nathaniel parker
from Cincinnati is reading The Dark Tower ~ KingFebruary 11, 2012 - 7:21pm
I'd take the changing the world thing over the money too. Money isn't enough a reason to me to do anything. You can always make some money. Is 50 million some magic barometer to judge success on? No ones any better a person if they give a million bucks to charity or the 10 bucks in their wallet they were going to use for a couple Spicy Italian Subways. Buying your mom a house isn't that much better than cooking up a good dinner and spending the day chit-chatting with the parents.
Although, I don't really understand what a "Book that changes the world" would be. Only fiction I can think that might fall under that category would maybe be Shakespeare. Catcher in the Rye is a good example of having it both ways. Having a book that a lot of people consider brilliant (even though I don't) and also having a couple hundred thousand kids re-buy it every year as they reach 10th grade and "discover" it.
Actually, the more I think about it, Salinger has just the perfect amount of success and fame that I would aspire to. If that's not too bold. PLenty of recognition from his peers and fans, but still anonymous enough to walk down the street shopping without being mobbed. Everything you write you know is going to sell, (although that could get dangerous to become a lazy writer.) Kept good control over his stuff, (If someone wants a movie from something I've written, then I'll write a damn movie!) And make enough money that I can live in a nice modest home and not have to worry about money to pay the cable bill. And then have the cherry on top that places might erect statues of me after I'm dead. How could life ever get any better than that!
Anyways, my point is a better question might be to point out the level of success each person strives to reach.
Dwayne
from Cincinnati, Ohio (suburbs) is reading books that rotate to often to keep this updatedFebruary 11, 2012 - 7:49pm
Not to sound mean, but I haven't heard more people lying to themselves, ever. We'd all take the money if it were a real choice. If you don't think you would, if you really think you just want to change the world why are almost all of us working for more money in the private sector when we could find a lesser paying job that makes of a social impact?
Almost everyone trades dreams for money/comfort, and we take WAY less then $50,000,000.00 USD. That much money is freedom. To do whatever normal stuff (and lots of abnormal stuff) you want when you want. It won't make you a better person (it might make you worse) but it gives you a lot more choices and stops of a lot of day to day problems.
Even if all you care about is being a better author the money works. More time to write, hire a professional editor, enroll in classes, more time to read, and whatever else you think might make your work better/more like you want it to be.
Nick Wilczynski
from Greensboro, NC is reading A Dance with Dragons by George R.R. MartinFebruary 11, 2012 - 7:59pm
I call exaggeration Dwayne, according the the poll only 12 people are lying to themselves. If you haven't seen more than 12 people lying to themselves at once then I daresay you have not been in public.
Nick Wilczynski
from Greensboro, NC is reading A Dance with Dragons by George R.R. MartinFebruary 11, 2012 - 8:01pm
And don't forget that past the money there is a strong difference in the category of "being remembered" which is a totally viable metric for mortal beings to consider relevant.
nathaniel parker
from Cincinnati is reading The Dark Tower ~ KingFebruary 11, 2012 - 8:13pm
Seriously, I've already got my statue planned out. It'll be me, in the nude, sitting atop a horse, that's rearing back on it's hind legs, it's front legs curled, one higher than the other. One of my hands pulling the reigns close to my breast, the other holding a sword out, pointing to the horizon.
Fylh
from from from is reading is from is reading is reading is reading reading is readingFebruary 11, 2012 - 8:21pm
As someone who does not work, does not need the money, and actually does believe in what he's been working towards for more than a decade, I can tell you that if I'm lying to myself about wanting a decent amount of extra money that badly, then I am a very good liar indeed.
I find it incredible — not immoral, not bad, but certainly surprising — that so many people who (I assume) are trying to be writers would rather get rich off the craft than have people read their magnum opus. So basically, you go into this shitty business where almost nobody makes any money, and you trade in the benefit of actually being able to make a significant other-oriented difference in return for a lot of dough. I understand the temptation, but I question the integrity of the reasoning behind going through with it. But, of course, by this point the integrity of any kind of reasoning has gone out the window.
It's not a bad thing. And if, say, your kid is dying of cancer, I don't even see another way. But if you're given the chance to make changes in the world doing what you love (a very broad thing to say, sure) and you choose a lot of money (equally broad, in the end) and turn that decision into a universal principle because of some quirky notion of human nature, then I suspect the artistry of your writing might not be the first thing on your mind anyway.
nathaniel parker
from Cincinnati is reading The Dark Tower ~ KingFebruary 11, 2012 - 9:01pm
In this day is 50 mil even that much money? I mean, right off the bat, half of it is gone in taxes. Then say you give 5 million away to charity. You're left with 20 mill to live on for the rest of your entire life. Sure, you can throw it in a bank and collect some interest, but that'll probably go right back out because you'll want to keep giving to charities/family, right? Unless you're planning on croaking before you turn 54, you best be getting a little 1 floor slab house and a '98 Civic. The you could still maybe take a vacation to Europe, or wherever, once a year.
nathaniel parker
from Cincinnati is reading The Dark Tower ~ KingFebruary 11, 2012 - 9:19pm
Who would be sitting on it? You'd have to get groceries and pay all your bills, every year, for the rest of your life, with it. Okay, maybe you could get a '98 Civic and a new electric car or some kind of cool toy.
nathaniel parker
from Cincinnati is reading The Dark Tower ~ KingFebruary 11, 2012 - 9:24pm
Melville's one that always fascinated me, concerning this topic. The guy was doing pretty well writing his "adventure" stories, but then he comes out with his Magnum Opus and everyone hates it, and he ends up broke and working a shitty job till he ends up dying a forgotten writer, till, like, 40 years later someone says "Hey! This Moby-Dick book ain't half bad!"
