>Given that we don't have a guaranteed universal income, we should want the
>playwright (or Doug) to be paid because we want that work produced--not
>just now but in the future. We don't want to deter writers from writing by
>promising them poverty and desperation for their efforts. We don't want
>the next book never to come cause Doug's out driving a cab.
Mmmmmaybe. It's possible to hold down a 9-5 and write (just less gets done). You've got to enjoy it then (although I have sincere doubts the vast majority of writers, much less "left" writers, get all that much in the way of pay anyway for their work; I happened to mention in a letter I wrote once to Norman Finkelstein about having talked someone into reading one of his books. His response, though kind, was purest distilled sarcasm on the topic).
>It might be bourgeois ideology (created by conditions under bourgeois
>supremacy), but there is a political economy to the struggle, too, and if
>we want working-class writers to write we must contribute to making that
>possible. Otherwise they end up paid by Soros, not by us.
So what? Linda McQuaig used to work for Conrad Black, I think, while she was writing a book or two.
Doug said:
>The net has transformed a lot of people's assumptions about writing - they
>want it all for free. Which is fine if you're a blogger getting a paycheck
>from a university or a think tank, but what about us hacks who aren't so
>well-situated? Stuff posted on the web looks costless to the user, but it
>takes a lot of time and effort to get it there in many cases.
So why do it?
Come on, Doug: if you were as hard-assed about getting remunerated for whatever you put out as you let on here, I doubt we'd even be having this conversation since I'm not paying you for your attention (or you'd have membership fees for being a member of the list).
Admit it: you've got a big gooey center like most of us, despite the hard-chocolate exterior.
Todd