The Writer’s Priorities. Part 1

We’re creative souls, we who write stories, not generally the disciplined and single-minded types for

whom regulation and habit overtake our free spirits to the exclusion of all else. No, those for whom self-discipline and ultra-focus are paramount are, generally speaking, business-minded; people for whom money is the primary concern. That’s not to say that these qualities are undesirable, simply that they’re not the most important elements of our make-up.

As artists (sorry if that term makes you uncomfortable, but perhaps you should be looking at your view of your role as a creative spirit?), we’re more organic, less easily defined by rules, more open to the bending and even the ditching of external influences on our behaviour.

So, where am I going with this?

Let’s face it, if we call ourselves writers, our first love, our primary drive, is writing: yes? If your answer to that is not ‘yes’ then I suggest you examine your reasons for placing words in specific order on pages. It may be that you’re an entrepreneur who’s spotted an opening in a market that just happens to involve the skill of writing. Perhaps you’ve seen the zillions paid for certain best-sellers, and identified a niche you could fill by writing the same story with different names and locations. It works. It’s been done countless times. But it doesn’t make you a writer; it makes you a businessman/woman.

Writers of fiction are more concerned with the words they present, the stories they tell, the effects of those compositions on their readers. Money, fame, success are all viewed as ancillary to the craft and inspiration of actually setting the right word in the right place. Imagination is the primary resource of the storyteller and the emotional punch of the story is the reward.

I’m not making judgments here. If the business approach suits you, that’s your choice. If, on the other hand, the role of the storyteller, the ancient role that started around the fire in the mouth of the cave as a way to explain the world and its wonders and terrors, drives you, then that is also your choice. Unfortunately, for those of us so inclined the world has moved into an era where the majority of the advice, help and support for writers is aimed at those for whom money is the major mover. Talent, it seems, is less valuable.

It’s very easy to be drawn into the world of marketing, promotion, advertising and generally concentrating on making ‘a living’. And, of course, we live in a world where making a living is paramount to mere survival, so the pressures are intense.

The issue then, for those of us who are essentially creative beings, is achieving a balance between making enough to allow us to survive and giving ourselves the freedom of thought and action that will nurture and develop our talents as tellers of tales.

I write this post as a taster only. As a way to introduce the idea that we may need to examine our priorities if we’re to lead full and rewarding lives as writers. For my personal approach, watch this space. I’ll provide my answers soon; just as soon as I’ve reached an actual conclusion, in fact!

And, for the time being, I ask you to consider just one question: 

Why do you write?

Charley, by Shelby C. Jacobs, Reviewed.

Novels are works of fiction, by and large. But we can often learn from them, especially if some of the

subject matter is unfamiliar to us as readers. In this romance, I learned about aspects of American Basketball, the position and influence of the church on certain moral issues and the ways in which business might be conducted in the USA.

This is essentially a love story, employing an important theme with which I have sympathy: it discusses, through the interactions of its protagonists, the difference between lust and love. The eponymous Charley is a very strong female character and, in PJ, she is thrust, literally in certain passages, into the arms of a very strong male character. Their introduction, mutual exploration of sex and love, and their attempts to resolve the problems they face in getting together form the plot of the story.

I have to confess that much of the Basketball description went over my head. As a Brit, I have little knowledge of the sport and, with its own jargon, which is clearly understood by aficionados, I was often in the dark. But it wasn’t important, as the sports sequences are few and their content is more emblematic and symbolic than essential. I was able to grasp enough to understand the significance.

Similarly, although I’ve been involved in the business world, both as practitioner and in the role of tax collector, many of the practices exposed in the book were new to me. Of course, this is set in the southern states of the USA, so a degree of fraud and double-dealing was not unexpected. The author makes no moral judgement on the issues raised, but allows readers to come to their own conclusions, which is a stance I heartily applaud.

Also, as an agnostic, albeit raised on the rather loose moral standards of the Church of England, I’m not particularly sympathetic to the church movement as a whole. I felt the author managed very well to convey the inherent hypocrisy and self-imposed blindness of the protagonists as they allowed their actions to declare their true feelings whilst their words frequently hinted at more scriptural concerns. Again, it was left to readers to make their own judgements. In spite of the inclusion of scriptural references, I never felt I was being preached at.

The characters are drawn so well that it’s easy to get to know them and to feel with them. Since such empathy is an essential component of fiction for me, I was able to enjoy the read so much more. Written in the first person, and with occasional ‘mental asides’ that hint at the true state of mind of Charley, this complex and multi-layered piece of fiction reads easily, whilst challenging the reader to make certain judgements, sometimes only to discover that new facts must overturn those conclusions.