I think that's the extent of my "materialism," is that I'd like to at least be alive to enjoy some of the success from it. Man, did he get screwed.
Nick Wilczynski
from Greensboro, NC is reading A Dance with Dragons by George R.R. MartinFebruary 11, 2012 - 9:26pm
But those are all expenses, none of them are investments. You have to know the difference between an asset and a liability. It might take you a little bit of time to bleed all of your money away at 20 million, but unless you are using that money to increase your net worth you are sitting on it.
Bradley Sands
from Boston is reading Greil Marcus's The History of Rock 'N' Roll in Ten SongsFebruary 11, 2012 - 9:28pm
I find it incredible — not immoral, not bad, but certainly surprising — that so many people who (I assume) are trying to be writers would rather get rich off the craft than have people read their magnum opus.
You can't get rich from a book if people don't read it.
Dwayne
from Cincinnati, Ohio (suburbs) is reading books that rotate to often to keep this updatedFebruary 11, 2012 - 9:29pm
@nkwilczy - I spend A LOT of time alone, or with people who say very literal things. I'll fully admit that the vast majority of folks have probably heard more then 12 people lying to themselves at once.
@Parker - You should totally put that in a story.
@Flyh - Even if you don't need the money in the "I'm Bill Gates" sense I'd bet that it doesn't apply to the vast majority of folks making that claim. Still a lot of lying.
I find it shocking that you don't see that a man wanting more freedom is somehow a sign of integrity being out the window. Imagine if you tomorrow you DID need the money, if you did have to do 50 hour weeks at a crap job to make end meet. What would you do to be out of that? I wouldn't knock anyone for really picking this if it came to a single a or b select one, but I'd have to see it to believe it.
As for integrity, I think that if you are really trying to change the world money works a lot better then books. Money lets you say, "I feed 800 children for a year" instead of "I sparked a revolution!" which sounds cool but just feeds the ego. So yeah in a chance to decided in the specific what I think should be done to change some things I don't like vs. a vague concept that feeds the ego I'll go my specific choice every time.
nathaniel parker
from Cincinnati is reading The Dark Tower ~ KingFebruary 11, 2012 - 9:39pm
How about taking this topic and using it for the plot of Brewster's Millions 2! It'll star Chris Rock in the lead and Zach Galifinakis as his sidekick! Boom! It'll clear 150 million worldwide! Your welcome, arts and entertainment world! And just to prove I'm not a hypocrite in my previous stance, you can keep all the money you make off this for yourselves!
Fylh
from from from is reading is from is reading is reading is reading reading is readingFebruary 11, 2012 - 9:39pm
Sure, you can change the world with money, if by that you mean making very small changes so that the system you are changing still accepts your money unproblematically. That doesn't sound like change to me. It sounds like making a shit-ton of money and then giving it to charities or whatever — a good gesture, but it's a bandaid, not an amputation. Sometimes an arm needs cutting off.
And to be clear, I'm not particularly interested in financial change. I'm not hoping for a radical economic shift to come out of fiction. But that's the interest of the original question, to my mind. The fact that one of the options doesn't require a financial solution to the world being unsuited to one's whims.
Nick Wilczynski
from Greensboro, NC is reading A Dance with Dragons by George R.R. MartinFebruary 11, 2012 - 10:02pm
Feeding children isn't your best charity option, I'd go microfinance and try to help people actually get out of poverty.
Which is a self sustaining investment in itself, not a charity, as long as you get the money back into your mini-bank you are set. Are you getting your money back?
Payday Loan places manage to get their money back, you're essentially running a payday loan/community center with a reasonable interest rate. Like Grameen bank. Grameen bank makes it work.
(for various legal and procedeural reasons micro-finance is harder to do in the US and the market for that sort of thing is dominated by ripoff payday loan places).
-
Innovate! There is no reason that you can't do good and turn a profit doing it.
-
Or you could fund revolutions.
-
My fantasy charity is building a bunch of martial arts communes throughout Africa to help spread martial arts philosophy and food and the basic techniques of farming to African children and try to break the cycle of violence. Very well defended. Would only be profitable in the extreme long run. Hit the children though, if you want to make a lasting change.
Nick Wilczynski
from Greensboro, NC is reading A Dance with Dragons by George R.R. MartinFebruary 11, 2012 - 10:37pm
The rate of skip outs is much lower than you might think. Those places clean up. The interest rates are way too high, of course, which is why they are a scam, but they get that money.
