If some writers just "phone it in," Patterson must be AT&T. And he has become mega-rich because of it. But what's wrong with that? I want to be rich. But I also want to be true to an art - not be a sellout. Where is the line?
I don't think there is anything categorically wrong with making money on the premise of art, even if it is money for money's sake. Many A-list actors and film makers started out in cereal commercials. Ron Howard had to awe-shucks his way through Happy Days before getting to Apollo 13. Bill Cosby sold Jell-O on the side. Rumor has it that Sly Stallone dabbled in porn. [Insert your own joke here] But for most artists/writers, crap art that makes money is just as necessary as high-brow art that pays, well, like crap. One has to live today in order to create tomorrow. But, for those of us that are in a creative industry, there should be an obligation to try to better the craft. If James Patterson really wants to be a "writer", he should have to write. And not just memos to his staff. He can make all the money he wants, however he wants, but he should be required to also write something legitimate. All by himself.
On another note, when re-reading the piece on Andre Schiffrin by Anne Elizabeth Moore (Punk Planet), the thought that kept creeping up on me was, "why don't they just switch notepads and have Schiffrin interview Moore?" She seemed just as interested in her own story as she was in Schiffrins. Toward the end she even uses Schiffrin's own memoir, A Political Education, as a segue into a cover story that she did on Students for a Democratic Society (which resulted in a perplexing question from a 14-year-old Punk Planet reader).
But back to the point: Andre Schiffrin uses his creative talent solely to fulfill his passion. And he is worldly, connected and prominent. Until I am either of those things, I'll be lucky to write beer commercials.
No comments:
Post a Comment