A really good read, this. The romance and erotic element will undoubtedly appeal more to women readers, whilst the other components will probably have a stronger appeal for those men who don’t generally read this genre. That sounds sexist, but I’m trying to point out that there’s something here for both genders. I have no qualms in recommending this novel.

Is Society Organised for Business or for People?

International Money Pile in Cash and Coins (Photo credit: epSos.de)

An odd question, or one you think should be considered? I suspect your view will be influenced by your basic attitude to the place of money in society.

Why would I even ask the question? I look at the world around me and view the priorities cited by government, commerce and those with a real interest in environment. What I see is a society slewed toward the making of money as a primary purpose. But isn’t money supposed to be the tool, the helpmate of humanity? Isn’t trade, and all those services involved with manufacturing, production and delivery, intended to serve mankind?

When I look at the world, I see that the production of wealth is actually the prime purpose of most commerce. Now, I fully understand that we can’t live in a society where barter takes the place of currency, but I do question the value we place on the process involved in increasing wealth. Businesses appear to exist primarily for the benefit of their shareholders, so that their customers are, in fact, at best a secondary consideration rather than the primary cause of activity.

Banks are probably the best illustration of what I mean: Banks were set up to provide a service that would allow the lending, borrowing and security of the funds of their customers to operate to the benefit of those customers. But the current system benefits primarily the bankers and those institutions and individuals who hold equity in the business itself. The customer who wishes to take advantage of the lending system is now seen more as a threat than a natural client. Customers are viewed as a source of extra income, often by the employment of questionable schemes to extract more money from them to be placed into the banks’ coffers. (There are many examples of this, the recent scandal of mis-sold PPI is simply the most obvious).

Sport is another area where money has become the prime purpose of participation. Football, in particular, has fallen victim of the money men. What used to be local clubs, with locally trained and selected teams, and whose object was the raising of local pride in association with the clubs’ successes, have now become simple businesses. They no longer have any real connection with the locality in which they reside. The teams are made up of international ‘stars’ of questionable value who are paid obscene amounts of money in order to progress their teams to gain more money for the club owners. In the rush to make more and more money from sport, all ideas of sportsmanship have receded to be overtaken by cynical gamesmanship. And this change is so pervasive that many of the fans and players aren’t even aware that cheating, play-acting and tricks are damaging both the sport and society in general. And all this because huge sums of money are on offer from the various media companies who distribute the product to the masses.

Religion has joined the rush for money, in spite of the injunction to the faithful that they should eschew material riches in favour of spiritual rewards. The Roman Catholic church is an obscenely rich organisation that begs for more income from its impoverished congregations whilst keeping its leaders in ostentatious luxury. The Church of England cries out for public funds to repair and support its many crumbling buildings, whilst remaining one of the richest landowners in the country.  I don’t know much about the Jewish and Islamic institutions, but I’m willing to bet they are similarly wealthy whilst many of their adherents remain in poverty.

I could go on with examples, but that would be pointless. My concern is with the way in which we have allowed money to become our master and, in the process, allowed those who own the most money to have power over the vast majority who have little or none. What was intended as a tool to aid interaction and prevent chaos in a growing population has become a weapon in the hands of a very few powerful institutions and individuals. A weapon of control, which promises to become eternally self-perpetuating unless we do something radical to overturn the supremacy of money in the use and abuse of power and return governance to the mass of people.

It is demonstrably unjust that there are individuals who have personal incomes and wealth greater than the GDP of some small nations. It is demonstrably absurd that some individuals have colossal wealth when there are many who have none. We have been sold the idea that those with wealth have somehow deserved it, that they are solely responsible for the good fortune that has happened their way. Please don’t spout the old chestnuts about ‘getting what you deserve’ and ‘work hard and you’ll succeed’ at me. I touched on those two lies a while back and the links (one below) will take you to my arguments.

The simple fact is that no individual ever has been or ever will be deserving of wealth disproportionate to their efforts. The tycoon who claims to be a ‘self-made man’ conveniently forgets that he could not even have risen from his bed in the morning without the help and input of a multitude of other people. For those who find this concept difficult to grasp I feel I must give an example. We all need food to survive. Let’s take the basic loaf of bread, without which our tycoon could not perform, due to hunger. Someone has first to plough and till the ground so that it can be seeded with grain. The crop has to be gathered and transported along roads, made by many more individuals using the tools and machines made by other individuals. At the bakery, more people are involved in turning the raw material into a food product, using machinery and electricity that depends on other individuals for manufacture. Once baked, using power derived from sources mined or generated by yet more people, the product is transported, using fuel and materials produced by other individuals. Eventually, the loaf arrives in the shop to be sold and is there dispensed by even more people. Along the way, we have also to consider the road sweeper who keeps the highway clear to permit the transport to move, the rubbish collector who disposes of the waste that would otherwise clog up the works, the teacher who educates all the people involved in the various process, the nurse who cares for those who fall sick along the way, the unpaid parents who ensure the children get to school…do I need to go on? The reality is obvious. But we seem to have fallen into the trap of believing that certain individuals somehow contribute a great deal more than the rest of us. It simply isn’t true.

