Homeless writers

[SpookyWriter]

I retrieved this essay for discussion because of the previous thread "Can I make a living writing" and I had another chat with a writer today who inspired my remembrance;

My god, I've had a few discussions over the months with writers who are destitute and living in shelters or sharing living arrangements with other people.

I’m sickened by this…

I’ve heard such stories for many years. I closed my ears because I wasn’t one of them. I wasn’t sickly or poor. I paid no attention to their plight. Why should I? I am of sound financial status, beget a few times when I struggled to find suitable work, but I have a means to support myself. I don’t suffer such angst for this profession that I’d live in a homeless shelter until my work sells. I don’t folly about with a dream of hitting it big as a writer. But such people do, as I now know, and I am ashamed at my cavalier attitude about this preoccupation for writing.

Such is my pain tonight. I grieve for this poor fellow who desires so much more from his craft than I. This homeless man, with such courage and conviction, is worthy of more than I can ever hope to offer. Yet, I can’t help but feel pity for him and I – who has lost much more than either has ever imagined.

So, I weep tonight for us – poor writers who are without home and love. But I also cherish this gentle spirit which as kept my poor friend warm, happy, and content to live as I had not thought possible.

I write, as true, to myself and others that we never forget those whose sacrifice is inspired by a noble thought.

Good night,

[PeeDee]

I guess that begs the question: If you had the choice between writing and being homeless, or not writing and being otherwise comfortable, which would you choose?

[SpookyWriter]

I guess that begs the question: If you had the choice between writing and being homeless, or not writing and being otherwise comfortable, which would you choose?

I am fortunate in some respects that this question remains a struggle for some, but in which I remain a voyeur for the moment.

[PeeDee]

(I can answer my own question, I suppose)

It's a bit of a moot point for me. If I were living on my own, I would slum it in a dingy little apartment and write a good deal more. However, being married, I would never ask my wife to do that. Not for me, not for my writing. So that means that, by default, I have to have a job which helps pay the bills.

[SpookyWriter]

(I can answer my own question, I suppose)

It's a bit of a moot point for me. If I were living on my own, I would slum it in a dingy little apartment and write a good deal more. However, being married, I would never ask my wife to do that. Not for me, not for my writing. So that means that, by default, I have to have a job which helps pay the bills.But many more writers out there in the big world are not paying attention to what is important, survival. I've heard and discussed this topic so much that I am amazed that anyone would take an art form to such a degree that they'd be willing to slum until they sell their work.

[maestrowork]

I have been dirt poor (though not homeless). It doesn't really faze me (of course, I don't have children either). PeeDee's question is entirely hypothetical to me so I don't think I can ever answer that. However, I think a better question would be:

Homeless/writing or comfortable/doing something you really hate for a living

[PeeDee]

I'm sitting here, in my computer room, with a gentle breeze coming in, sipping a cup of fruit juice. My wife is next to me. There are books upon books in the next room, and quite a lot of animals.

It's very easy for me to sit here and say that I find the idea of slumming, living in a car and pouring myself into my novel that I write on bits of notebook paper to be a romantic idea. Sure. It's romantic until I'm living in a car trying to write, but I can't because I'm freezing to death, if the agonizing hunger pains don't kill me first.

[PeeDee]

I have been dirt poor (though not homeless). It doesn't really faze me (of course, I don't have children either). PeeDee's question is entirely hypothetical to me so I don't think I can ever answer that. However, I think a better question would be:

Homeless/writing or comfortable/doing something you really hate for a living

I'm currently Writing/Comfortable/Doing something I really hate for a living.

Where the hell does that put me? :)

[maestrowork]

I am currently writing/comfortable (though not from writing)/doing something I really enjoy. That's why I don't see how I can answer your question. :)

[AnnMB]

I'm currently Writing/Comfortable/Doing something I really hate for a living.

Where the hell does that put me? :)

It puts you in the same spot most authors are in until they get their second or third bestseller!

[Lyra Jean]

If I ever come to the point of being homeless. I'll go live with my mom. She already said I could if I'm working on writing and trying to be successful with it. I won't even have to get an outside job.

[PeeDee]

If I ever come to the point of being homeless. I'll go live with my mom. She already said I could if I'm working on writing and trying to be successful with it. I won't even have to get an outside job.

Could I go live with your mom while I work on my writing? Honest, I'm making good progress, and she can talk to my wife, who is much nicer, and she can even pet my kitties.

[firehorse]

I always said I wanted to find a classified ad that read, "Novelist wanted." Currently, I'm in the closest I will ever find to that exact job. I'm extremely lucky. I enjoy the work. It's a steady salary. Benefits (I'd forgotten what those were!). But I miss doing *my* writing. I miss the freedom of freelancing (hand-to-mouth though it was).

It's easy for me - with a roof over my head - to say I'd always choose writing. I like camping and being outdoors by choice, not by default. I do know, though, that home is wherever my journal is, and without writing, I would have no desire to live. Period.

On a somewhat tangential note (and at the risk of hijacking the thread), Wired recently ran an article about homeless bloggers:
http://www.wired.com/news/technology/1,71153-0.html
(apologies if this has already been discussed here)

[cwfgal]

I"m currently living quite comfortably, writing, and doing another job I love, as well. I don't see this as an either/or issue. I love writing but that doesn't mean I have to do it to the exclusion of anything else, or that I'm willing to sacrifice certain things to be able to do it. Especially if I don't have to.

Beth

[SpookyWriter]

Come on folks, this isn't the high road we're talking about. It's them (us) who write with little or no chance to publish but have the dream and so they hurt themselves by not recognizing what's important. Many writers dream of hitting it big, like buying a lottery ticket, and getting the wealth that comes with this profession. But aren't they sadly mistaken?

How many writers (artisans) you know who live below the poverty line, but have this dream to make it big?

[expatbrat]

Easy for me - I choose not writing.

I don't write because I love writing, I write because I believe I have something important to say, something that helps others, and I love helping others. I would just find another way to achieve that goal. I write lots of fitness articles but I also run courses and lecture at groups and companies. I'd just focus on other ways to get the message out.

I know I wouldn't stand long looking at the closed door... I'd be climbing in windows or finding new doors to run through before the sound of the bang had even reached my ears.

Being poor serves no one. Money is how our society keeps track of the favors we have granted others. Those with most money have granted the most pleasure and solved the most problems. Money is stored and tradable energy and energy is life.

Well paid novelists are those who have given the most people a lot of pleasure, that pleasure is measured as money that the author can trade for his/her own pleasures.

(Note: I spent my fair share of time slumming in horrible housing and having to decide if I wanted beer or food (beer, as after a couple you feel full anyway). But I didn’t AIM for that. If you aim for nothing you will hit it. Look at where you want to go. MTB-ing you look at the line you want to take, not the rock you want to avoid – stare at the rock and you will crash. Focus on poverty and you will get it.)

[Lilybiz]

I don't think it's necessary to suffer to be an artist. It's entirely possible to have a "regular" job and also to write. I used the computer at my day-job to write scripts and stories. I wrote on my lunch hour and breaks, and after work.

You can choose poverty, but that's your choice. You don't have to choose poverty. You can be a poor writer or you can be a solvent writer, but it's always your choice.

These things aren't always conscious and it can take a long time to learn to change your mind.

[firehorse]

How many writers (artisans) you know who live below the poverty line, but have this dream to make it big?

Honestly? Not many - but most do live a feast-or-famine life. One friend co-created a TV series, lived well (sorta - it was a Canadian series); then, a few years later, she lived happily on $6000... then, a few years later, she got a $25K-per-episode story editing job (which is far lower than US salaries, but still sweeter than I've ever made). In between, she wrote whatever paid the rent.

Come to think of it, that describes me, too, but I was slightly less bipolar in my poverty and wealth.

Of all the artists I know, only a handful have received minimal to no encouragement and still continue to pursue their chosen path. Then again, there are a world full of artists I've never met.

To your first point - writing, to each of us, is so personal, so different. Dreams, realistic or not, keep many of us alive. Puncturing the bubble might be more dangerous than living in the dream.

[reph]

Money is how our society keeps track of the favors we have granted others. Those with most money have granted the most pleasure and solved the most problems.I wish that were true. It leaves out people who grant pleasure and solve problems for little or no pay. It leaves out overpaid people who cause pain and create problems.

[aruna]

I wish that were true. It leaves out people who grant pleasure and solve problems for little or no pay. It leaves out overpaid people who cause pain and create problems.

That is so very true. I know countless people who have very little yet give so much, and I think we all know the other extreme.

As for the choice given: it all depends.

If I were alone, without family, I'd be happy to live simply (below the established poverty level), with a few exceptions.
One of these is cold. I cannot bear to be cold, and my unhappiest time was living in a farmhouse in Germany without central heating. In fact, I was so freezing I started writing, wearing a winter coat, hat, gloves, and that's how my writing career began! But I was not at all happy.

I am also not happy with dirt, stench or vermin. I couldn't live in a rat-infested slum to write.

I would be very happy , though, living in a simple hut in (for instance) India with no plumbing, as long as it were clean and fresh water were available and I had a few pennies for bananas and such, and writing.

[Bmwhtly]

Forgive me if someone has mentioned this and I missed it.

There was recently an article on the bbc news website that I've dug up for you all to take a look at about how being homeless got a writer a book deal

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/5029984.stm

Personally, I think thats a long way to go just to get a book deal :)

[Mike Coombes]

I have trouble believing that anyone will make themselves/allow themselves to become homeless in order to write. I know there are homeless people who write, and I know someone who wrote a play while homeless, but they were separate issues - he was homeless, and he wrote. He also wrote before he was homeless, and after.

Living in reduced circumstances, yes. You don't need material trappings to write - I've never heard of anyone whose bestseller was inspired by ownership of a wide-screen digital TV home cinema system - but most of us have to work the day job to provide the security of a roof and heat and light and food to enable us to follow the writing path when we can.

There are many reasons to become homeless, but 'for one's art' isn't one of them. There's nothing noble about sleeping on the streets.