You know, speaking in terms of the sociology of varying tax brackets, if the poor were better at lying and cheating then they wouldn't be poor.
Jose F. Diaz
from Boston is reading Wolf Hall by Hilary MantelFebruary 11, 2012 - 10:42pm
Reminds me of Freakonomics where the guy wonders why drug dealers live at home with their mothers.
I believe if they were better educated, motivated, and innovative they would not be poor. Lying and cheating will just get you thrown in jail next to Maydoff.
Nick Wilczynski
from Greensboro, NC is reading A Dance with Dragons by George R.R. MartinFebruary 11, 2012 - 11:27pm
lol.
I guess I can't argue that they did catch Madoff. One down. The system works!
-
Yeah, there are positive ways to get rich, I didn't argue that. But you were saying that poor people are good at stealing or ditching their loans when in fact it can be proved empirically that they aren't very good at such things. You don't loan to people without jobs. And if you're in the payday loan business you are probably ready to garnish some wages.
But they can invest that money into the means of production and increase their net value, there are a variety of ways out of poverty, but none of them are particularly... easy. And if you are in poverty then you are probably poorly equipped to pursue these possibilities.
Jose F. Diaz
from Boston is reading Wolf Hall by Hilary MantelFebruary 11, 2012 - 11:27pm
That sums it up about politics. I want something, I buy you into office, and you vote for what I want, not what is best for the country.
The funny thing is nothing extra is being produced in the world. Where is all this money coming from? I feel like we're looking at the most complicated shell game in the history of the universe.
Dwayne
from Cincinnati, Ohio (suburbs) is reading books that rotate to often to keep this updatedFebruary 12, 2012 - 12:58am
My point is that there really isn't such a thing as radical change.
People are people, they act how they act. We have some new tricks, but humans haven't had very many new ideas. A book that 'shapes the world' will do what countless other books since the dawn of writing has done; namely express old ideas in ways that are old but haven't been seen in a while. In a real way there isn't a world for us to shape beyond the people we can directly effect. No one has to listen to your idea, the children being born don't have to honor the ideals of our generation after we die off, and the history we make might not be considered important enough to make it into the history books. There is no Man Kind, just people.
Anything you do that you want to really have impact has to be done at the human level, be that charity, business, or micro-loans. Past that you have just wondered out into fantasy.
Jose F. Diaz
from Boston is reading Wolf Hall by Hilary MantelFebruary 12, 2012 - 1:02am
All this reminds me of the movie Kids. That was the eye opener for so many adults. They had no clue what the hell was going on. The funny thing is Kids is now PG compared to what kids are doing now.
As we all know. You want to shape the world, start with the kids.
Nick Wilczynski
from Greensboro, NC is reading A Dance with Dragons by George R.R. MartinFebruary 12, 2012 - 3:02am
@Dwayne:
That's hilarious. There is no such thing as radical change? What is desegregation? What was abolition? What was the growth of liberal democracy? What was the development of capitalism?
And some of these things took wars. And some of these things took laws, and most of them were so slow as to avoid notice.
But they were all fueled by books. Our popular culture determines the parameters of our thought, and before there was abolition there were pamphlets about abolition, before there was desegregation there was talk and writing about desegregation, the parameters of capitalism have always been fought out on paper first, as have those of liberal democracy.
And when you think of the world a mere 300 years ago what do you have instead? Colonial autocrats under the control of absolute monarchs? There is no such thing as radical change?
-
But I still totally want that JK Rowling money. I've been thinking about that JK Rowling money for some time now.
Dwayne
from Cincinnati, Ohio (suburbs) is reading books that rotate to often to keep this updatedFebruary 12, 2012 - 5:38pm
@nkwilczy
Very short version - No there is no such thing as radical change.
Middling version - You used the word books, and mentioned numbers of years in the hundreds and that sums it up. No one book created any of those movements, the loss or addition of any single book won't really affect the world all that much. The best I think it can hope for is to be a good summation for an author's life work and/or a genre of writing. Radical change would be fast, all at once, a big departure; not a process lasting hundreds of years.
Long version -
First I think we need to define the term "radical change" before going on. I think we would all agree in this context "change" means different. Therefore the question becomes what is "radical"?
The word "radical" as defined be the Webster' Online Dictionary.
3
a : very different from the usual or traditional : extreme
b : favoring extreme changes in existing views, habits, conditions, or institutions
c : associated with political views, practices, and policies of extreme change
d : advocating extreme measures to retain or restore a political state of affairs <the radical right>
My argument is that there is very seldom, if ever, radical change in human society because human nature remains constant. As evidence I would suggest that any change that takes place over hundreds of years that was changing before many of the people who were prominent in the movement were born and continued after they died is not radical change. It is slow incremental change.
In the specific to the points you raised I would say from what I consider least to most relevant to this point -
Since I have made no claims regarding "Last Man and the End of History" I don't feel the need to address those works.
The development of capitalism was a slow process over several hundred years as it slowly replaced the economic aspects of the feudal system.
Liberal democracy, all so known as constitutional democracy didn't just spring up over night. It has grown I would say since at least the Athenian democracy around 500 BC, but even if you only look at the "modern" era it is very different today then 18th century colonial America where women and non-whites couldn't vote. An idea that has ebbed for literally thousands of years is in no way evidence of radical change.
