

Tagged , , , ,

New post on Liberal Conspiracy: How Judge Eady went from press villain to hero

I’ve got a new post up at Liberal Conspiracy, where I ramble speculatively about the way Mr Justice Eady’s decisions on media law seem to be acting in combination against scrutiny at all levels of reporting: the sex scandal, science coverage, and anonymous whistle-blowing:

It’s not unusual for public figures to experience severe reversals of reputation, and the distance between “nation’s sweetheart” and “national disgrace” can be as short as a few column inches. But Mr Justice Eady’s recent rehabilitation in the eyes of the press is a remarkable one – for the swiftness with which some editors have shifted position, and for what it suggests about the future possibilities for scrutiny in the media.

Read the rest here…

Edit: I accidentally gave Eady a peerage, so I’ve fixed that here.

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

KnitWrong: the revival

As a few of you know, my first adventure in blogging was a knitblog called Knit Wrong, Purl Wrong. For a while I crammed the knitting stuff into Paperhouse; eventually, it was obvious that a politics-and-culture-slash-knitblog, while highly unusual, was never going to have much reach. So, I let the yarny stuff slide. But now KnitWrong has returned!

knitwrong header 700x225

Hop on over and thrill to the contents of my knitting bag, dear ones.

The price of things

A while ago, when I wrote a review of Freakonomics, I got a comment from a reader who made it quite clear that they didn’t think I knew the hell what I was talking about: “As for rationality. People don’t make decisions rationally, or for that matter irrationally. Just not how we’re wired.”

freakonomicsI think that Cian is sort-of right, and I don’t think that Cian being sort-of right means that I’m totally wrong. It’s not a zero-sum game. Most people make most of their decisions in the hope of achieving the best outcome – but because the amount of social, economic and cultural data to be parsed is too huge for most people to survey, many decisions come out pretty eccentric. “Our brains work like big coincidence detectors and use improbable coincidences to make decisions about what is real”, as psychologist Tom Stafford explained. If a coincidence is neither big enough nor improbable enough, it may not register at all.

MMR is a good example. From a medical outcome point of view, the rational decision would be to take the jab and have done. But what if you’ve been made aware of the vaccine damage hypothesis, but have no experience of the diseases the vaccine is protecting against? Then you might be more fearful of the vaccine than the disease, and the rational response to that (however irrational the data) would be to avoid vaccination.

MMR is safe (image from badscience.net)

And what if non-vaccination had some other benefits that don’t show up in the epidemiology? Like a powerful feeling of community with other anti-vaxxers and a belief that you are part of an important narrative of repressed knowledge? Those social factors could be very powerful incentives, and might push the decision-maker firmly away from vaccines.

Why am I dwelling on a months-old blog comment today? (Hint: not just because I am slow-brained and resentful of correction.) Because I came across two excellent blog posts lately which used analogies with irrational economics to rationalise apparently illogical behaviours.

Tom Ewing parses some data on boom-and-bust in baby names:

the rapid spikes of popularity and unpopularity in some baby names look very much like the inflation and bursting of market bubbles. And the driver of unpopularity is the sudden increase in perceived risk (social risk, in this case). Would it be true to say that the more people’s ‘network perception’ plays a role in decision making, the more likely rapid popularity spikes are?

Blackbeard Blog, “Baby bubbles”

Aaronovitch Watch compares David Aaronovitch’s ongoing apologia for the Iraq war to the behaviour of a scam victim:

What clearly went on in 2002 was either that there was intentional deception, or that the government believed that Saddam had WMDs, and therefore because it believed this, thought it was a gamble worth taking to portray the evidence as much more conclusive than it was. That’s the sort of thing that people go to jail for if they do it in a set of accounts; if this isn’t “lying”, then there were no liars in the executive suite at Enron.

Aaro himself, notoriously, was persuaded by the government case to make a massive investment of credibility points into a decidedly subprime vehicle (the parallels between the September dossier, in which poor quality underlying material was layered, structured and given the imprimateur of a supposedly neutral agency to create the illusion of AAA status, and the CDO market, are perhaps fertile ground for someone more desperate for a column than myself). Unlike the investors in Bernard Madoff’s funds, however, he seems determined to defend the very people who swindled him. Nice one.

Aaronovitch Watch, “What is this, the missing chapter of Voodoo Histories?”

To which the only thing I feel like adding is that people quite often continue to pour funds into a duff investment they’ve been persuaded to make, because the social cost of admitting the mistake seems greater than the financial cost of continuing it. Similarly, the social cost of changing your child’s name is usually even greater than the cost of sticking with something that’s turned out to be a bit common. Even irrationality can have a rational outcome.

Tagged , , , , ,

Hysteric

Peter Stringfellow, who knows literally nothing about being funny or sexy, told poor old Kirsten O’Brien that “Funny girls aren’t sexy” when she went to him for advice about whether she should, um, be funny or sexy. Now, normally (and unlike Kirsten) I don’t include Stringfellow on my list of people to query when looking for insights into the male psyche, but in this case he’s probably speaking for more idiots than just himself: when Esquire decided to run a “Women of Flight Of The Conchords” piece they brilliantly invited some cameo-girlfriends, but not Kristen Schaal, the “only pair of recurring tits” on the show. She’s the funny one, which gets her struck off the men’s mag beauty-shoot roster.

Kristen Schaal (photo by Murdo Macleod)

Even if I’m generous to Esquire and say that lovely Schaal just didn’t have the look they wanted, they still excluded her from being a woman of the show in which she’s a lead actor for being either the wrong sort of pretty, or the wrong sort of funny. Ouch. And – if you’ll follow me into my darkened den of close reading – even the way we talk about humour is gendered. If something makes you laugh hard, you’re hysterical, figuratively be-wombed and penetrated by the wit that’s working on you.