[rbflynn]

(forgive me if this rambles... I am only on my first cup of coffee :) maybe I'll come back and edit this later in the day if it makes no sense)

I have been there. Not as an aspiring writer, but as an aspiring actor who was also writing on the side. I spent more nights I care to remember in a flophouse or a shelter, sharing a room with someone so strung out they were unable to swallow their own saliva. I justified it all as "for my art" and other, forgive me, ******** excuses. Being in that situation is nothing more than being victem to your own tunnel vision and poor choices. Sure there have been a few success stories like the one posted, or like Whoopi Goldberg (who was also a homeless person at one point in her life if I remember correctly), but they are extremely rare.

I think it's easy to say "sure, I would live below the poverty level if I didn't have any responsibilities" when you are comfortable. It's something totally different to be in that position, whether it's voluntary or not. More importantly, however, there is a fine line between too little and enough as far as it pertains to focusing on writing or other artistic endeavors. Don't forget you'll need paper, pencs/pencils, at least a typewriter (less expensive than a computer), ribbons for that typewriter, correction tape or white out... these all end up being luxury items and are forced to fall to a lower priority than, say, food. I found that when I was destitute, it was actually much more difficult to spend time either writing or acting than it was when I was living paycheck to paycheck, just above the poverty level. There are too many concerns that revolve around simple survival that make focusing on anything else a luxury you really do not have.

Personally, I ended up abandoning the acting and writing both in order to scrape and crawl my way out of debt and into a comfortable situation. I no longer act, but I now write much more, and with a much clearer focus than I was able to do when I was poor. There is a balance you need to maintain in order to really be able to focus correctly on your work. If you have concerns or problems with your living situation, it really shows in your writing. The stuff I wrote 10 years ago is very dark, bleak, anti-hero with little hope kind of stuff. It was angry and jaded, because that's what I had made myself with my choices.

Anyway, I know I rambled a bit and I apologize for that. I find myself getting a bit angry at this topic, so I'll shut up now :)

[maestrowork]

I don't think it's necessary to suffer to be an artist. It's entirely possible to have a "regular" job and also to write. I used the computer at my day-job to write scripts and stories. I wrote on my lunch hour and breaks, and after work.

I wrote most of my first book while having a very demanding job. I wrote during lunch breaks, down times, and also after I got home from work and on vacation. It wasn't easy but if you really wanted it, you made time for it. But it doesn't mean you have to live on the street to suffer your art...

I just don't understand the kind of people Spookywriter was talking about. I think those people (I have never met one, however) have lost their sense of reality. It's perfectly fine to have a passion and I know artists/actors/writers who would die if they couldn't do their art, but it doesn't mean you can't hold a regular job at the same time. Plenty of jobs offer enough flexibility. I know a fantastic pottery artist who works as an administrative assistant. She's very good at her job, but also finds a time not only for her art (she makes wonderful stuff) but also teaching.

[zornhau]

I too am a little perplexed by the heroic down-and-out writers.

Fiction is interactive. It's worth is measured to the extent which people read it. If people are reading your fiction, they must be buying it. Therefore...

[Jenan Mac]

I just don't understand the kind of people Spookywriter was talking about. I think those people (I have never met one, however) have lost their sense of reality. It's perfectly fine to have a passion and I know artists/actors/writers who would die if they couldn't do their art, but it doesn't mean you can't hold a regular job at the same time.

Which begs the question of mental health. Mood disorders are not unheard of among artists. There have been a number of individuals who have refused medication because they feel (rightly or wrongly) that it interferes with their art. This is also the kind of thinking that can get you otherwise-unemployed and homeless pretty quickly, depending on the disorder.

[Jenan Mac]

But I'm not going to give up stability for art. That would be crazy.

Well, yeah. But there are people who do it. Some successfully; probably at least as many, not so much.

[maestrowork]

To me, "stability" and homelessness are two different things. You can work from job to job, doing unsteady work, etc. and still have a roof over your head and food on the table, and still write. I do think that "mental illness" angle is valid.

[Andre_Laurent]

I have been dirt poor (though not homeless). It doesn't really faze me (of course, I don't have children either). PeeDee's question is entirely hypothetical to me so I don't think I can ever answer that. However, I think a better question would be:

Homeless/writing or comfortable/doing something you really hate for a living
I am comfortable/doing something I really hate for a living (IT). I have a spouse and a child who depend on me (or at least on my paycheck), so I will continue doing the job I hate.

[AnnMB]

I wrote most of my first book while having a very demanding job. I wrote during lunch breaks, down times, and also after I got home from work and on vacation.

Me too. It sure made the day go by fast, and actually made my "day job" a bit more tolerable (i.e taking a mental break from the stresses of the job). I have to admit, I am spoiled now. My husband makes enough money at his job that I don't have to work, so while the kids are in school, I devote my time to writing (and surfing the AW forums, of course).

But here's a related question: Homelessness aside, would you continue writing if you knew you would never get published?

[SpookyWriter]

Homeless/writing or comfortable/doing something you really hate for a livingTo this end, I suspect agents can shed more light on this subject because they tend to see and read the affects of desperation from artisans. We, on this forum, have tunnel vision and discuss the issue from a limited perspective.

I would be interested to learn and read more about this subject from the pov of people who are in the trenches dealing with artisans on the verge of despair.

[GabeWhite]

Being poor serves no one. Money is how our society keeps track of the favors we have granted others. Those with most money have granted the most pleasure and solved the most problems. Money is stored and tradable energy and energy is life.



My god, this is a repugnant thing to say. I hope you don't actually believe this.

-Gabe

[firehorse]

Money is stored and tradable energy and energy is life. I don't think that's what Joseph Campbell meant. "Money is congealed energy" was the original quote. Money is transient; it's a means to an end (survival, and beyond that, one can influence the world with one's choices of where to put that energy).

I don't recall his ever saying it was distributed based on an individual's entertainment value to society.

[Bmwhtly]

Quote:
Originally Posted by expatbrat

Being poor serves no one. Money is how our society keeps track of the favors we have granted others. Those with most money have granted the most pleasure and solved the most problems. Money is stored and tradable energy and energy is life.

My god, this is a repugnant thing to say. I hope you don't actually believe this.

Heartily agreed. Repugnant. And nonsensical.

[CaroGirl]

As a member of a society, I believe I have a responsibility to contribute to it, not draw from it. I can't make a living solely through writing (yet), so I get up and go to a job that I don't really like very much. I could live entirely off my husband, if I wanted to make financial sacrifices, but I don't (and, well, he won't let me <grin>). It's about choice and responsibility. Even "artists" have both choices and responsibilities. Mental illness aside, choosing a simple life for the sake of art is one thing, choosing to be homeless is quite another.

[Lilybiz]

If you have concerns or problems with your living situation, it really shows in your writing.

I really get this, rbflynn. My "day job" is acting, believe it or not. For years I had an office job and on my breaks I either wrote or went to auditions. but like you said, if you have worries about your living situation it shows up in your writing (or your acting). You carry that concern with you wherever you go. As an actor, I couldn't be poor because then I wouldn't have the right clothes to wear to an audition, or I wouldn't have the right headshots (and you have to have them). Writers need materials also, as rbflynn points out.

We can always write about our destitute situation, but that gets old fast. And a sad, scared or negative attitude will come through everything you write, even if you're writing about something else.

[Sassenach]

Being poor serves no one. Money is how our society keeps track of the favors we have granted others. Those with most money have granted the most pleasure and solved the most problems. Money is stored and tradable energy and energy is life.



I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you've expressed yourself poorly. Otherwise, you're clueless.

Hollywood and Wall Street are full of people who've been paid incredibly well for very little.

What "problems" has Tom Cruise or Katie Couric or Donald Trump solved?

[Kasey Mackenzie]

I'm a firm believer in the "you do what you gotta do" way of life. If that means you work jobs you hate, or more than one job at a time, so be it. Many people in my family or at or near poverty level, with some of us (I am fortunate to be one) living fairly comfortably (lower middle class I guess we'd be called). I do a LOT to help out the "less fortunate" members of my family. I was raised by a struggling single mother, and many are the times we barely survived month to month with food, shelter, and basics like clothing, etc. My mother did what she had to do, and she still does, including jobs she has hated, to provide for both her family and herself. I don't see any inherent nobility in "suffering" for one's "art." Now, suffering to support one's family, there's much more nobility in that.

[Jamesaritchie]

But many more writers out there in the big world are not paying attention to what is important, survival. I've heard and discussed this topic so much that I am amazed that anyone would take an art form to such a degree that they'd be willing to slum until they sell their work.

What's worng with slumming it? That's a negative word that tells me you've probably never been really, truly poor. Very few poor people live in slums, and even many slums have all the comforts of any home.

Living poor is no sin, and some of the best and brightest, and richest and most famous, lived in complete poverty for years and years before striking it big. Never mind the art form. I'd ten times rather live in a car, or a slum, than live in a nice house doing something I hate.

It's not a matter of being willing, it's a matter of I'd prefer it. I've lived both ways in my life, and while lack of money can cause all sorts of problems with medical and other bills you can't pay, the lifestyle itself has a lot to be said for it.

[reph]

Why do so many people hate their jobs? Are those jobs truly hateful? I don't see that working at a job you hate has to be the other choice. I always supported myself with editorial work (first in-house, then freelance) until my husband and I formed a household and the financial pressure was off. It wasn't a luxurious living, but it was a good enough living for a frugal single person.

[SpookyWriter]

What's worng with slumming it? That's a negative word that tells me you've probably never been really, truly poor. Very few poor people live in slums, and even many slums have all the comforts of any home..Oh yes I have been poor, very much so. My message didn't say it was a bad thing, but a choice. No need to stuff words into my mouth, I already have enough on my plate to chew. ;)

Living poor is no sin, and some of the best and brightest, and richest and most famous, lived in complete poverty for years and years before striking it big. Never mind the art form. I'd ten times rather live in a car, or a slum, than live in a nice house doing something I hate.So the theme here is to continue living the dream of hitting it rich as an artist rather than working a steady job and earning a living while pursuing the arts.

It's not a matter of being willing, it's a matter of I'd prefer it. I've lived both ways in my life, and while lack of money can cause all sorts of problems with medical and other bills you can't pay, the lifestyle itself has a lot to be said for it.Personal choices. I doubt people would disagree when you're making a living at something you enjoy. But what about those folks who have a single purpose in life, yet may never be productive enough to substain a decent living?