Both abolition and desegregation were relatively mild changes in a process toward equality over the last 200 years. We went from a society were slavery was norm with some blacks being free as 2nd class citizens to a society where they almost universally treated as 2nd class citizens. I'm not saying that being free under a highly oppressive society isn't an improvement from being a slave, but I wouldn't qualify it as "very different". Many white unfairly dominated and used blacks before abolition, and many whites unfairly did so after. I think it is safe to assert that race relations in the United States, although far better than many nations which have factions in sectarian violence, there is much room for improvement regarding race relations.
@alien - Last Man or J. K. Rowlings?
@no one - In the interest of honesty I'd like to point out that if people take away what she claims she wants the too she would be good evidence of a author whose books had a huge impact. I'd suggest starting around 11:
Nick Wilczynski
from Greensboro, NC is reading A Dance with Dragons by George R.R. MartinFebruary 12, 2012 - 5:53pm
Perhaps life is too small scale for you, I'm sorry that I lack your imagination for grandeur. I'm not saying that de-colonization was caused by "Heart of Darkness," all I'm saying is that books like Heart of Darkness helped create attitudes in Europe that catalyzed the process of de-colonization. Obviously there are better ways to make money, obviously there are bigger ways to change the world, but there are few more pervasive than to subtly change the attitudes of people who are legitimately inspired by a good book.
Dwayne
from Cincinnati, Ohio (suburbs) is reading books that rotate to often to keep this updatedFebruary 12, 2012 - 7:42pm
I'm not claiming there is anything wrong with throwing your hat in the ring as a trying to inspire people writer, but this whole "oh it is the bestest ever" just doesn't fly if you apply logic. It has good and bad, like anything else. But if you take things out of context, and pretend that books did things they didn't because those things didn't happen the way they are commonly described that is just dishonest. In all the history I've ever read things happen in context, a bit here and a bit there over the long term. You can be a part of it or try to slow it down but it just is a slow process. Spending money is a quick focused thing.
Nick Wilczynski
from Greensboro, NC is reading A Dance with Dragons by George R.R. MartinFebruary 13, 2012 - 1:35am
The reason I referenced Fukuyama was because his way of thinking has a feeling of historic inevitability to it that I find echoed in a lot of what you are saying. History goes in a certain direction, we are powerless to shape it or resist.
Like, let's say that we were engineers instead of writers. Neither one of us would be Leonardo Da Vinci, we couldn't be, all of the fundamental discoveries that get the big name recognition are gone. Neither one of us gets to be Edison, neither one of us gets to be Ford (his Fordness, lol). We are probably Dilbert instead. At best, one of us gets to be the guy who put a camera on the telephone. Our names will be resigned to the dustbin of history.
And if we hadn't put that camera on the telephone, or put up with the unending idiocy of our pointy haired boss without anything to show for it, well, someone else would have.
Maybe. And this is a pretty widely popular philosophy with science fields in America, that somebody else will do it, it's geeky, it's hard, you don't get to be Edison. This doesn't help the economy much, it doesn't contribute much to society, in a lot of ways you could say it contributes to the downfall of western society.
I am not an engineer, or a chemist, or any of that. I study Political Science. I could and maybe should be out with OFA right now trying to kiss ass so I can get enough responsibility to put it on a resume, try to work my way up the campaign ladder Ides of March style, or trying to get a law degree so I can work for a lobbying firm. I would probably have a greater influence over what sort of laws get passed in this country through either one of those paths than through writing. I would also probably make more money.
But, like you are saying, these things don't bring radical change. They are cosmetic. Dump your money in, change the law until somebody else comes along and dumps their money in. Radical change is a slow process that takes place in the hearts and minds of the aggregate pool of individuals. But it happens. And it happens faster every day nowadays, mostly thanks to Dilbert style engineers none of us will ever remember. If you want to overthrow historically untouchable regimes in the middle east you don't actually have to invent Windows, just Twitter. Maybe your name will be forgotten, but you contributed your passion to the zeitgeist and had a personal influence no matter how small on the ultimate outcome. You can hold your head high as you march to Valhalla.
But I love to write. I write because I am compelled to do so, and I don't believe that it is right to assume that this poll gives anyone any insight into why the participants write. The idea that I can foster a more forward thinking worldview through literature does appeal to me, it is how I would like to use my writing. But it isn't why I write. I write for the same reason anyone else does, because I have to.
Nick Wilczynski
from Greensboro, NC is reading A Dance with Dragons by George R.R. MartinFebruary 13, 2012 - 3:18am
But what I mostly find upsetting about your worldview is just how, antithetical to my own it is, w/r/t life.
You see, I'm kind of a dreamer. And I've never been afraid to chase those dreams down no matter what it cost me.
Like, the whole attitude of doing reasonable things and limiting yourself does not appeal to me, the notion that your actions do not make a great deal of difference in the long run or when considered within the context of the aggregate. They make a difference to me. I vote for third party candidates, and maybe they don't win, but I can look myself in the mirror.