The only real difference between the wealthy and the poor is often due to luck, preferential birth circumstances, the possession of a peculiar talent or the wicked selfishness and greed that allows some to ignore the needs of those over whom they wield their power.

Of course we need to reward those who initiate those ideas that are of benefit to the mass of humanity. Of course we must recognise those who possess rare and valuable talent. Of course we should ensure justice for those who accept high levels of responsibility. But none of these people is worth the huge difference in value that is ascribed to them.

In the UK, and I suspect, elsewhere in the world, there is a minimum wage, set so that unscrupulous businessmen cannot exploit too heavily those who produce their wealth for them. If a minimum wage is a sensible barrier to excessive poverty, then a maximum wage can easily be made a similar barrier to excessive wealth. It requires only political will. But, as long as we have a system of government that depends only on the value falsely accorded to money, we will have a control system that prefers the wealthy over the vast majority of hard-working people. Is that what you want?

Related articles

• 'Work Hard And You'll Succeed'; The Biggest Lie?
• The living Wage: Wealth and Romney's Goose
• Do Americans truly understand 'redistribution of wealth'?
• The Weaving of Illusions and Myths.

‘Work Hard And You’ll Succeed’; The Biggest Lie?

From www.victorianweb.org/history/ashley.html, a educational site offering free info on the victorian age. Image is a copy of one from an official report of a parliamentary commission done in the mid 18th century. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Almost from infancy, we’re brought up to believe this mantra. It follows us through school, reinforced by loving and caring parents, and is ingrained in our very personas through repetition and, often, a form of example. The successful, in the terms of our current society, are held up as models of what hard work will bring us. We will be rewarded with wealth, status, respect, power and all the associated glamour. The prize is, indeed, worth the effort.

It is, of course, a lie.

Okay, so I’ve now lost those of a right wing mind-set. These are people who, research has shown, are not simply unwilling to listen to new ideas but are actually not capable of understanding anything that doesn’t accord with their own view of the world. As a group, they hold enormous sway and disproportionate power, but we will have to continue our journey without them.

Why is it a lie?

I could be philosophical, ingenious, clever; I could employ numerous charts and lots of statistical analysis to illustrate my answer. But it’s simpler than that. I ask only that you open your eyes and look about you at the evidence.

Do you know wealthy miners? I mean the ones who spend 12 hours a day at the coal face, or sweat for 16 hours in the impossible heat and danger of the South African diamond, platinum and gold mines? Are you friendly with the wealthy neighbourhood carer who works 12 hour shifts to minister to the needs of demented pensioners, disabled children, insane wrecks, wiping shitty arses, cleaning up piss, feeding unresponsive faces in exchange for insults and occasional violence? Perhaps the guy who lives at the end of the street and spends his days running the pavements to empty your rubbish bins in record time is really a millionaire? Or, much more likely, the child who spends 18 hours a day clawing through the mixed waste of her neighbours in order to find enough plastic or metal to recycle and pay for her day’s single meal; she, of course, is wealthy beyond our wildest dreams, isn’t she?

Yet all these people can be described as hard workers. So, sorry to labour the point but it’s important you get this, the mantra is demonstrably false. Why, then, is it so universally accepted?

Why do we believe this mantra, this persuasive urge to reward in exchange for hard labour, if it so clearly isn’t true?

You won’t be surprised to learn that I have a theory. Those who know me, either personally or through my work, will know that I don’t have much time for conspiracy theories. That doesn’t, of course, mean that I treat all such ideas with equal scorn; merely that I’m sceptical enough to weigh the probabilities before I decide whether to investigate further.

But, in this case, I’m inclined to the view that there is a sort of conspiracy at work here. Not something formal or defined by a set of rules and conditions. No; this is something far more subtle, and it’s been developing over centuries.

To whose real advantage is the mantra?

Who has most to gain from a work force indoctrinated into believing that their hard labour will bring them rewards? Certainly not those who actually invest their time, energy and skills in those long hours of work. They are generally rewarded with job insecurity, poor working conditions and the wonderful incentive of ‘extra’ pay once they’ve done their prescribed hours.

So, if the actual workers don’t gain, who does?