[maestrowork]

I just saw a movie when the protagonist kept saying "I had no choice" when in fact she did have a choice. We all have choices. Although I wasn't passionate about what I did before, I didn't hate my job. I always shy away from things I hate doing. For example, when I was in college, I waited tables and I hated it. I absolutely hated it, even though I made good money doing it (and free lunch or dinner). The next year I didn't go back. I worked for the university instead for $5/hour. I had less money but I was so much happier, and I learned so much in my field and it was good for my CV -- I landed a job before I even graduated.

Yes, we make choices all the time. It depends on your priorities. To me, happiness, free time, and opportunities were more important than money.

[Celia Cyanide]

I really find it hard to believe that someone would have to choose between being homeless and writing and having a house and doing something you hate. I don't see how it's possible that a job that pays the bills, no matter how awful, would prevent you from writing at all.

Having said that, I think that a lot of homeless people probably have talent, and yet their circumstances prevent them from getting the proper education and training which allow them develop their talent, and that makes me sad. It's hard to concentrate on developing your skill as a writer, when you have to think about where you will get your food for the day, and where you will sleep. We are truly priveledged to be able to write, even if we have to squeeze it in around stressful jobs.

[estateconnection]

I work a "regular" job seven days a week that I loathe, but I do it because I have two sons under three to raise by myself. I also love to write, but for the moment, I write to eat. But I am also quite proud of myself because I do provide for them without asking anyone for anything. Poverty is a great motivator. But that's the thing-if you're motivated by something like poverty I think it is easy to write. And while some "true artists" may think I'm a sell out because right now I have to peddle some verse to the card industry to pay a bill, I'd rather do that than peddle myself on the streets.

I think sometimes people just give up. Not only with writing, but with their lives. That is also easy. It's a snowball effect. When you have enough of them being chucked at you, it can be easier just to ball up and roll into the nearest refrigerator box. And then there is also the point of mental illness which at times can be a result of their sustained poverty. It is stressful and stress chip away at your mind in the best of situations.

Slumming can be interesting, just not with kids. Some of my fondest memories are when I lived in NYC and ate nothing but ketchup sandwiches for months on end. I had a ball, but I had no one but myself to look after.

And while I've never met one of those people with money that have granted a lot of pleasure and solved the most problems that expatbrat was speaking of, if he's funny and nice and loves kids, send him my way. Especially if he has a lot of "stored and tradeable energy" because I'm fresh out.

[Jenan Mac]

But here's a related question: Homelessness aside, would you continue writing if you knew you would never get published?

Well, it's worked for me so far. ::sigh::

[maestrowork]

It's like asking people "would you keep singing if you would never become an American Idol" or "would you keep playing guitar if you would never sign with a label"... People do what they do, no matter what. The question, though, is when do you consider it more than just a hobby.

[CaroGirl]

I was lucky enough to be raised by affluent parents who gave me the opportunity to further my studies. They also instilled in me a strong work ethic. I say I hate my job, but I'm here every day that I'm supposed to be here, and my work gets done. I certainly have had jobs that I loved in the past.

I don't think you need to hate your job just because you'd rather be writing. I think I could really enjoy my work, if I did it in a different environment.

In North America, I don't even think most people understand what true poverty is. In South America, there is no social safety net like we have. No welfare, no shelters. Dirty, starving children live in the streets, or in disease-filled shanty towns with only contaminated water to drink. There is nothing romantic, idealistic or artistic about that.

[Jamesaritchie]

I'm a firm believer in the "you do what you gotta do" way of life. If that means you work jobs you hate, or more than one job at a time, so be it. Many people in my family or at or near poverty level, with some of us (I am fortunate to be one) living fairly comfortably (lower middle class I guess we'd be called). I do a LOT to help out the "less fortunate" members of my family. I was raised by a struggling single mother, and many are the times we barely survived month to month with food, shelter, and basics like clothing, etc. My mother did what she had to do, and she still does, including jobs she has hated, to provide for both her family and herself. I don't see any inherent nobility in "suffering" for one's "art." Now, suffering to support one's family, there's much more nobility in that.

I grew up in poverty as bad as it gets in this country, and nearly all my family were incredibly poor Appalachian Mountain people who all "did what they had to do." All this ever did was guarantee they would never be much better off, and neither would their children.

It isn't about inherent nobility, it isn't about "suffering for you art," it's about what works and what doesn't. "Do what you have to do" should mean doing that thing now that will produce the best result in the future. Working jobs you hate, doing whatever it takes to get by, is the worst possible way of building a good future for yourself, and probably for your kids.

"Doing what you have to do" when you're talking about the poor usually means a life of guaranteed poverty, poor jobs, and dying too young. There's no inherent nobility in this, either. It's a steel trap for most, and it means thirty years down the road they'll still be working jobs they hate, and on a percentage basis, their kids are also far more likely to live a similar life.

Almost no one gets out of poverty by "doing what they have to do." Working jobs tyhey hate, having little money month to month, unless there's also a dream attached.

Being poor because "You're doing what you have to do" is not only ignoble, it's just not very smart. Being poor because you're not willing to settle for such a life, because you're willing to spend five or six or ten years in poverty if it means a much larger chance of a good life down the road, is the best possible way of breaking out of poverty.

This can mean "suffering for your art," or it can mean finding something else you love to do and then doing whatever it takes to get a college degree in that area, or spending some years in poverty in order to build a new and better business model, whatever.

But this I know. You can't get out of poverty, you can't build a future with comfortable middle years and a retirement with enough money to matter, by working lousy jobs just because they pay the bills.

I suspect "suffering for you art" is a term coined by someone unwilling to suffer for anything.

If you're poor, if your family has no money, and you can't marry money, and you want to be an engineer or a doctor, then you need to be willing to spend many years eating nothing but Raman noodles and crackers and ketchup swiped from restaurant tables, going deep in debt with loans, live hand to mouth, and doing whatever it takes to get a degree. Funny how no one calls this "suffering for your degree."

There's no such thing as bad honest sweat. Willingness to work is a great quality. But there's working smart and working dumb, and I learned very early on that taking jobs you hate just to do what you had to do was not smart. Such work done only because it's what you have to do means you'll spend a life doing what you have to do, and never being able to do what you want to do. There isn't time.

I know so many people down in those mountains, many of them family, who work two and three jobs, who spend sixty, eighty, or sometimes a hundred hours per week doing what they have to do to keep a roof over head and to feed their children, and they aren't one bit better off than they were fifteen years ago. Many of them are old before their time, sick, and won't be able to keep working such hours much longer.

Those I know who got out of poverty did not do so by working as many hours as possible at jobs they hated, but by working as few hours as possible at jobs they hated, and as many hours as possible at making whatever dream they had come true. They got out by being willing to live with a lot less money, and by being willing to "suffer" for a dream. One "suffered" to make it as a singer, and did. A number lived literally hand to mouth to pay for one dream or another, and one mother and her two kids lived in an old school bus with no wheels, and of course no electricity or indoor plumbing, for almost six years until she "suffered" her way to a college degree.

If your parents have money, if you're able to go to college without struggle, if you have the education and skills to find a good nine to five job you like, and if you're content with this, none of this applies. But if you're really poor, if you have no resources, the question is not about nobility, the question is are you going to suffer for a dream, or are you just going to suffer? Doing what you have to do to get by probably means you're just going to suffer with no end in sight.

I've wondered whether Stephen King would have succeeded if he hadn't been living in a house trailer, and if he hadn't had so many bills he couldn't pay. Or if Tom Robbins would have made it without willingly being so poor at one point that the only food he had was cabbage stolen from a neighbor's field.

Poverty can be a crushing force that makes you spend your life doing what you have to do to get by, or it can be a driving force that makes you spend your life doing whatever it takes to make a dream come true.

[badducky]

A gentleman I met in my brief stint in graduate school had been waiting tables for over twenty years because he was a writer. He and his wife struggled to make ends meet. They never had children because they were never in a financial place to have them. Then, they went back to graduate school late in life to teach writing withh PhD's.

I asked him what he wrote, and after many, many questions (it was like pulling teeth to get writing information out of him), learned what he really was. Eventually, I discovered he had a great idea for a book, and the language knowledge to do the research. He had the smarts. He had the pedigree.

He hadn't put pen to paper to even start researching. He "wasn't ready" to write his novel, yet.

He was fifty if he was a day.

I'm 26, and I'm working on Numero Tres.

The funny thing about these "dedicated" artists that I've met. When you really talk to them about what they are physically, actually writing right now today, they usually aren't working on anything. Usually they're clinging to their dream to give themselves some external locus of control to blame for their failings in life. It's the last shred of pride they have to justify themselves as a non-failure. It's easier to be a failed artist than a failed human being. Artists are supposed to fail.

That isn't to say a few won't make it. Frankly, I'd buy a fellow's book if I knew he was homeless and needed the money bad. It's just to say, that no successful working artist I've ever met (and I've met quite a few) would go hungry to feed their art. Usually, they'd scoff at the posers that don't dare get a damn job.

[estateconnection]

Poverty can be a crushing force that makes you spend your life doing what you have to do to get by, or it can be a driving force that makes you spend your life doing whatever it takes to make a dream come true.

I agree with that James. Last night I was thinking about this very thing. I was upset with my situation and feeling weepy and all "woe is me". And then I wiped the tears and snot off my face and really thought about it. Would I be working so hard, working on my writing and trying to get an education if I were comfortable? If I paid all my bills on time, or had them paid for me, would I have this motivation to get out from under? For me, no. I know I don't want to live the rest of my life like this and I also know that it is up to me to make it better. At 3:00 am, I was working on my latest WIP until my kids woke up at 7:00 and I felt wonderful!

[CaroGirl]

I think "climbing out from under" was good motivation for JK Rowling. I hear she did pretty well.

[AnnMB]

Being poor serves no one. Money is how our society keeps track of the favors we have granted others. Those with most money have granted the most pleasure and solved the most problems.