Given that sort of bullshit, it doesn’t seem especially controversial to say – as Jo Brand did – that women don’t get a fair crack at TV comedy. They don’t. The common guiding principle that funny and pretty are mutually exclusive, while TV exposure is dependent on pretty, puts a fairly substantial bar on funny women making it through. So it’s not necessary to go in for some weak-brained evolutionary psychology about how women are ‘differently funny’ because men are like aggressive hunters and shit while women are all nice and collaborative and conversational (taken down here). That goes for Kathy Lette on the Media Show as much as it does for contrarian little TV-reviewing pricks.

Lette:

I think secretly men think women aren’t funny, and I presume it’s because they’re frightened of what it is we’re being funny about. I think they think we spend the entire time talking about the length of their member, which is not true – because we also talk about the width which after childbirth is much, much more important. But we women are starting to be annoyed by the fact that we aren’t ever invited onto these panel shows, and if we are, we’re over-run by the men in this testosterone fueled environment. We need our own quiz show. [...] I do think there’s a difference between male and female humour. I think men tend to have black belts in kung-fu and they can fire off one-liners and gags. Women’s humour is much more confessional.

Lette’s brave new world of gender equality is women cracking gags about the laxness of their pelvic floor. You know, if Lette really wanted to speak up for witty ladies, she could stop pulling her idea of funny out of her vagina.

Tagged , , , , , ,

Jack you off

“Should the NHS allow gipsies to jump the queue?” asked the Mail on its website, with little yes and no buttons below ready to receive your vote. It’s not just the bizarro spelling of gypsy that feels wrong: the question is bristling with the assumption that “gipsies” are indeed allowed to “jump the queue”. It could have been designed to elicit outrage and loathing, especially when you take it in conjunction with the picture they kindly supplied to illustrate the concept of “queue jumping ‘gipsy’”.

Now, if you’d been primed by prolonged exposure to similar scare stories, then your immediate response might be to leap, mouse-finger twitching, to the defence of “your NHS” and click a resounding “no”.

On the other hand, if you’d been primed by prolonged exposure to similar scare stories, your immediate response might be to realise that whoever phrased the question is out to play you and leap, mouse-finger twitching, to the defence of neutral survey phrasing and click a resounding “yes”. Word about the poll spread through Twitter, and concerned psychologist Sam Hutton pushed an email campaign: the poll was tracking at 90% plus in favour of queue-jumping gypsies before the Mail pulled it.

But, suggested usually-brilliant Pete Robinson, maybe everyone was being a bit stupid:

Popjustice status 1

Polljacking can look pretty petty. But then, online polls are pretty petty: lonely questions drifting on the internet, asked for editorial rather than information. The Mail’s gypsy question was phrased with a “right” answer heavily implicit in the question, inviting readers to enter a self-propogating loop of outrage and excluding any response that veered more to nuance and less to racism. It’s certainly a bit uncomfortable to take a poll which has already been rigged by selecting an especially vindictive question, and accusing people of rigging it by, um, voting on it.

In the end, the Mail has been deprived of the opportunity to cull a chubby little percentage from a biased poll in support of a biased editorial line. (They can’t go to press with the claim that such-and-such a proportion of readers back this campaign, at least.) Maybe a few Mail readers clocked a bar chart trending way off their expectations and reflected, briefly, on whether everything was alright with the question being asked. Fleetingly, a few people might have felt a little tremble in their solid sense of being the silent majority.

It’s nice to have helped ruin a specious imitation of democracy like the Mail’s poll. It would be nicer still if concerned psychologists and distressed liberals could form some kind of polljacking alliance to shake down every one of them that goes up.

Tagged , , ,

Live music: Katie Stelmanis

The Porter, Bath 18 June 2009

The Porter Cellar Bar is a tiny, low-ceilinged space. When Katie Stelmanis begins to sing, her operatic voice swells and fills the vaults, and it’s almost too much: from the first note, she is clear and powerful, swooping cleanly through the octaves. Her own songs seethe and bubble on a combination of dark synths and martial percussion (provided by Maya Postepski) which cohere behind the glorious vocals to create a dark hymnal splendour. Behind her keyboard and tiny as she is, Stelmanis has huge presence, her face gleaming as she sings. When she comes to a cover of Roy Orbison’s Crying (which you can hear on her Myspace page) she sings with a rich solemnity, rising high on the song’s shivering sorrow. New single Believe Me marks the climax and sounds like an anthem to the perfect conviction of the performance.

Katie Stelmanis Porter posterDownload the album Join Us from Zunior.

Download Believe Me from the NME.

Katie Stelmanis Porter posterThe Porter Cellar Bar is a tiny, low-ceilinged space. When Katie Stelmanis begins to sing, her operatic voice swells and fills the vaults, and it’s almost too much: from the first note, she is clear and powerful, swooping cleanly through the octaves. Her own songs seeth and bubble on a combination of dark synths and martial percussion (provided by Maya Postepski) which cohere around the glorious vocals to create a dark hymnal splendour.Behind her keyboard and tiny as she is, Stelmanis has a towering presence, her face gleaming as she sings. When she comes to a cover of
Tagged , , , , ,

The power of Curtis

There are few enough people making coherent, provocative, aesthetically persuasive political documentaries. In fact Adam Curtis might be the only one. Now he’s got a blog, so you can keep up with him in the too-long intervals between films.

Adam Curtis grab

Tagged , , , ,
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 2,132 other followers