Most of the things I've tried to do have been epic failures, but that doesn't mean that they were not worthwhile as a life experience. You want results, let go, calm down, brainwash the children. The guys who wrote Captain Planet won't end up next to Shakespeare or Melville or Goethe, but they still managed to have a significant impact on how my generation thinks about the environment.
And maybe it won't mean dick when it's all said and done. If that doesn't then nothing does. And if nothing does then why not chase your dreams and test your limits. You're just being a buzz kill, and we're only high on life.
You wanna run around poaching your own dreams that's on you, but for me, I'd rather be a charred heap of failure than running around thinking it'll all go on without me and my contributions are insignificant.
nathaniel parker
from Cincinnati is reading The Dark Tower ~ KingFebruary 13, 2012 - 3:37am
They've been running those commercials with the guy that put a camera on the phone and a bunch of other "little" people like that, so maybe one of them will get some props. Although, I don't know, because I can't tell you what commercial it was or what they were trying to sell.
Flaminia Ferina
from Umbria is reading stuffFebruary 13, 2012 - 3:46am
@Nick, bullseye! If I translate your words correctly, what you say is more or less what I meant with "the world changes itself". Singularly, you and me have no control on the final outcome of our intentions. But we can contribute in stirring toward a direction. That way, that's our meaning, our reason to be. The goal is being healthy atoms in a healthy organism.
But I love to write. I write because I am compelled to do so, and I don't believe that it is right to assume that this poll gives anyone any insight into why the participants write. The idea that I can foster a more forward thinking worldview through literature does appeal to me, it is how I would like to use my writing. But it isn't why I write. I write for the same reason anyone else does, because I have to.
I'm with you about this. Writing is my best companion since the day I became able to put letters together. This is my motivation, I don't need no other.
If my words will do any good, then the better. But shape the world? I do it already, any breath I exale.
Nick Wilczynski
from Greensboro, NC is reading A Dance with Dragons by George R.R. MartinFebruary 13, 2012 - 4:15am
@nathaniel: That's how he got all the way into my example, I would have forgot about him otherwise.
-
Yup, healthy cells in a healthy organism. If you want to feel insignificant you can, but it's a waste of your time and will prevent you from contributing what you can contribute or enjoying your insignificant existence. You're part of something bigger than you whether you like it or not.
Dwayne
from Cincinnati, Ohio (suburbs) is reading books that rotate to often to keep this updatedFebruary 13, 2012 - 1:35pm
Since I never made that claim, nor referenced Fukuyama I don't feel the need to address that.
I would also like that JK Rowling money, but I'd be pee my pants happy to make enough to quite my day job.
I'm sure there are plenty of things left to be built, and I'm sure there is some truth that sooner or later it will happen if it can. My argument would the that the difference you are trying to make is see if you can get it on there 30 years sooner then the next guy.
I'm not sure of anyone with a degree in Political Science who has brought change, of any type, ever. And that includes myself.I'm guessing there must be one I missed, but good luck.
If it's slow, it isn't radical. The terms are exclusive. I know that is depressing, but it is true.
I am not an engineer, or a chemist, or any of that. I study Political Science. I could and maybe should be out with OFA right now trying to kiss ass so I can get enough responsibility to put it on a resume, try to work my way up the campaign ladder Ides of March style, or trying to get a law degree so I can work for a lobbying firm. I would probably have a greater influence over what sort of laws get passed in this country through either one of those paths than through writing. I would also probably make more money.
The idea that you can change people's minds is so flawed I don't even know how to address it. There will always be bigots, killers, and people who just hate joy. If you are lucky you can get people who aren't like that to stand up to them, but I don't think that it is 'changing' anyone's mind.
If you can't accept that someone has a worldview antithetical to your own I don't see you having any future as a writer or in politics. People don't always agree on things, and it's a bit immature to get upset when someone holds another opinion.
I'm not saying don't have dreams, or that people's lives don't matter. I'm saying that being a vague doesn't matter. I have way more respect for Harriet Tubman the someone who was one of hundreds of writers who didn't have much of an affect alone on the slave trade. Dreams are fine, but most folks take them too far and I've spent too much time cleaning up after dreamers to ever take them out of the same category as 'crack heads' and 'petty thieves'. It's a harsh old world and not only is if foolish to pretend otherwise I'm convinced it's morally wrong.
Life experience is good to get you ready for a win, not a value in and of itself. Failure is like poo, it might be worth something because of what can grow out of it but by itself it is just shit.
It's not feeling insignificant to accept that people are people and change is a really hard, very slow process. I know that any change I bring about will either be small and focused or a small part of a slow larger longer process. I wonder what kind of self esteem problems folks have if they need to feel like they can really alter things quickly, without work. Is your self worth really tied up in thinking you are important to some super insaneo awesome over night world changing event? If you are okay with yourself it doesn't seem like it would be that big a deal to accept.