Sorry, but this is flawed logic. I can think of many exceptions. Most notably, Jesus was poor, and he certainly served many. He also solved many problems, and granted many "favors." On the other hand, just think of some of our richest folks. What problems has Terrell Owens ever solved? Or Barry Bonds? Or Paris Hilton? The list goes on. Now, think of the professions that serve the most--they often get paid the least (i.e teachers, social workers, child care providers, etc.) It's our society's mixed up values, and screwed up way of thinking.

Money is not "stored energy." It is at best an inanimate object to which we silly humans attribute imaginary value, and at worst a false idol that causes much unhappiness and confusion. A human life should not measured by how much money we amass, or what our net worth is; that happens to be one of the major problems with society today--we tend to think of the poor as expendable (just look at the mess in New Orleans).

Okay, I'll get off my soap box now! :Soapbox:

[badducky]

My Dad always put it this way: The only two resources you have are time and money. You trade one to get the other. You trade time at work for money, and you trade money you could make at work for days off. You trade money for the time it would take you to fix your plumbing, or build a car/sandwich/shoes. Sometimes, it's a better investment to save your money and use your time. Sometimes, it's better to use your money to acquire things. Either way, the only resources you have are time and money. Your time is finite, and your money depends on your ability to trade your time.

Regardless of what economic theorists expat quotes and misquotes, I think we should stick with my Dad's approach. He's a very successful man, and an excellent manager of money. Poor dad who became rich dad... Simple, clean and effective.

[cwfgal]

I grew up in poverty as bad as it gets in this country, and nearly all my family were incredibly poor Appalachian Mountain people who all "did what they had to do." All this ever did was guarantee they would never be much better off, and neither would their children.

It isn't about inherent nobility, it isn't about "suffering for you art," it's about what works and what doesn't. "Do what you have to do" should mean doing that thing now that will produce the best result in the future. Working jobs you hate, doing whatever it takes to get by, is the worst possible way of building a good future for yourself, and probably for your kids.


First off, not everyone knows what thing now will produce the best result in the future. Doing what you have to do is how you reach those future goals, but things can happen that alter the path because the future is unpredictable. I have a job now that I love. It allows me to make enough money to live quite comfortably and still have enough time available to indulge in one of my other loves: writing. But in order to reach this current state of affairs, I worked at plenty of jobs that I hated. I was a single mom and I did what I had to do to keep my kid fed and clothed, and to further my own education so I could have the job I have now. I spent plenty of years dirt poor and dodging bill collectors and it's a horrible way to live. It caused pressure, stress, and anxiety, and that stifled any creative urges I might have had. Nowadays I can pay my bills easily and I promise you, it's much, much better. And since all of my published, moneymaking writing came long after the lean years, I think it's safe to say that achieving financial security only helped me achieve my writing goals and hone my writing skills, not the other way around.



"Doing what you have to do" when you're talking about the poor usually means a life of guaranteed poverty, poor jobs, and dying too young. There's no inherent nobility in this, either. It's a steel trap for most, and it means thirty years down the road they'll still be working jobs they hate, and on a percentage basis, their kids are also far more likely to live a similar life.


There is a great deal of nobility in doing what one needs to do to try and give oneself and one's family the best life possible. Your generalizations are false and insulting to the millions of poor who did what they had to do and found happiness and success as a result--whatever their definition of happiness and success might be. And there are plenty of people out there who have done just that, myself included.


Almost no one gets out of poverty by "doing what they have to do." Working jobs tyhey hate, having little money month to month, unless there's also a dream attached.


Most people have multiple dreams attached, some of which are completely unrealistic and do nothing to encourage success.


Being poor because "You're doing what you have to do" is not only ignoble, it's just not very smart. Being poor because you're not willing to settle for such a life, because you're willing to spend five or six or ten years in poverty if it means a much larger chance of a good life down the road, is the best possible way of breaking out of poverty.


You seem to be contradicting yourself. Being poor now and working at a job you hate because you want a better life down the road is doing what you have to do. And it's damned smart for those who do it right and well.


This can mean "suffering for your art," or it can mean finding something else you love to do and then doing whatever it takes to get a college degree in that area, or spending some years in poverty in order to build a new and better business model, whatever.


That sounds like doing what you have to do.


But this I know. You can't get out of poverty, you can't build a future with comfortable middle years and a retirement with enough money to matter, by working lousy jobs just because they pay the bills.


Um, yes you can. I and millions of others are proof of that.


I suspect "suffering for you art" is a term coined by someone unwilling to suffer for anything.

If you're poor, if your family has no money, and you can't marry money, and you want to be an engineer or a doctor, then you need to be willing to spend many years eating nothing but Raman noodles and crackers and ketchup swiped from restaurant tables, going deep in debt with loans, live hand to mouth, and doing whatever it takes to get a degree. Funny how no one calls this "suffering for your degree."


Most do call it something along those lines. They call it making sacrifices. They call it doing what you have to do. If you want to live lean and not hold down a regular job because you want to write all the time, fine. Do what you have to do to achieve that goal. But don't pretend it's any more noble, or smart, or more sensible than the sacrifices others may make to reach a comletely different goal.


I know so many people down in those mountains, many of them family, who work two and three jobs, who spend sixty, eighty, or sometimes a hundred hours per week doing what they have to do to keep a roof over head and to feed their children, and they aren't one bit better off than they were fifteen years ago. Many of them are old before their time, sick, and won't be able to keep working such hours much longer.


This is simply an indication of the wrong goal. This is doing what you have to do to maintain your current lifestyle, not doing what you have to do to change it. The people you mention below did what they had to do to change their lifestyle. And there are just as many people (in fact, I'd wager more people) who got out of poverty by working as many hours as they could at jobs they hated because it was a necessary stepping stone on the way to their dream goal.


Those I know who got out of poverty did not do so by working as many hours as possible at jobs they hated, but by working as few hours as possible at jobs they hated, and as many hours as possible at making whatever dream they had come true. They got out by being willing to live with a lot less money, and by being willing to "suffer" for a dream. One "suffered" to make it as a singer, and did. A number lived literally hand to mouth to pay for one dream or another, and one mother and her two kids lived in an old school bus with no wheels, and of course no electricity or indoor plumbing, for almost six years until she "suffered" her way to a college degree.


It's quite possible some of these people would have achieved their goals a lot sooner if they had worked at jobs they hated for a while. Instead, they wasted precious years of their lives "dreaming" about the goal rather than doing what they had to do to achieve it.


If your parents have money, if you're able to go to college without struggle, if you have the education and skills to find a good nine to five job you like, and if you're content with this, none of this applies. But if you're really poor, if you have no resources, the question is not about nobility, the question is are you going to suffer for a dream, or are you just going to suffer? Doing what you have to do to get by probably means you're just going to suffer with no end in sight.

Working at a job you hate IS a form of suffering for a dream. If that dream is one as risky as becoming a successful, moneymaking writer, then yes, odds are you're simply going to suffer, because few make that grade. It's a huge gamble. On the other hand, if you're working at a job you hate because it will allow you to make enough to get through school and do a job you like, odds are you won't be suffering long. There are different levels of dreams and some of them aren't very realistic.


I've wondered whether Stephen King would have succeeded if he hadn't been living in a house trailer, and if he hadn't had so many bills he couldn't pay. Or if Tom Robbins would have made it without willingly being so poor at one point that the only food he had was cabbage stolen from a neighbor's field.


For every Stephen King and Tom Robbins, there are thousands, maybe millions of miserable people who are still living in those trailers, slowly suffocating beneath a mound of unpayable bills. They'll die there, and I doubt anyone will remember them by saying, "he lived a noble life, suffering for his art."

Beth

[SpookyWriter]

For every Stephen King and Tom Robbins, there are thousands, maybe millions of miserable people who are still living in those trailers, slowly suffocating beneath a mound of unpayable bills. They'll die there, and I doubt anyone will remember them by saying, "he lived a noble life, suffering for his art."

Beth
Finally someone caught the essence of this thread. No doubt many others have defended what they consider [their] success and adapting to the reality of being an artisan, but as Beth said so nicely, paraphrased "Much can be said about an art form that takes so much and gives back so little."

[AnnMB]

but as Beth said so nicely, paraphrased "Much can be said about an art form that takes so much and gives back so little."

Very true. But in all honesty, I don't write because it's an art form. I don't write because I think I'm going to hit it big and publish a bunch of bestsellers. I don't write because it's "noble," or because I think I have something particularly important to say. I write because it's what I want to do. I enjoy it--it's fun. I may never get "rich" monetarily, but I am happy. I can get out of bed everyday and look forward to going to "work" because I love my job.

Isn't that what it's really all about?

[MikeAngel]

The starving artist in a garret is a cliche.

The truly poor are the poor in spirit.

[SpookyWriter]

Very true. But in all honesty, I don't write because it's an art form. I don't write because I think I'm going to hit it big and publish a bunch of bestsellers. I don't write because it's "noble," or because I think I have something particularly important to say. I write because it's what I want to do. I enjoy it--it's fun. I may never get "rich" monetarily, but I am happy. I can get out of bed everyday and look forward to going to "work" because I love my job.

Isn't that what it's really all about?Yes, it is an addition and some folks just can't seem to get a fix without sacraficing more than they can afford.

It's not uncommon for actors/musicians to live in near squalor for a chance to get a gig or become the next Tom Cruise. It's an uneasy affliction with this need to perform that can make someone become irresponsible enough to become homeless.

Artisans are much more likely to become addicted to their art than the average person. Think of Michelangelo. How successful was he as a painter compared to his lifestyle. Didn’t he live on impoverish wages while creating some of the world’s masterpieces?

Poe? Who among the great masters didn’t live in poverty while working to secure their place in history? How is it that the common man or woman ever hope to match their exploits? What would many people give up to become a true artisan?

[expatbrat]

Wow – look at the outrage! Amazing… I honestly am truly shocked at the, umm, is that hatred of money, or my views, or of me. If not hatred there are some very strong views here.

Sorry I got so many people in a huff. You all sound very educated and you certainly all express yourselves beautifully. I am truely amazed at your reactions. People are questioning Tom Cruise, Donald Trump, and then firehorse started quoting some bloke called Joseph Campbell saying I’ve incorrectly quoted this fellow I’ve never heard of.

