...the writers are going on strike. Go, chaps, go! Tell it like it is! Because today's world doesn't know that without writers there would be nothing. No lines for those billion-dollar celebrities to mouth; nothing to make us think, reflect, laugh, cry, question the way we spend our time, deepen our understanding of the human condition, identify with in Grecian catharsis. No theatre, no books, no films, no philosophy, no politics, no poetry, no newspapers, no magazines and not much worthwhile stuff on the internet. Oh, and no TV. Yet individuals who would never steal a handbag or pirate a CD still can't imagine it's not OK to steal a writer's hard graft. The majority of writers are lumping along at the bottom of the heap, constantly exploited by everything from juggernaut studios to the all-powerful extortions that control chain store promotions, right down to small-time performers who think it's OK to palm them off without payment and sometimes without acknowledgment, let alone a fee that is proportional to the service they provide.
'Hollywood shakes', says the Indy's headline. I should think so too.
Here is 'Texts don't grow on trees': the Authors' Rights Awareness Campaign.
4 comments:
The problem is in presentation. Few take seriously any group who feels compelled to form a union. Those in power (along with society in general) have little opportunity to take advantage of lawyers, doctors, industrialists, and others who refuse to form collectives.
Everyone seems to believe there is strength in brotherhood, but a union implies weakness. They give the impression that the group is exploitable. Lawyers know what they are worth, and they change accordingly; they don't do business with people who won't or can't pay. Why other groups—teachers, creative sorts, etc.—don't do the same is beyond me.
Besides, striking only works when that which is being denied is of high quality and, therefore, necessity. Have you watched many movies or television shows lately? Listened to any pop music? Most any eighth grade graduate could write this tripe. For an example of a truly effect strike, read "Atlas Shrugged."
I have a lot of problems with that, J, though I understand what you're getting at. I gather you're probably in the States, where attitudes differ considerably from those here: UK unions are taken much more seriously than you suggest. (It's ironic, though, that the American incarnation of the Musicians' Union seems to have more teeth than the British one.)
Necessity has little to do with quality. For instance, striking tends to work in our public transport system, and it is abjectly not high quality, being unreliable, problem-laden and desperately overpriced. And yet while consumers hate strikes, they will mostly stick up for the right to strike - because that is the bottom line, the only recourse those workers have. Lawyers don't need to form collectives - because they are lawyers. One of the advantages of joining a union, if you're eg a musician or a writer, is the benefit of legal advice!
I have seen plenty of movies, including extremely fine ones (mainly in languages other than American - try The Lives of Others if you haven't already) And I'd love to write a pop song but haven't a clue how to do so. Do you actually know any 8th grade graduates who know how to write a sellable movie script?
Even bad stuff takes a lot of effort on its creators' part. Even Mills and Boon romances don't grow on trees (besides, many people like them). You can't have good stuff without ensuring the opportunity to try to produce it, which means that some efforts will succeed and others won't. That's the nature of human creativity...which is what's ultimately under threat when people see fit to steal it.
Thanks for your response, Jessica.
From a Socialist perspective, your argument makes a lot of sense. When something is considered "necessary"—public transportation, for example—and there are no available alternatives, quality inevitably tanks. If other transportation options that functioned independent of the unions were widely available, strikes would be ineffective. Additionally, overall quality of service would improve as the transportation alternatives began competing for your business.
Workers have plenty of other recourses aside from striking, finding a new job being the most obvious and effective. Starting a competing service would be another more risky, yet potentially much more lucrative, option. Professionals (doctors, lawyers, architects, etc.) don't shut down their entire profession to get what they want, which was my primary implication. They just look for other people willing to pay for their services.
In response to your question, not personally. But, for example, Quentin Tarantino is likely the most discussed, most lauded, one of the highest paid screenwriters in Hollywood today. He's also a high school dropout. The clear majority of the writers, producers, and performers of the songs on this week's Billboard Hot 100 left school to join gangs at age 14.
My point being: I don't see what all the fuss is about. With this quality of artist creating 98% of the foods of mass consumption, if I were a Hollywood exec, I'd simply tell them all to rot and start scouting Santa Monica Pier for my next writer. On necessity: with an enormous pool of writers who would likely be just as "talented" floating all over Los Angeles, replacing them will be no big deal. In our current system, the studio is the necessity, while the no-talent writers in the union beg for table scraps.
A great writer wouldn't need a union. She'd create her text and then sell it to the highest bidder. They'd be begging her for it, and wouldn't the tables have turned? Suddenly, the writer would be the necessity, naming her own price.
I agree entirely with your last paragraph, J! That's certainly the ideal.
Post a Comment