If a worker gains an extra 10 percent by working harder, that’s his reward. But the person in charge of that worker, the boss, director, owner, creator; however you want to describe the individual or group at the top of the hierarchical pyramid, gains a percentage from each of those individual efforts. The rewards for those at the top are disproportionately increased because of the way our society is structured. If the ‘boss’ has a workforce of 100, for every 10 percent extra each individual worker achieves, the boss will generally gain an equivalent equal to the sum of their efforts: i.e. 10 time 100, which is 1,000 percent. (oversimplification, but it’s a general principle and illustrates the point). I’m not suggesting those at the top don’t work hard, merely that their efforts can never be so much greater than those they employ. So, the mantra results in a real increase of wealth for those who are already rich, but fails to do that for those who actually produce the increase. Clever, eh?

So, what rewards are there for those who accept and apply the mantra?

You’ll have noticed a relatively recent development that has effectively reduced the value of overtime working. Shop workers and the like were once rewarded for working unsocial hours that included weekend working. Certain workers were given better pay for working evening and night shifts (bar staff, hotel, hospital and factory workers, etc.). Some whose work could not be fitted into the normal working day (teachers, middle managers, etc.) were rewarded for continuing to work when they arrived home. But most of these apparent advantages have been eroded over time so that what was once regarded as ‘unsocial’ has become ‘normal’ in our 24/7 society.

Those who make policy will assure you that this is to the advantage of all of us. We must remain competitive in order to sell more goods outside, and inside, our given communities. And, of course, it is heresy to suggest that this may not be the case. Whether we actually need the increase in such goods is a whole new argument and beyond the scope of this short piece.

Examine the facts: the vast majority of economic activity is actually controlled by corporations and companies that operate on a global scale and that have investors from all over the world (or, at least, the parts of the world society where wealth is common). If an organisation is global, it necessarily has the means to determine both global and local economic conditions. It is the multinational corporations that set standards of wealth or poverty within the nations in which they are active. Governments have long been little more than regulatory authorities allowed an illusive power in order to keep both politicians and populations under control. So, the excuse that a British worker must work harder, at a ‘higher’ level of pay, in order to make British goods more competitive than the equivalent Taiwanese products, at a ‘lower’ level of pay, is actually a manipulative device to maintain control of the market place.

This short piece is intended as a post to induce thought and question, so I’m not going to develop my arguments fully here. My intention is merely to invite readers to consider and question what they’ve been told over the years. I’d like to start a discussion of the real merits of this mantra.

My assertion is simple. ‘Work hard and you’ll succeed’ is a lie, which should more properly be expressed as, ‘Work hard and you’ll make those in positions of wealth and power wealthier and more powerful’. I believe the evidence to support that viewpoint is there for all to see, if only they can persuade themselves to take the risk and question accepted dogma.

Of course, there are those who will demonstrate, superficially, that hard work can result in wealth. But the assumption that they can do so unsupported by all the many others in society is patently false. That, however, is a different argument and one I intend to pursue at a later date. For the moment, I ask you to look at the majority result of hard work and accept that, for the vast bulk of participants, simply working hard is not, and never has been, a route to wealth and power for that individual.

I invite your comments, questions and observations. Please, let’s make this a useful and positive discussion. My mind is open; is yours?

Related articles

• Technology and the Working Week
• The Earth-for-All Calendar: July 28 -- William Morris
• Laziness & productivity

Could You Use Some Free Graphics?

I received this email today and thought I'd place it here for those who might be interested in trying the free
trial offered. I haven't tried it myself, though I have had a gander at their website, which looks very interesting. At present, I have no need for such a service. But, if you're interested or curious, here's the email, along with the link:

 I wanted to reach out to you because of the influence you have via your writings, with an offer I think you might be interested in using or sharing on your blog.  The graphic design firm RipeConcepts is offering two hours of free graphic design work as a way to meet new potential clients.

Two hours is enough for them to design a new logo for a blog, put together a banner, template for a newsletter, create a customized business card, etc. There is no obligation to use them again, and they won't exceed the 2 hour time limit so you won't get hit with having to pay at the end.

Here is the link to reserve your spot - www.graphicdesignoffer.com - you can send your readers to this page as well and they can reserve theirs. There are a limited number of supplies each month, so you may want to sign up quickly if you are interested.

Thanks so much, I hope you and your readers will find this useful!

Related articles

• Graphic Design Nightmare

  ---

Stuart's Daily Word Spot: Stationary or stationery?

Image via Wikipedia

Stationary or stationery?

This is a very old dilemma with a particularly simple solution.

Since 'stationery' is the stuff you use for writing etc, you only need remember that 'stationery' with an 'e' includes envelopes.

On the other hand, 'stationary' means to remain still so just remember that if you halt, you'll be 'stationary.'

There, that was easy, wasn't it?