There are too many comments to go sticking quote blocks of them all in my post, but in this thread I’ve been called repugnant, nonsensical and clueless. Ouch! All because I started that money is stored favors…

What do you think money is? If it is not stored time/work/favors/solutions/art/sweat/tears/energy, what is it? Would you rather a society where we all work for the same cause, as a team, a society without that horrible money part? That sounds like communism – read the work of Karl Marx - it all sounds very nice in theory. Then go to Cambodia and see the results of Pol Pot. Go live in China and try a life under a communist government. It doesn’t work. Trying to be fair doesn’t work because people have nothing to strive for.

Living in Asia for the last 10 years (and traveling through more than 40 countries in that time) I guess my view on poverty is very different to many of you. I’ve traveled a lot and I’ve seen a lot of poverty. I picture the people on my street (Soi Khao Noi) who live in plastic bag covered shelters, walking through a foot and a half of filthy water every time it rains (and it’s the rainy season now). I think of the million plus Issan girls selling their bodies for enough money for food for their families (and these girls are well off compared to the prostitutes in Cambodia and Yunnan), and the man who pushes around primitive straw brooms selling only a couple each day.

I am surrounded by poverty, and I honestly believe that poverty serves no one. Choosing to live in a state of poverty in a western country (where you have choices) really does serve no one. Choosing poverty for your art sounds like a damm silly western notion. Sorry if you hate money. Your hatred of it will most likely insure you never have much of it.

[LeeFlower]

I don't think anyone was claiming to hate money-- they were just saying that not everyone who's rich got that way by being a really good person, and that not everyone who's poor got that way by not helping anyone.

The idea that the rich are rich because they're good/virtuous/deserving while the poor are poor because they're lazy/evil/unfit is Social Darwinism, and it's bunk. Believing it's bunk is not the same as believing that all rich people are evil and that money is bad.
----
I agree with the people who've said it's really not an either/or. Not for writing. For theater? Yes, it can be. Acting and tech work are extremely time-consuming. You can't hold a steady job, go to school, and act or work running crew at the same time. Not if you're expecting that job to support you. That's just how that system works, and it does work. You put in the time for a year or two, and if you're good at what you do, the directors and the people they work with will remember you, and that leads to paid work.

But writing isn't like that. It's not an apprenticeship-type field the way theater is. I don't hear of many people who sold their first book because they interned under another author... I'm sure having connections helps, but writing well probably helps a lot more, and you can do that on a lunchbreak.

[SpookyWriter]

I don't think anyone was claiming to hate money-- they were just saying that not everyone who's rich got that way by being a really good person, and that not everyone who's poor got that way by not helping anyone.

The idea that the rich are rich because they're good/virtuous/deserving while the poor are poor because they're lazy/evil/unfit is Social Darwinism, and it's bunk. Believing it's bunk is not the same as believing that all rich people are evil and that money is bad.
----
I agree with the people who've said it's really not an either/or. Not for writing. For theater? Yes, it can be. Acting and tech work are extremely time-consuming. You can't hold a steady job, go to school, and act or work running crew at the same time. Not if you're expecting that job to support you. That's just how that system works, and it does work. You put in the time for a year or two, and if you're good at what you do, the directors and the people they work with will remember you, and that leads to paid work.

But writing isn't like that. It's not an apprenticeship-type field the way theater is. I don't hear of many people who sold their first book because they interned under another author... I'm sure having connections helps, but writing well probably helps a lot more, and you can do that on a lunchbreak.You had me until the lunch break analogy. False! I am sure some folks can plug a laptop into the nearby Arby's and do a quick chapter during lunch, but many don't write a great scene while trying to scarf down their meal.

Writing is difficult work. Practice! Don't take talent and ambition as a goal setter. Like James and many others have said before, you also need discipline.

But -- let's get back to obsession. Homeless writers, actors, muscians, painters, etc. become addicted to their art.

When an addition, as art, becomes so overwhelming (consuming) that it takes away our ability to rationalize what's in our best interest then that person has become disabled by their obsession.

Should they be compensated like others with work disabilities? Is not art work?

[LeeFlower]

You had me until the lunch break analogy. False! I am sure some folks can plug a laptop into the nearby Arby's and do a quick chapter during lunch, but many don't write a great scene while trying to scarf down their meal.

Sorry, I was trying to be clever. Perhaps it would have been better to say you can do that on your own time. There's no 'keyboard call' for writers the way there's a 'crew call' for Theater Techies. It's very hard work, but it's a lot easier to fit it around a day job, or even school and a day job (Summer Break is nice that way).

-----

Honestly though, if someone's actually letting themselves starve or get evicted or what have you because they're trying to write a novel, they're not doing it because they're trying to write a novel. They're doing it because they're depressed, or have severe mental or attention disorders that preclude effective time management or setting intelligent priorities. The novel has become their escape from their real-world problems-- not their way to solve them.

I'm sure that's a generalization, and that somebody somewhere really did just have a 'brilliant vision' that made them millions after they quit their job to go live under a bridge for a month, but I think it's fair to say that most people who've become destitute for their art (or otherwise put their life on hold... I know too many people who 'took a year off to focus on their music,' and you know where it got them? A year older and a class behind) are actually becoming destitute/putting their life on hold for far more immediate reasons.

[expatbrat]

The idea that the rich are rich because they're good/virtuous/deserving while the poor are poor because they're lazy/evil/unfit is Social Darwinism, and it's bunk. Believing it's bunk is not the same as believing that all rich people are evil and that money is bad.
.

Just for the record – I never used any of the words good, virtuous, deserving, lazy, evil nor unfit. I said those with money served someone. To a drug addict their dealer is providing them a service, for that product/service they pay money (and no, I am not saying this is a good/virtuous profession). Not all people with money got there by making products/services etc for the greater good, but they did all get there by providing something (good, bad, evil, virtuous or otherwise) that some people wanted and were willing to give them money for.

[LeeFlower]

ok, well then I (and probably several others) misunderstood what you were trying to say, and I apologize.

There are still people like Paris Hilton to shoot a hole in that theory, but I guess I can see what you're saying.

[expatbrat]

ok, well then I (and probably several others) misunderstood what you were trying to say, and I apologize.

There are still people like Paris Hilton to shoot a hole in that theory, but I guess I can see what you're saying.

How can you say that about Paris Hilton? She is one of my favorite entertainers. What is better than a huge photo spread of Paris and Tara Reid out showing their bottoms and making fools of themselves in some hip night club? The world would be a far less humorous place without these girls to make us all feel better about ourselves and our lives.

And you know; laughter can cure cancer.

(Where has Tara Reid been of late? I hope she has not gone into rehab or something like that. There hasn’t been a new photo of her throwing up in the gutters for too long.)

(Thanks for the rebuttal)

[badducky]

Being in Asia does merit another question: does money have the same meaning across the cultures?

Certainly not!

But, that is a discussion for another thread.

I stand by my father's wisdom. Time and money are your only two resources. Trade one for the other. Intelligent management thereof can lead to a surplus of both resources.

[Robert Toy]

The only things that money cannot buy are time and poverty. It can get you the genuine article or a great facsimile thereof, including love. Before anyone launches into health, would you rather be poor and sick, or rich and sick?

[expatbrat]

Asians seem to place a higher value on money. When you meet some one in asia they will ask, in this order:

What your name? Where you from? What work you do? How much money you make? Taxi drivers often don't bother with the first three questions and get straight into asking about your income.

If you keep talking they ask: How much rent you pay? How much your bike cost? How much your car cost?

If you go to their house rather than a tour of "here's the bathroom," you get a tour of "and we got this from XXXX shop and it cost XXX, and this cost XXX and this is berry expensive, this one very good and cost XXX." Most Asian born Asians are very focused on money. Foreign born Asians (ABCs) do not have this same fascination.

[Robert Toy]

Asians seem to place a higher value on money. When you meet some one in asia they will ask, in this order:

What your name? Where you from? What work you do? How much money you make? Taxi drivers often don't bother with the first three questions and get straight into asking about your income.

If you keep talking they ask: How much rent you pay? How much your bike cost? How much your car cost?

If you go to their house rather than a tour of "here's the bathroom," you get a tour of "and we got this from XXXX shop and it cost XXX, and this cost XXX and this is berry expensive, this one very good and cost XXX." Most Asian born Asians are very focused on money. Foreign born Asians (ABCs) do not have this same fascination.

Spot on - I lived in Ubon for 4 years, many, many years ago. However, I must respectively disagree with the ABC comment. Being one (Chinese), I can guarantee you that money holds the same fascination. I think it’s genetic, like gambling. :D The main difference is the ABC’s first question being “What school did you go to?” then, “How much do you make?”

[badducky]

Money buys time. Retirement. At what age do you retire?

And trading your ability to make money (via by working for the day) leads to a day off (time) on the short term.

And you buy time when you purchase goods and items. The time you've bought is the time it would take you to produce a similar good or item. I explained that in an earlier post. I'm actually repeating myself.

Manage both time and money to maximize both.

[Robert Toy]

Money buys time. Retirement. At what age do you retire?

And trading your ability to make money (via by working for the day) leads to a day off (time) on the short term.

And you buy time when you purchase goods and items. The time you've bought is the time it would take you to produce a similar good or item. I explained that in an earlier post. I'm actually repeating myself.

Manage both time and money to maximize both.

Sorry, I should have made myself clearer on the time issue. The “time” that I was making reference to is the finite amount of time that one has available before becoming one with the universe. Money will provide a better, and hopefully more positive utilization of that finite amount of time.

[AnnMB]

Not all people with money got there by making products/services etc for the greater good, but they did all get there by providing something (good, bad, evil, virtuous or otherwise) that some people wanted and were willing to give them money for.

That's true to some extent, but i believe there are plenty of people out there who had their monetary wealth handed to them without providing anything (i.e. those who obtained money by inheretance, or by winning the lottery).

And since this thread has taken on such a philosophical tone, for the record, I'm not afraid to admit that I do hate money. The roots are biblical (something about not serving two masters), and I believe the old proverb that the love of money is the root of all evil. Many of societies ills can be traced back to a worship of money. The catch is, although I hate money, I still need it to survive in today's world. So be it. But I try not to let my actions be dictated by a quest for the almighty dollar.

