Once a poet, always poor
Thursday, 19. February 2009, 14:28:37
Earlier today, I was going to whimsically post Morrissey's Interesting Drug on my blog and say that that was what my day today would be, except without the drugs (and I don't mean it would be interesting), but I found what I had suspected might be the case, anyway. The official video for the song has no sound on YouTube:
Oh well, it was a silly idea, anyway, I thought to myself, and forgot all about it. I should probably explain a little background here, though. I'd noticed before that the same thing has happened to a great number of the official Morrissey music videos on YouTube recently. I wondered if this had anything to do with the recent leak of Morrissey's new album on the Internet. It occurred to me that Morrissey himself might have got pissed off with people having free access to his creative output. However, I noticed this time that the only videos affected in this way seem to be the Warner Music Group videos, and Morrissey has changed label a number of times since then.
Anyway, I've been meaning to look up some Dorothy Parker poems, and so I took myself along to Poemhunter. I noticed that the homepage of the site lists the "top 500 poets"... of what? It's typical these days to find that people don't define their parameters. It's really quite annoying. Presumably this means the five hundred poets who are most searched for on Poemhunter. And this, presumably, is a selection already narrowed down to include only those poets who have poems reproduced on Poemhunter in the first place. Anyway, this idea intrigued me for some reason. Probably far too trustingly, I took the poets to be arranged in order of Internet popularity. Is Shel Silverstein really the sixth most popular poet on the Internet? If he were that would be fine by me, but... it is a little unexpected. If you click for the full list, however, suddenly he becomes the ninth most popular and I begin to believe that I see the usual Internet unreliability creeping in here. Anyway, I became interested in who would be the very last poets on the list. At 500 we have - who would have thought it? - Abraham Lincoln. After a cursory perusal I pronounce one of the poems not bad, and one fairly poor.
There must be plenty of poets who are not on Poemhunter at all, though, I thought. I put 'Yang Lian', a favourite poet of mine, into the search window, and there were no matches found. Then I thought, I bet Wendy Cope won't have any poems on here, either - she'd object to her poems being reproduced without permission. This search, however, did produce two matches, neither of them actually authored by Wendy Cope. One was called 'Wendy Cope's Bank Statement (in answer to her article in the Gaurdian Weekly)' (I notice someone has transcribed the title incorrectly, with the misspelt "Gaurdian"). I presume, judging by the sentiments expressed in that poem, that the poet, John Thorkild Ellison, will not mind me reproducing it here without permission. So here it is:
Wendy Cope's Bank Statement (in answer to her article in the Gaurdian Weekly)
Wendy Cope
You have no hope
If you think the Muse will make you rich,
You may get fame
And make your name,
But the little lady is a bitch!
Whate'er you do
When writing verse
Won't earn you any money,
The joke's on you
And what is worse
It isn't very funny.
The first thing that strikes me is the third line. I don't think Wendy Cope has ever said that she expects to become rich by writing poetry. No one expects to become rich by writing poetry. No one. Is it wrong to expect to be able to make a living by it, though? Well, apparently it is. Okay. In that case, is it wrong to want any earnings that might proceed from writing poetry, as a supplement to a struggling writer's income, not to be compromised by people ripping that poetry off? According to the tone of the above poem, yes, apparently that's wrong, too.
Just about everyone I've heard express an opinion on the subject (including a friend of mine who is a poet) seems to think that Wendy Cope is wrong, or misguided, or they are "disappointed" in her tone. I must say, at least judging from the Guardian article, I find what she says eminently reasonable. No one would be "disappointed" in a greengrocer for not wanting to give away all his plums to anyone who felt like taking them. Why are they disappointed with Wendy Cope?
Now, there's nothing wrong with giving plums away, don't get me wrong. However, generosity consists in giving things yourself, not in expecting others to give them. Being humble is not being humble if you expect everyone else - to the point of coerciveness - to be humble. Then it becomes self-righteousness.
Just to make myself slightly clearer - if any content on this blog (for instance) is in breach of copyright laws, and someone wanted me to pay up or take the content down, I would happily accept that ultimatum. I wouldn't just think they were a fascist for wanting me to pay for what I had taken, as so many these days seem to.
I do have mixed feelings about this, because the Internet and the digital age are changing the way that information is treated, and I enjoy free content too. However, I support the idea of creative people trying to make a living from their creativity, and not having the means of making a living snatched from them.
It's still a very grey area for me, as, perhaps, it is for many people. For instance, not long ago I discovered that a story of mine was available to read on the Internet without any permission from me. I was a bit miffed, especially as I was offering that story, with what I thought a reasonable amount of exclusivity, to a book publisher, for a collection. I'm not going to say what the story is. I sighed, but I have taken no action. Perhaps I should. I don't actually know.
A few days ago, Momus wrote an entry in his blog entitled The Death of Magazines, about the way the Internet seems to have hamstrung the circulation of printed periodicals. I left a few half-ranting and possibly half-baked comments there, from the starting point of Morrissey's new album being leaked on the Internet:
I wrote to the poet friend I mentioned briefly above in an e-mail that probably said something like, "I hate life and I want to die. The world is ending and there's no future for anyone whose only skill is to create 'information'."