I'm convinced that the altitude you have is a depressing drug, so yeah I guess I might be buzz kill the same way someone who wants the Meth user to stop is a buzz kill. I've already seen too many folks who used to be good friends just check out of life because they were disappointed dreamers. Things didn't go well and after 10 or 15 years they just ended up going to work and going home literally doing nothing extra besides slowly going mad. If you accept early that things are what they are and you'll have to work like a mad man to change it, and even then it won't be a parting of the Red Sea, you don't need silly dreams.
Dwayne
from Cincinnati, Ohio (suburbs) is reading books that rotate to often to keep this updatedFebruary 13, 2012 - 1:39pm
Not what I said Utah! I said Crackhead or theif = dreamer regarding moral context!
And James Earl Ray was a dreamer, that was the problem. He envisioned a world with oppressed blacks, and followed that dream. And that ended up with M.L.K. Jr. dead on a hotel balcony. Realists would have let that dream go and got some lunch; even if they had to sit next to a black guy.
All I have to say to that is...
PS: I'm very hungover.
There are many more sensible ways of changing the world besides writing fiction. There are also many more sensible ways to make money.
I'd take the changing the world thing over the money too. Money isn't enough a reason to me to do anything. You can always make some money. Is 50 million some magic barometer to judge success on? No ones any better a person if they give a million bucks to charity or the 10 bucks in their wallet they were going to use for a couple Spicy Italian Subways. Buying your mom a house isn't that much better than cooking up a good dinner and spending the day chit-chatting with the parents.
Although, I don't really understand what a "Book that changes the world" would be. Only fiction I can think that might fall under that category would maybe be Shakespeare. Catcher in the Rye is a good example of having it both ways. Having a book that a lot of people consider brilliant (even though I don't) and also having a couple hundred thousand kids re-buy it every year as they reach 10th grade and "discover" it.
Actually, the more I think about it, Salinger has just the perfect amount of success and fame that I would aspire to. If that's not too bold. PLenty of recognition from his peers and fans, but still anonymous enough to walk down the street shopping without being mobbed. Everything you write you know is going to sell, (although that could get dangerous to become a lazy writer.) Kept good control over his stuff, (If someone wants a movie from something I've written, then I'll write a damn movie!) And make enough money that I can live in a nice modest home and not have to worry about money to pay the cable bill. And then have the cherry on top that places might erect statues of me after I'm dead. How could life ever get any better than that!
Anyways, my point is a better question might be to point out the level of success each person strives to reach.
I mean, can you imagine any more a dick move than someone giving you a house? "Here! This mansion is all yours!
Plus all the property taxes and electrical bills. not too mention all the heating and cooling. But it's also got a pool!"
Not to sound mean, but I haven't heard more people lying to themselves, ever. We'd all take the money if it were a real choice. If you don't think you would, if you really think you just want to change the world why are almost all of us working for more money in the private sector when we could find a lesser paying job that makes of a social impact?
Almost everyone trades dreams for money/comfort, and we take WAY less then $50,000,000.00 USD. That much money is freedom. To do whatever normal stuff (and lots of abnormal stuff) you want when you want. It won't make you a better person (it might make you worse) but it gives you a lot more choices and stops of a lot of day to day problems.
Even if all you care about is being a better author the money works. More time to write, hire a professional editor, enroll in classes, more time to read, and whatever else you think might make your work better/more like you want it to be.
You'd be hard pressed to find a job that pays less than I make.
Although, I don't know how much a social impact I have. SO there is that.
I call exaggeration Dwayne, according the the poll only 12 people are lying to themselves. If you haven't seen more than 12 people lying to themselves at once then I daresay you have not been in public.
And don't forget that past the money there is a strong difference in the category of "being remembered" which is a totally viable metric for mortal beings to consider relevant.
Seriously, I've already got my statue planned out. It'll be me, in the nude, sitting atop a horse, that's rearing back on it's hind legs, it's front legs curled, one higher than the other. One of my hands pulling the reigns close to my breast, the other holding a sword out, pointing to the horizon.
Not that I think about it too often.
As someone who does not work, does not need the money, and actually does believe in what he's been working towards for more than a decade, I can tell you that if I'm lying to myself about wanting a decent amount of extra money that badly, then I am a very good liar indeed.
I find it incredible — not immoral, not bad, but certainly surprising — that so many people who (I assume) are trying to be writers would rather get rich off the craft than have people read their magnum opus. So basically, you go into this shitty business where almost nobody makes any money, and you trade in the benefit of actually being able to make a significant other-oriented difference in return for a lot of dough. I understand the temptation, but I question the integrity of the reasoning behind going through with it. But, of course, by this point the integrity of any kind of reasoning has gone out the window.
It's not a bad thing. And if, say, your kid is dying of cancer, I don't even see another way. But if you're given the chance to make changes in the world doing what you love (a very broad thing to say, sure) and you choose a lot of money (equally broad, in the end) and turn that decision into a universal principle because of some quirky notion of human nature, then I suspect the artistry of your writing might not be the first thing on your mind anyway.
Fylh, and that's the bottom line. Well said.
In this day is 50 mil even that much money? I mean, right off the bat, half of it is gone in taxes. Then say you give 5 million away to charity. You're left with 20 mill to live on for the rest of your entire life. Sure, you can throw it in a bank and collect some interest, but that'll probably go right back out because you'll want to keep giving to charities/family, right? Unless you're planning on croaking before you turn 54, you best be getting a little 1 floor slab house and a '98 Civic. The you could still maybe take a vacation to Europe, or wherever, once a year.