I have done hurricane relief work down in Chalmette, LA, and I saw first hand how those without money were treated as expendable. It shouldn't be that way. I also saw first hand how all this stuff we work so hard to amass, work so furiously to protect, can be reduced in an instant to a moldy pile of rubble. The people who survived that hurricane--really survived, physically, mentally and emotionally--were the ones whose sense of value was not rooted in money and the stuff it can buy, but rather on each other, their community and family relationships, and their faith in God.

Of course, that's just my opinion. After all, we are all entitled to express our opinions without condemnation, and we can disagree with respect.

[aruna]

I have to disagree with Expatbrat on the subject of Asians, or generally, people from poor countries. I grew up in just such a country. Poverty was all around me, every day, and still is when I go back. Of course, when you are worried about where your next meal is coming from, money is on your mind. And I too have experienced, in India, being asked all sorts of questions which would be considered taboo in Europe: how much did does a shirt cost in your countty? How much does your husband earn a month? etc.

But the opposite is also true. I more or less absorbed the cultural attitude towards money and that is perhaps the reason why it was so difficult for me to live in the West the first few years, till I had adapted: we just did not care much much about it. People were happy with the simplest things, and spent very little energy thinking about what next they could own or buy. I remember when I first came to live in Germany ' I only had one outfit and one pair of cheap sandals, and didn't want more. My boyfriend at the time - later to be my husband - literally FORCED me to shop for more clothes, a handbag, shoes, and all the rest. SLowly over time I found my "needs" growing, my tastes expanding, and I really did not like the change in myself.
It was only through returning year after year to INdia or Guyana or some such other country that I was able to keep in touch with that basic simplicity.

I have been closely accociated wiht an Indian community for over 35 years, and I have seen such a change. When I first went there, they were extremely poor, and yet somehow satisfied. More and more Westerners came there over th efollowing years, Westerers who were not only very generous with their own money, but flaunted a different lifestyle. The Indians began to want more. And more. And more. People would ask me to bring a watch for them, when I next came, or a pressure cooker. But you know, it was all so shallow., behind it all they kept their basic lack of pretention, and for me that is always very healing.

I myself found that struggling to deal with problems such as lack of money, lack of heating, cold, inability to pay bills, and so on, certainly helped with my motivation to write. I might not have started writing at all if everything was all cushy and comfortable. So suffering DID contribute to my writing career, and I've learned most in my life from the times that were truly hard.

The very act of gathering all your forces to overcome the difficulty made me a better person and as a result a better writer. I have been almost starving in a garret, (there have been times when I have searched the house for stray pennies in order to buy one day's food!) but the struggle was to change that, and I did. And even though I was weighed down by the concern, the moment I began to write I was in another world, and out of the worry.

I do hope Expatbrat is joking about Paris Hilton. I do, do, do really hope so. She and all the fluffy airheads of this world - wel, the less attention given them the better.

[maestrowork]

Asians seem to place a higher value on money. When you meet some one in asia they will ask, in this order:
....
Most Asian born Asians are very focused on money. Foreign born Asians (ABCs) do not have this same fascination.

There is a lot of generalization in your post. I think Asians, in general, are no more obsessed with money than, say, New Yorkers or Los Angelians. Capitalism is capitalism. I think many Americans do try to balance their lives better with other stuff because we have more opportunities -- when you're cooped up in the city and you work 80 hours a week and you have a family to support, of course you would focus quite a lot on money and work. It doesn't matter if you're Asians or not. There are Americans who are obsessed with money and work, and there are Asians who care more about other things. Take me for instance. I was born in Asia... I am NOT the least obsessed with money. Many of my friends in Hong Kong (talk about capitalism) are not obsessed with money. When we got together a few years ago, no one talked about money. Jobs, career, family and children, even politics -- yes. But never "how much you make and what kind of cars you're driving and how much is your house?"


There are some truths in what you say, in a broader sense; I'd caution against generalization, though.

[Kasey Mackenzie]

Goodness. All I was saying is that people (and I suppose I should say MOST people) do what they have to do to survive, and that someone who "suffers" for their art (i.e. lives out of their car rather than doing some other sort of work and writing in their spare time) is not necessarily any more (or less) noble than someone who works one or more jobs that they do not like or possibly even hate. Not sure how it got twisted around into something beyond that.

[janetbellinger]

[quote=maestrowork]There is a lot of generalization in your post. I think Asians, in general, are no more obsessed with money than, say, New Yorkers or Los Angelians. Capitalism is capitalism. I think many Americans do try to balance their lives better with other stuff because we have more opportunities -- when you're cooped up in the city and you work 80 hours a week and you have a family to support, of course you would focus quite a lot on money and work. It doesn't matter if you're Asians or not. There are Americans who are obsessed with money and work, and there are Asians who care more about other things. Take me for instance. I was born in Asia... I am NOT the least obsessed with money. Many of my friends in Hong Kong (talk about capitalism) are not obsessed with money. When we got together a few years ago, no one talked about money. Jobs, career, family and children, even politics -- yes. But never "how much you make and what kind of cars you're driving and how much is your house?"


Yes and I tutor a newly arrived Asian student whose parents are not obsessed with money. They value the same things I do - family, friends, education and self development.

[expatbrat]

Yes, my comment on Asians was a generalization, and of course the focus on money is different with different people in the same society. And Asia is huge, a Beijing Taxi driver has a totally different value system to one in Xanjaing (a strict Muslim province), Goa, Kerala, Samui or Hanoi. Please accept my apologies for generalizing.

AnnMB I agree with you completely. A love and obsession of money really does seem to be the root of all evil. Some terrible people are willing to do horrible things, wage devastating wars and oppress defenseless masses for money or things that are easily converted to money (e.g. oil).

But what was the first thing that people did to help the hurricane relief effort? They reached in their pockets and donated money. Because while the love of money will cause many problems, the exchange of money can solve problems.

Your donations of money was a donation of an exchangeable commodity that was easily converted to solutions, solutions that improved the quality of other peoples lives immediately. If giving money is good, how can having enough that you can afford to give it away be bad? From what I have read, Bill Gates, Paul Newman and Oprah all seem to be doing wonderful things with their accumulated wealth – these people not only entertain us, improve our lives (being dyslexic I would be working in physical labor if not for computers to immediately conceal all my spelling errors) and provide great pasta sauces, they research the greatest needs and help in real meaningful ways. How can that be bad?

Just to put it out there, I don’t have an obsession with money. I have very little stuff, wear cheap local brand clothing and other than my laptop, mountain bike and photos have little attachment to any objects. The biggest culture shock I ever had was walking into Cairns airport (Australia). It was after 16 months of living in Papua New Guinea, I hadn’t been in the west for all that time because I had traded my free flights home for a 5 week trip to India. I walked into the National Geographic’s shop and felt my face flush with shock and anger at all the useless meaningless stuff. The entire trip I was home I was stunned by the absolute waste of resources, I felt more alien than I’d ever felt traveling. I still get cranky with wastage when in the west and often wonder how I will ever return to living there full time.

As my tag line says, the best things in life are not things. But money can be spent in so many ways, it is not always an exchange for things.

[expatbrat]

I do hope Expatbrat is joking about Paris Hilton. I do, do, do really hope so. She and all the fluffy airheads of this world - wel, the less attention given them the better.

I like laughting at Paris (thou Tara Reid is funnier). The way those girls with so many opportunites make such fools of themselves makes me see all the great stuff in my life and appreciate what I have.

Would I invite her to a BBQ - no.

[Jenan Mac]

The funny thing about these "dedicated" artists that I've met. When you really talk to them about what they are physically, actually writing right now today, they usually aren't working on anything. Usually they're clinging to their dream to give themselves some external locus of control to blame for their failings in life. It's the last shred of pride they have to justify themselves as a non-failure. It's easier to be a failed artist than a failed human being. Artists are supposed to fail.

That isn't to say a few won't make it. Frankly, I'd buy a fellow's book if I knew he was homeless and needed the money bad. It's just to say, that no successful working artist I've ever met (and I've met quite a few) would go hungry to feed their art. Usually, they'd scoff at the posers that don't dare get a damn job.

I think that depends on whether you define "artist" as someone who does it professionally, for the money, or someone who does it because it's simply their nature to do so. Or both.
It's a whole lot easier for somebody to fake being an artist-for art's-sake than it is to fake moneymaking-artist. I'm not sure I'm willing to relegate all who don't actively seek to make money at it to the poseur bin, though.

[Jenan Mac]

Not all people with money got there by making products/services etc for the greater good, but they did all get there by providing something (good, bad, evil, virtuous or otherwise) that some people wanted and were willing to give them money for.

I assume you're ignoring those who've been born into it.

[reph]

I assume you're ignoring those who've been born into it.As well as those who took it from its rightful owners by force or fraud and those who got it by charging what the traffic would bear instead of a lower rate that would have compensated them fairly for their "energy."

[AnnMB]

If giving money is good, how can having enough that you can afford to give it away be bad? From what I have read, Bill Gates, Paul Newman and Oprah all seem to be doing wonderful things with their accumulated wealth – these people not only entertain us, improve our lives

Very good points, expat. I suppose the key is the willingness to give the money away, or use it for the greater good. Obsession with the stuff often prevents people from doing that. Perhaps, then, it's not money I hate per se, but the misuse of it (or failure to use it properly). After all, money is an inanimate object--it's what we do with it (and for it) that make it "good" or "bad."

[SpookyWriter]

Very good points, expat. I suppose the key is the willingness to give the money away, or use it for the greater good. Obsession with the stuff often prevents people from doing that. Perhaps, then, it's not money I hate per se, but the misuse of it (or failure to use it properly). After all, money is an inanimate object--it's what we do with it (and for it) that make it "good" or "bad."I agree that expat brought up some valid points about money, but how does this address the issue of writers who are obsessed with their art to the point that the suffer and sacrafice to become published and make money.

My original theme was about the writer (artisan) who foregoes the normal (plausible) existence we here take for granted because they have such a narrow field of vision.

