Michael Bracken reflects on the question of which is better: a good living in obscurity or greater exposure with less of a monetary payoff. He approaches the question as a working freelance writer, an arrangement that would terrify me. I’m not certain I want to know how I’d perform under that much pressure; I’m not at all sure I could cut it, and I don’t know if writing would be as fulfilling for me. Currently it’s just one of those things I do…because it’s one of the things I do. I send work out for publication, I receive feedback, but my habits don’t have to be that much different from what they’d be in a vacuum. Nothing more than my personal enjoyment is riding on my writing. Fame versus money is a moot question. Neither is the goal per se, and neither is likely to be forthcoming any time soon...(read full post)
I commented:
Fame is less important to me than producing the best work I can. I would write for myself, but I prefer to write for money or placement in notable journals. Getting something in return for my effort somehow completes the process of writing. Where once it sufficed that I got stories and poems out, I now need to get them out to an audience. The wider the audience, the better. Ideally I would like to write stuff that complete strangers enjoy.
I’m trying to separate the desire for an expanding audience—the desire to develop my talents—from the desire for fame. Maybe the two go hand in hand. If fame is a byproduct of developing my talents, I’m fine with that. On the other hand, I’d also be happy to make a living teaching creative writing.
No comments:
Post a Comment