He wrote back reassuring me that though the world may indeed be ending, it is still quite possible to make a living by producing 'information'.
I wrote back:
Yesterday, after an internal struggle regarding my financial situation, I ordered a CD copy of Morrissey's Years of Refusal from Amazon. I expect it will arrive tomorrow, if the sorting office staff are not too boozed up. I noticed that the CD is to be shipped from Jersey. I heard recently that a tax loophole has meant that many traders are shipping from Jersey in order to undercut the market, and a lot of independent record shops can't compete with this.
Shit!
Oh well, it was a silly idea, anyway, I thought to myself, and forgot all about it. I should probably explain a little background here, though. I'd noticed before that the same thing has happened to a great number of the official Morrissey music videos on YouTube recently. I wondered if this had anything to do with the recent leak of Morrissey's new album on the Internet. It occurred to me that Morrissey himself might have got pissed off with people having free access to his creative output. However, I noticed this time that the only videos affected in this way seem to be the Warner Music Group videos, and Morrissey has changed label a number of times since then.
Anyway, I've been meaning to look up some Dorothy Parker poems, and so I took myself along to Poemhunter. I noticed that the homepage of the site lists the "top 500 poets"... of what? It's typical these days to find that people don't define their parameters. It's really quite annoying. Presumably this means the five hundred poets who are most searched for on Poemhunter. And this, presumably, is a selection already narrowed down to include only those poets who have poems reproduced on Poemhunter in the first place. Anyway, this idea intrigued me for some reason. Probably far too trustingly, I took the poets to be arranged in order of Internet popularity. Is Shel Silverstein really the sixth most popular poet on the Internet? If he were that would be fine by me, but... it is a little unexpected. If you click for the full list, however, suddenly he becomes the ninth most popular and I begin to believe that I see the usual Internet unreliability creeping in here. Anyway, I became interested in who would be the very last poets on the list. At 500 we have - who would have thought it? - Abraham Lincoln. After a cursory perusal I pronounce one of the poems not bad, and one fairly poor.
There must be plenty of poets who are not on Poemhunter at all, though, I thought. I put 'Yang Lian', a favourite poet of mine, into the search window, and there were no matches found. Then I thought, I bet Wendy Cope won't have any poems on here, either - she'd object to her poems being reproduced without permission. This search, however, did produce two matches, neither of them actually authored by Wendy Cope. One was called 'Wendy Cope's Bank Statement (in answer to her article in the Gaurdian Weekly)' (I notice someone has transcribed the title incorrectly, with the misspelt "Gaurdian"). I presume, judging by the sentiments expressed in that poem, that the poet, John Thorkild Ellison, will not mind me reproducing it here without permission. So here it is:
Wendy Cope's Bank Statement (in answer to her article in the Gaurdian Weekly)
Wendy Cope
You have no hope
If you think the Muse will make you rich,
You may get fame
And make your name,
But the little lady is a bitch!
Whate'er you do
When writing verse
Won't earn you any money,
The joke's on you
And what is worse
It isn't very funny.
The first thing that strikes me is the third line. I don't think Wendy Cope has ever said that she expects to become rich by writing poetry. No one expects to become rich by writing poetry. No one. Is it wrong to expect to be able to make a living by it, though? Well, apparently it is. Okay. In that case, is it wrong to want any earnings that might proceed from writing poetry, as a supplement to a struggling writer's income, not to be compromised by people ripping that poetry off? According to the tone of the above poem, yes, apparently that's wrong, too.
Just about everyone I've heard express an opinion on the subject (including a friend of mine who is a poet) seems to think that Wendy Cope is wrong, or misguided, or they are "disappointed" in her tone. I must say, at least judging from the Guardian article, I find what she says eminently reasonable. No one would be "disappointed" in a greengrocer for not wanting to give away all his plums to anyone who felt like taking them. Why are they disappointed with Wendy Cope?
Now, there's nothing wrong with giving plums away, don't get me wrong. However, generosity consists in giving things yourself, not in expecting others to give them. Being humble is not being humble if you expect everyone else - to the point of coerciveness - to be humble. Then it becomes self-righteousness.
Just to make myself slightly clearer - if any content on this blog (for instance) is in breach of copyright laws, and someone wanted me to pay up or take the content down, I would happily accept that ultimatum. I wouldn't just think they were a fascist for wanting me to pay for what I had taken, as so many these days seem to.
I do have mixed feelings about this, because the Internet and the digital age are changing the way that information is treated, and I enjoy free content too. However, I support the idea of creative people trying to make a living from their creativity, and not having the means of making a living snatched from them.
It's still a very grey area for me, as, perhaps, it is for many people. For instance, not long ago I discovered that a story of mine was available to read on the Internet without any permission from me. I was a bit miffed, especially as I was offering that story, with what I thought a reasonable amount of exclusivity, to a book publisher, for a collection. I'm not going to say what the story is. I sighed, but I have taken no action. Perhaps I should. I don't actually know.