There are people in the arts who are driven to the point that many normal people would consider insane.

Why do you suppose people believe most artisans have mental issues?

Why is it that actors are most commonly referred to as waiter’s first and serious professionals only when they’ve achieved some commercial success?

Writers are not a unique breed when it comes to the moniker of suffering for their art.

I know many people here are enabled to write on this forum because they have a semblance of stability. Can anyone here not say they are a little obsessed with publishing? What would you really do for commercial success?

Be honest. Don’t you find the lure of publishing a bit like an aphrodisiac?

[expatbrat]

I was looking for the quote someone else posted about it easier to be a failing writer than a failed person… It’s in here somewhere. There are a lot of fantastic points in here.

But I've run out of time as the housing estate lady just called by to warn me that "the poor people" have been climbing the fences and looking around our estate, lots of people have been robbed this week, and 2 men were caught looking into our house last night... That’s nice (not). Why the sudden desperation? Bacause so many people lost all their money gambling in the world cup! We sure could have some interesting discussions on the people who did get their money via thief, gambling or inheritance. I’ll leave it to you guys. I have to finish packing and get to the airport. Off to the UK for a couple of weeks (hubs is british). Lets hope all the gambling desperados don’t ransack my place while we’re gone (they have broken in once before – bastards got my laptop L last time).

[SpookyWriter]

I was looking for the quote someone else posted about it easier to be a failing writer than a failed person… It’s in here somewhere. There are a lot of fantastic points in here.

But I've run out of time as the housing estate lady just called by to warn me that "the poor people" have been climbing the fences and looking around our estate, lots of people have been robbed this week, and 2 men were caught looking into our house last night... That’s nice (not). Why the sudden desperation? Bacause so many people lost all their money gambling in the world cup! We sure could have some interesting discussions on the people who did get their money via thief, gambling or inheritance. I’ll leave it to you guys. I have to finish packing and get to the airport. Off to the UK for a couple of weeks (hubs is british). Lets hope all the gambling desperados don’t ransack my place while we’re gone (they have broken in once before – bastards got my laptop L last time).
Hopefully upon your return from holliday you will make more cents than then previous period of expat abundance. Trust me, it hasn't help with the rationing I'm sure you've become accustomed too.

[DamaNegra]

I know many people here are enabled to write on this forum because they have a semblance of stability. Can anyone here not say they are a little obsessed with publishing? What would you really do for commercial success?

Be honest. Don’t you find the lure of publishing a bit like an aphrodisiac?



Ooooooooooo I do. But it's more the fact that someone thinks my works is so good it deserves to be released into the public than money. Of course, if I could make enough money to live on it, it would be great. But yeah, getting published is one of my main goals, for many reasons.

[SpookyWriter]

Ooooooooooo I do. But it's more the fact that someone thinks my works is so good it deserves to be released into the public than money. Of course, if I could make enough money to live on it, it would be great. But yeah, getting published is one of my main goals, for many reasons.Now that's an honest answer. I think Dama represents more of us than we'd like to admit. But she is someone with drive, youth, and talent who most likely will succeed in this business. But the sad part of this thread is that Dama is capable of doing what she says.

Whereas, I do feel the obsession of some artisans to realize a steady income from this profession is merely an illusion and they will be best served if they realized this early.

Not the case. I watched several segments of America's Next Inventor and remember one guy who gave up twenty-four years of his life for a dream that he felt would be the next big game. He was homeless and living in a car because he gave up everything to pursue his dreams.

He is not alone. The world is full of dreamers. Some dreams become reality because they are what is needed or wanted at the time. Other dreamers live and die without ever tasting the fruits of their efforts.

So the theme of a living homeless writer, or any creative person isn't a myth. Just open your eyes and explore more closely the people around you. I think you'll find that this forum may harbor a few homeless writers who remain muted by fear of ridicule from their peers.

Peers. Hmmm...interesting thought.

[aruna]

I grew up with a bit of a warped attitude to money, as my father was a hard-line Marxist. He spoon-fer me the slogan that "money is the root of all evil", and only much later I learned that it is really "the LOVE of money....

So yes, there was a time in my life I hated money. Not really hated, but disdained it, and the rich. I never even imagined that I would or could one day have it in abundance; such a goal was very far from my mind. But then, in those days I didn't even want to be a writer.

After that I was a homeless hippy, who also disdained money, and after that I lived in India, and identified with the poor. I had a short period of abundance, married to a fairly well-off German, but then we parted ways and and after that I was a very poor student, and quite happy being that.

It was family circumstances and the need for money that drove me to write seriously. I knew things had to change in my home situation, and I knew I had to get my kids into good schools. I read somewhere that succesful romance (Mills and Boon) authrs could make millions, and I knew that writing was the one thing I COULD do well, though I hadn't yet tried fiction. I wrote a romance novel in 2 weeks, and I was surprsed at how easy it was, and how much I enjoyed it. I was in my 40's at the time.

That never got published, but after that I was hooked. I wanted to get published and make good money to change my life, but I couldn't have done it if I hadnt seen how much I loved writing fiction, and how easy it was for me. ANd I did reach my goal of earning enough to change my situation.

But more than that, the money I earn is a direct response to people reading and enjoying my books, and that is what gives me such satisfaction. I do want to be read by millions.

If that ever happens, and translates into money, well, for me the best of all possible worlds would be to live somewhere I love, in a tropical country where there is no winter, with a magnificent view over the turquoise sea. I'd love to have a real home, a place I can really feel happy in and stay for the rest of my life; it's a thing that has eluded me. I hate homelessness.

And if I did earn those millions, I would love to give most of it away, and just keep what I needed myself for the upkeep of my homes and travel. As you can see, I have learened not to hate money, or to see art and earning money as a discrepancy in itself.

[L M Ashton]

Just so y'all know, expatbrat's experiences with Asians asking how much you make, how much is your rent, how much did you pay for anything isn't just her experience. It happens all the time here as well. To me, it's pretty disconcerting - it's none of their business. To Fahim, who's a local, it's just same old same old.

Part of it, I think, is that people here will try to gouge anyone else for as much money as possible while being immune to the gouging themselves.

When I went to buy pencil leads, the clerk showed me leads for Rs.24, then the manager interrupted and brought out a pack of leads for Rs.85 "much better", she insisted. Of course, I bought the cheaper ones despite her protests. When Fahim and I were looking for another house to rent, we looked at one really tiny one - new, granted, but very very small - and the owner asked Rs.25,000. Based on our experience with the area and how much we were paying at our old place, I thought it was worth Rs.18,000. A few days or a week later, the owner was asking Rs.40,000 from other people. Only the larger shops have fixed prices. Most of the independents will charge based on what they think you're willing to pay. Of course, if the purchaser is white, the price automatically increases 3-10x.

Another part of it, I think, is because they're so very very poor. When we hire a maid, we pay Rs.300, or $3, for a full day's work. Cost of living is lower here, of course, and it is common enough to be able to live on a maid's wages. Average yearly earnings here is something like $850 per year.

Anyway, none of that has to do with the original topic of living homeless, but does touch on other points brought up. Do with it what you will. :)

[aruna]

Just so y'all know, expatbrat's experiences with Asians asking how much you make, how much is your rent, how much did you pay for anything isn't just her experience. It happens all the time here as well. To me, it's pretty disconcerting - it's none of their business. To Fahim, who's a local, it's just same old same old.

Part of it, I think, is that people here will try to gouge anyone else for as much money as possible while being immune to the gouging themselves.





I have had it in India and it doesn't bother me. What it is is an utter amazement that things could be so expensive; that the cost of a shirt in Germany might be equal to a whole month's wages there. They simply can't believe such prices, such wages.

I actually experience the opposite of a willingness to gouge. Unbelievable generosity, even when they know I have more than them. The joy on faces when they see you again after a year, invitations to really poor homes where they feed you all they can. Happiness on faces of people who have nothing. I remember when I first went to live in Germany from India... the thing that struckk me the most was the deep dissatisfaction on German people's faces when I rode the subway each day to work, compared with the simple beautiful trust on the Indian faces, people who lived form hand to mouth. I remember my then husband taking off his own sandals and strapping them to the feet of a leper who had only bare stumps; the light on that leper's face.

I think it really depends on what you look for. If you are afraid of being harassed and gouged, that will certainly happen. I know Westerners who have been completely ripped off and never want to return; and I know others who return year for year, love the Indians and are loved in return.

[Robert Toy]

Being an expat for more than 30 years, and having lived and worked in Asia, the Middle East and Europe, I get major culture shock whenever I go back to the States. Which thankfully is not very often – four times in the last 12 years, once for a funeral. The last time I was there, I saw a full page color advertisement for Mint-flavored Dog Bones, that are guaranteed to keep your dog’s breath spring fresh – cost $ 9.89 a bag! Can you image what reaction people in poorer countries of this world would have if they saw that advert?

People and their families survive on a fourth of that cost per day. That is the type of stupid and useless excess that really gets me going.:rant:

[aruna]

Whenever I get back from India I experience a lot of incredulity and wonder on th epart of Wesyerners regarding prices and wages in India. Wow! ONE POUND for a whole meal? OMG, this beautiful silk 6-metre sari cost you only 20 pounds? Only ONE POIOUND to get al your clothes washed and ironed by the dhobi????? People are simply amazed at the cheapness, just as Asians are amazed at the opposite. It's normal. Nothing ominious about it, unless you want to see it that way.

My friends always want me to bring good cheap stuff back from India for them.

I certainly don't think that Easterners are more materialistic than Westerners, and it's silly to compare them. There's a whole different set of values in operation there, and possessiveness is not among them; rather the opposite. It's when people have departed from their own traditional values that the decay sets in. And it's exactly the same in the West. You can find people of all persuasions, of all extremes, there as well as here.

[aruna]

People and their families survive on a fourth of that cost per day. That is the type of stupid and useless excess that really gets me going.:rant:

... and which is almost physically painful for a person who has not enough to feed their children.

I know Westerners who build houses in India. OK< they have ahigher standard, and I don't mind that. But when they put BATHTUBS in their bathrooms I can hardly contain myself. This is an area of severe drought. For huge stretches of the year drinking water is almost non-existant. ANd these Westerners come for four weeks and have the gall to deplete the ground water.