But, yeah, money is fleeting.
But, what sort of person just sits on their 20 million? Money is a means of production.
And, what, you make 50 million off of one book and you don't even write a sequel?
Who would be sitting on it? You'd have to get groceries and pay all your bills, every year, for the rest of your life, with it. Okay, maybe you could get a '98 Civic and a new electric car or some kind of cool toy.
Melville's one that always fascinated me, concerning this topic. The guy was doing pretty well writing his "adventure" stories, but then he comes out with his Magnum Opus and everyone hates it, and he ends up broke and working a shitty job till he ends up dying a forgotten writer, till, like, 40 years later someone says "Hey! This Moby-Dick book ain't half bad!"
I think that's the extent of my "materialism," is that I'd like to at least be alive to enjoy some of the success from it. Man, did he get screwed.
But those are all expenses, none of them are investments. You have to know the difference between an asset and a liability. It might take you a little bit of time to bleed all of your money away at 20 million, but unless you are using that money to increase your net worth you are sitting on it.
Buy a publishing house.
No... wait... buy anything else.
You can't get rich from a book if people don't read it.
@nkwilczy - I spend A LOT of time alone, or with people who say very literal things. I'll fully admit that the vast majority of folks have probably heard more then 12 people lying to themselves at once.
@Parker - You should totally put that in a story.
@Flyh - Even if you don't need the money in the "I'm Bill Gates" sense I'd bet that it doesn't apply to the vast majority of folks making that claim. Still a lot of lying.
I find it shocking that you don't see that a man wanting more freedom is somehow a sign of integrity being out the window. Imagine if you tomorrow you DID need the money, if you did have to do 50 hour weeks at a crap job to make end meet. What would you do to be out of that? I wouldn't knock anyone for really picking this if it came to a single a or b select one, but I'd have to see it to believe it.
As for integrity, I think that if you are really trying to change the world money works a lot better then books. Money lets you say, "I feed 800 children for a year" instead of "I sparked a revolution!" which sounds cool but just feeds the ego. So yeah in a chance to decided in the specific what I think should be done to change some things I don't like vs. a vague concept that feeds the ego I'll go my specific choice every time.
How about taking this topic and using it for the plot of Brewster's Millions 2! It'll star Chris Rock in the lead and Zach Galifinakis as his sidekick! Boom! It'll clear 150 million worldwide! Your welcome, arts and entertainment world! And just to prove I'm not a hypocrite in my previous stance, you can keep all the money you make off this for yourselves!
Sure, you can change the world with money, if by that you mean making very small changes so that the system you are changing still accepts your money unproblematically. That doesn't sound like change to me. It sounds like making a shit-ton of money and then giving it to charities or whatever — a good gesture, but it's a bandaid, not an amputation. Sometimes an arm needs cutting off.
And to be clear, I'm not particularly interested in financial change. I'm not hoping for a radical economic shift to come out of fiction. But that's the interest of the original question, to my mind. The fact that one of the options doesn't require a financial solution to the world being unsuited to one's whims.
Feeding children isn't your best charity option, I'd go microfinance and try to help people actually get out of poverty.
Which is a self sustaining investment in itself, not a charity, as long as you get the money back into your mini-bank you are set. Are you getting your money back?
Payday Loan places manage to get their money back, you're essentially running a payday loan/community center with a reasonable interest rate. Like Grameen bank. Grameen bank makes it work.
(for various legal and procedeural reasons micro-finance is harder to do in the US and the market for that sort of thing is dominated by ripoff payday loan places).
-
Innovate! There is no reason that you can't do good and turn a profit doing it.
-
Or you could fund revolutions.
-
My fantasy charity is building a bunch of martial arts communes throughout Africa to help spread martial arts philosophy and food and the basic techniques of farming to African children and try to break the cycle of violence. Very well defended. Would only be profitable in the extreme long run. Hit the children though, if you want to make a lasting change.
Yes, because no one who has to use those payday loan places will ever skip out on you. Those places are scams.
The rate of skip outs is much lower than you might think. Those places clean up. The interest rates are way too high, of course, which is why they are a scam, but they get that money.
You know, speaking in terms of the sociology of varying tax brackets, if the poor were better at lying and cheating then they wouldn't be poor.
Reminds me of Freakonomics where the guy wonders why drug dealers live at home with their mothers.
I believe if they were better educated, motivated, and innovative they would not be poor. Lying and cheating will just get you thrown in jail next to Maydoff.
lol.
I guess I can't argue that they did catch Madoff. One down. The system works!
-
Yeah, there are positive ways to get rich, I didn't argue that. But you were saying that poor people are good at stealing or ditching their loans when in fact it can be proved empirically that they aren't very good at such things. You don't loan to people without jobs. And if you're in the payday loan business you are probably ready to garnish some wages.
But they can invest that money into the means of production and increase their net value, there are a variety of ways out of poverty, but none of them are particularly... easy. And if you are in poverty then you are probably poorly equipped to pursue these possibilities.