A few days ago, Momus wrote an entry in his blog entitled The Death of Magazines, about the way the Internet seems to have hamstrung the circulation of printed periodicals. I left a few half-ranting and possibly half-baked comments there, from the starting point of Morrissey's new album being leaked on the Internet:
I'm actually officially a freelance writer. That's even how the tax office knows me. However, I kind of wonder if there's any future for people whose talent is to create information in some way. The advantage of media such as text and music is that you can record them and distribute copies (you don't need the original). However, with information now so easily copied, leaked and spread, who will go on paying creators to create?
Morrissey's album was recently leaked on the internet. I didn't download it, because I don't do that (released today, so I should hear it soon), but here's a comment from the Morrissey Solo website about the poor chart position of the single:
"too many download it for free
I can't say anything really because I downloaded it for free, too. Still, that's the reason it's not a bigger hit. It's too bad cus it's a good song. How's it doing in France? LOL."
http://www.morrissey-solo.com/article.pl?sid=09/02/11/1617231
It might be hard to feel sorry for a millionaire like Morrissey, but there are still plenty of artists struggling to survive. Will the new generation of free-downloaders simply say "too bad LOL" as they strip our corpses?
It would be FINE if getting things for free applied to everything, but it's only information based work that is affected in this way. If you're a musician you still have to buy food and pay your rent (you can't download these for free).
I wrote to the poet friend I mentioned briefly above in an e-mail that probably said something like, "I hate life and I want to die. The world is ending and there's no future for anyone whose only skill is to create 'information'."
He wrote back reassuring me that though the world may indeed be ending, it is still quite possible to make a living by producing 'information'.
I wrote back:
Ah well, I'm reassured.
I don't care about the end of the world, as long as there's still a future for me as a writer.
Yesterday, after an internal struggle regarding my financial situation, I ordered a CD copy of Morrissey's Years of Refusal from Amazon. I expect it will arrive tomorrow, if the sorting office staff are not too boozed up. I noticed that the CD is to be shipped from Jersey. I heard recently that a tax loophole has meant that many traders are shipping from Jersey in order to undercut the market, and a lot of independent record shops can't compete with this.
Shit!
WIDGETIZE
lesoldatperdu # 24. February 2009, 00:45
Regarding piracy, literature is probably the discipline least threatened, simply because viewing text on a computer screen is absolutely not a substitute for having an actual book at hand; it's too damned hard on the eyes, and it's impractical.
If the situation escalates, I suppose high art will revert to being something commissioned and enjoyed by the elite. We'll still have folk art, of course.
quentinscrisp # 24. February 2009, 18:24
If the situation escalates, I suppose high art will revert to being something commissioned and enjoyed by the elite. We'll still have folk art, of course.
In a way, I feel a bit silly complaining about such things, or selfish. The world is always changing, and certain trades become obsolete. I do ask myself if I'm merely being 'protectionist' about this. Perhaps I am. I'd like to think I'm adaptable, but I'm not sure I really am, very. If I do become obsolete - and hopefully you're right that books are less susceptible to this - and find I can't adapt, I think I'd prefer not to linger pathetically. I'd prefer to be swept swiftly aside and disappear from the world entirely.
Anonymous # 26. February 2009, 05:51
capitalism can hold food, shelter, and medical care hostage, but not art -- not anymore. being a professional artist must be some kind of con-game -- or more like begging for alms. like a buddhist monk you're trying to sell people back the contents of their own soul which is free by default, but maybe they'll pitch in for the cost of your gift-wrap. their mercy is your currency.
quentinscrisp # 26. February 2009, 09:41
If by 'you' you mean me, then you're wrong. I would produce whether I were paid or not. Besides, I personally am not teaching anything. Creating is not the same as teaching. I'm not taking anything from anyone in order to sell it back to them. What I'm talking about is society supporting artists. Do you have a job? Do you expect to be paid for it? Would you protest if people expected you to work for nothing? Whatever you do for a living it is something that capitalism is still "holding hostage", so don't try to penalise me because I'm slightly less of a hostage. Can you live on air alone? When you can, then let me know how it's done, it would be very helpful to me. Otherwise, you don't know what you're talking about.
If you are actually talking about me (though you can't, really, because you don't knowme), there is also the division between writing that I do simply in order to survive, such as translation, and work that I do because I am internally compelled to. If you think I'm capitalist, I'd gladly compare my lifestyle with yours. Not that an anonymous commenter could ever take such a challenge. My guess is that you're far more capitalist than I am.
Let me make it simple. Should people whose vocation is some kind of art be able to make a living from it? I say yes. You, apparently, say no. I think you're wrong. It certainly doesn't have to be in a capitalist context, and I'd rather it wasn't. Should artists be allowed to eat? I say yes. You, apparently, say no. Once again, I think you're wrong.
Anonymous # 26. February 2009, 13:40
It seems to me, as a life time 'artist' that it takes a very special type of talent and skill to, as you say sell back their soul. In fact most people haven't got a soul worth mentioning. This means all they are aware of is coming to them from outside themselves, and such soulless people are unable to get anything they can create from within themselves. This sort of soulless person usually is terribly frightened of people with a soul, and usually resort to hitting out as a defence against their powerlessness.