I never fail to be amazed at the good nature of the maids and gardeners who look after these houses and gardens, never complaining at the waste and excess.

[Robert Toy]

I agree wholeheartedly with what you are saying. I was just making a personal observation of what I considered to be a totally frivolous waste of money, and money being the subject discussed. There are times when I wonder which is the greater evil, the LOVE of money, or the WASTING of money.

Edit: This also applied to nature's resources

[KTC]

Unless you're the government, I think you get to pick and choose what you are going to do with your money. I have no qualms with the way people spend THEIR money. It's not my right to be disgusted by its waste. It's their money. I like when I see rich people being philanthropical...it's great for everybody. But nobody has to donate money to causes. Nobody has to spend it wisely. Once it is in their hands, it's theirs' to throw away.

[Robert Toy]

Unless you're the government, I think you get to pick and choose what you are going to do with your money. I have no qualms with the way people spend THEIR money. It's not my right to be disgusted by its waste. It's their money. I like when I see rich people being philanthropical...it's great for everybody. But nobody has to donate money to causes. Nobody has to spend it wisely. Once it is in their hands, it's theirs' to throw away.

I agree it is THEIR money and they can do whatever they want with it. I was expressing a personal opinion, which is my right, as is M/B Gates to give billions away, good for them. Nobody else has to...unless your accountant says you need to for a tax break. :)

[aruna]

Unless you're the government, I think you get to pick and choose what you are going to do with your money. I have no qualms with the way people spend THEIR money. It's not my right to be disgusted by its waste. It's their money. I like when I see rich people being philanthropical...it's great for everybody. But nobody has to donate money to causes. Nobody has to spend it wisely. Once it is in their hands, it's theirs' to throw away.

However, regarding the bathtub thing - they are going to a poor foreign country and using up a precious resource for their own indulgence. Yes, that does get me. To me it is absolutely stealing.

Just as all waste gets at me. Yes, I am disgusted by waste.. whether or not it's my business to be disgusted or not, I am. I get really, really annoyed when my daughter's friends come to my house, pour themselves a dglass of orange juice, take two sips, and leave the rest. I'm annoyed even if it;s not MY orange juice. I am annoyed when they take an apple, take one bite,m and leave the rest. When I see someone leave a water tap running, I feel like screaming.

[AnnMB]

Be honest. Don’t you find the lure of publishing a bit like an aphrodisiac?



Publishing? Ooohhhhh . . . is that what we're supposed to be doing? Hmmm. Who wooda thunk it?

Seriously, though--for me, it's not the lure of publishing that is the aphrodisiac--it is the actual writing that I am addicted to. It's an addiction, pure and simple--that's why I do it. And yes, like any addict, I would probably give up a lot just to get a "fix." Luckily, I'm in a position where I don't have to find out just how much I would be willing to "suffer."

Spooky, sorry we hijacked your thread a bit with our philosophical discussions. I'm glad you dragged us back to the point. :e2hammer:

[L M Ashton]

Unbelievable generosity, even when they know I have more than them. The joy on faces when they see you again after a year, invitations to really poor homes where they feed you all they can. Happiness on faces of people who have nothing.I've seen that, too, but I wouldn't call that normal here. It's also possible it's a difference between city people versus village life or even city people in Sri Lanka versus village life in India. I haven't spent much time outside of Colombo.


Here, I've seen locals waste just as much as the foreigners do. They just do it in different ways.

On the occasions we've had maids work for us, I've seen them take 3 hours to cook a meal I could do in an hour and use probably 4 or 5 times as much soap, water, and whatnot in mopping floors or washing whatever. Because it's not something she has to pay for, she feels completely free to waste what we have to pay for. I'm white, therefore I'm rich, after all. Or so the assumption goes.

When the tsunami hit, I asked about donating clothing, linens, dishes, and whatnot - a lot of people have extras they're not using. But I was emphatically told - and not by one person, but by dozens of people - that none of the now-homeless tsunami survivors would accept anything used. Anything to be donated absolutely must be brand new.

I knew a lot of poor people in Canada who had no problem using second hand goods, including clothing. Heck, I've done it myself.

The beggars make beelines for anyone white, and when white people (foreigners) don't give enough, they're cursed. These same beggars will leave the local rich alone out of respect or sometimes fear of being beaten.

Am I saying the foreigners are saints? Oh, goodness me, not on your life. But they're certainly no worse than the locals. Stupid in terms of not understanding local culture & values, sure, I'll definitely grant you that, and I'll even include myself in that.

Another story for you.

We went to the post office today to pick up a parcel. We were given a number to wait our turn. One man came in, and because he knew someone there, was bumped up the line and went ahead of us. His parcel contained a video camera. He paid Rs.500 in bribes - I saw the money dispersed - and no (or perhaps extremely low) import taxes. The man right before him had a laptop shipped in, worth arguably much less than the handycam (it was an old laptop), but he was being charged Rs.6000 in import taxes.

Gee. A bit of a difference there.

[Jenan Mac]

Unless you're the government, I think you get to pick and choose what you are going to do with your money. I have no qualms with the way people spend THEIR money. It's not my right to be disgusted by its waste. It's their money.

Oh, I think people totally have the right to an opinion. They just don't have the right to attempt to strongarm enforcement of it.

[SpookyWriter]

Publishing? Ooohhhhh . . . is that what we're supposed to be doing? Hmmm. Who wooda thunk it?

Seriously, though--for me, it's not the lure of publishing that is the aphrodisiac--it is the actual writing that I am addicted to. It's an addiction, pure and simple--that's why I do it. And yes, like any addict, I would probably give up a lot just to get a "fix." Luckily, I'm in a position where I don't have to find out just how much I would be willing to "suffer."

Spooky, sorry we hijacked your thread a bit with our philosophical discussions. I'm glad you dragged us back to the point. :e2hammer:Hi Ann,

Don't worry about the hijacked thread because those redirecting the intent of this thread are discussing important issues of money and how difficult it is to survive on their income, etc. is what's most pressing at the moment. True?

My take, (view of responses) is that people treat this topic much the same way as homelss people are treated in general, or the discarded hopes of people who are destined to fail because of their beliefs, or the people out there in life who struggle to make a statement with their work but are over-looked by society.

Not much surprised me here when the thread became a discussion of "Who me." or "Money money money". What did surprise me was the lack of empathy for our fellow artisans who become so obsessed with their ambitions and desires to sell their work and better their lives when in many cases they have little chance of success.

I guess it is time to step off the soap box because the message is lost and not many folks see this as an issue worth discussing. Maybe I am wrong, but who knows better -- I don't.

[icerose]

What did surprise me was the lack of empathy for our fellow artisans who become so obsessed with their ambitions and desires to sell their work and better their lives when in many cases they have little chance of success.

I guess it is time to step off the soap box because the message is lost and not many folks see this as an issue worth discussing. Maybe I am wrong, but who knows better -- I don't.

I think the reason why you find a lack of empathy here is because we are all struggling artisans. But we are doing it without living on the street.

So the saying that you have to live on the street for your art, or that there exists this either or reality is completely false. I am blessed enough to be a stay at home mom with my husband bringing home the money and putting the food on the table. We don't make much, but if I were to work, day care costs would be higher than what I could ever make.

Beyond that, before I had kids, I was working full time and going to school full time, and I managed to write every single day. I now have three kids and a house to take care of and I still manage to write quite often. Not every day as my baby is still under a year old and needs a lot of attention.

My point is you aren't going to find much empathy among individuals who successfully juggle both or all three or four tasks in their lives and move forward without living in a cardboard box on the street.

If someone ends up there because they are "suffering for art's sake" then I see that as a series of bad choices, they need to stop staring at their dream in the distant stars, take responsibility, get a job, order their lives, then work on their dream on the side, as we all are. We would all love to have our crafts fully support us, but until it is possible we aren't going to destroy our entire lives doing so.

Those who have mental illnesses need to seek professional help. A mountain of sympathy on an internet board would not help them one single bit.

I don't find the mode of living off society to follow a very difficult dream noble, in any way shape or form.

There are plenty of homeless individuals who are not there by choice. I have the deepest sympathy for them and try to help in any way I can. Those who are, well I am sorry I can't garner anything but pity, which they can muster enough self pity or society loathing on their own.

Those who remain poor because they can't afford college, well there are plenty of ways to swing it. There are thousands of individuals who have worked their way through school. I had to pay my own way, so did all of my brothers and sisters and we all did it.

Those who work two and three jobs while going through college, that is noble, they are bettering themselves and their situation by making smart calculated choices. I know of a few individuals who started out dirt poor, who had dreams of being this or that, but knowing those goals were extremely difficult they made the smart choices first, they went to college, got their education, went into well paying jobs that they didn't have to kill themselves over, and then worked on their dream, some even all along.

Those who have no notion of reality and end up on the streets, or get an eviction notice because they have tunnel vision, need a cold bucket of water thrown on them, sat down with a guidance councelor, and put on a non-destructive path.

Some dreams are poison if a person can't find balance. If that is so their dreams need to die, or at least they need to pull out of them to get a grasp on life and get their head straightened out.

Those who succeeded in those situations, well, they are far too few to use as examples, for the most part a suffering artist remains suffering until death and lies forgotten forever.

Very sad, very tragic, but also very true. If anyone is contemplating going this route, thinking they can streamline their progress, please reconsider.

[SpookyWriter]

Very sound advice and a thought anyone should consider before leaping into the arts. But you must admit, the compulsion to publish often takes over the peoples other senses, and they don't follow sound advice.

[icerose]

The allure of publishing is very strong, but the more they finite their focus, it is very possible that it could delay their success.

As a few other writers I have seen, they are so focused on achieving their goals, that they don't stop to learn how to write a query letter, proper formatting, proper behavior. They don't stop to show their work to a critique group, and have their flaws pointed out so they can fix them and improve.

More often than not, the more closed your vision is in any field, the more opportunities and learning experiences you are going to miss out on.

So someone who could have been a great success, never is because they are unable to remove the blinders and see what's going on around them.