Was it illegal to put families in homes they could never pay off because you got a nice cut of the down payment? No.
But those laws were written by the NAREB and other friendly lobbying firms. Is it constitutional to pay for the laws you want? Yes.
But is it right? How far separated are these actions from the practical social implications of stealing or cheating?
That sums it up about politics. I want something, I buy you into office, and you vote for what I want, not what is best for the country.
The funny thing is nothing extra is being produced in the world. Where is all this money coming from? I feel like we're looking at the most complicated shell game in the history of the universe.
My point is that there really isn't such a thing as radical change.
People are people, they act how they act. We have some new tricks, but humans haven't had very many new ideas. A book that 'shapes the world' will do what countless other books since the dawn of writing has done; namely express old ideas in ways that are old but haven't been seen in a while. In a real way there isn't a world for us to shape beyond the people we can directly effect. No one has to listen to your idea, the children being born don't have to honor the ideals of our generation after we die off, and the history we make might not be considered important enough to make it into the history books. There is no Man Kind, just people.
Anything you do that you want to really have impact has to be done at the human level, be that charity, business, or micro-loans. Past that you have just wondered out into fantasy.
All this reminds me of the movie Kids. That was the eye opener for so many adults. They had no clue what the hell was going on. The funny thing is Kids is now PG compared to what kids are doing now.
As we all know. You want to shape the world, start with the kids.
@Dwayne:
That's hilarious. There is no such thing as radical change? What is desegregation? What was abolition? What was the growth of liberal democracy? What was the development of capitalism?
And some of these things took wars. And some of these things took laws, and most of them were so slow as to avoid notice.
But they were all fueled by books. Our popular culture determines the parameters of our thought, and before there was abolition there were pamphlets about abolition, before there was desegregation there was talk and writing about desegregation, the parameters of capitalism have always been fought out on paper first, as have those of liberal democracy.
And when you think of the world a mere 300 years ago what do you have instead? Colonial autocrats under the control of absolute monarchs? There is no such thing as radical change?
-
But I still totally want that JK Rowling money. I've been thinking about that JK Rowling money for some time now.
And don't try to give me any "Last Man and the End of History" bullshit either, because my response to that for the last decade has been "9/11."
Blah, I refuse to believe that book will last.
@nkwilczy
Very short version - No there is no such thing as radical change.
Middling version - You used the word books, and mentioned numbers of years in the hundreds and that sums it up. No one book created any of those movements, the loss or addition of any single book won't really affect the world all that much. The best I think it can hope for is to be a good summation for an author's life work and/or a genre of writing. Radical change would be fast, all at once, a big departure; not a process lasting hundreds of years.
Long version -
First I think we need to define the term "radical change" before going on. I think we would all agree in this context "change" means different. Therefore the question becomes what is "radical"?
The word "radical" as defined be the Webster' Online Dictionary.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/radical
3
a : very different from the usual or traditional : extreme
b : favoring extreme changes in existing views, habits, conditions, or institutions
c : associated with political views, practices, and policies of extreme change
d : advocating extreme measures to retain or restore a political state of affairs <the radical right>
My argument is that there is very seldom, if ever, radical change in human society because human nature remains constant. As evidence I would suggest that any change that takes place over hundreds of years that was changing before many of the people who were prominent in the movement were born and continued after they died is not radical change. It is slow incremental change.
In the specific to the points you raised I would say from what I consider least to most relevant to this point -
Since I have made no claims regarding "Last Man and the End of History" I don't feel the need to address those works.
The development of capitalism was a slow process over several hundred years as it slowly replaced the economic aspects of the feudal system.
Liberal democracy, all so known as constitutional democracy didn't just spring up over night. It has grown I would say since at least the Athenian democracy around 500 BC, but even if you only look at the "modern" era it is very different today then 18th century colonial America where women and non-whites couldn't vote. An idea that has ebbed for literally thousands of years is in no way evidence of radical change.
Both abolition and desegregation were relatively mild changes in a process toward equality over the last 200 years. We went from a society were slavery was norm with some blacks being free as 2nd class citizens to a society where they almost universally treated as 2nd class citizens. I'm not saying that being free under a highly oppressive society isn't an improvement from being a slave, but I wouldn't qualify it as "very different". Many white unfairly dominated and used blacks before abolition, and many whites unfairly did so after. I think it is safe to assert that race relations in the United States, although far better than many nations which have factions in sectarian violence, there is much room for improvement regarding race relations.
@alien - Last Man or J. K. Rowlings?
@no one - In the interest of honesty I'd like to point out that if people take away what she claims she wants the too she would be good evidence of a author whose books had a huge impact. I'd suggest starting around 11:
58
http://www.ted.com/talks/jk_rowling_the_fringe_benefits_of_failure.html
Perhaps life is too small scale for you, I'm sorry that I lack your imagination for grandeur. I'm not saying that de-colonization was caused by "Heart of Darkness," all I'm saying is that books like Heart of Darkness helped create attitudes in Europe that catalyzed the process of de-colonization. Obviously there are better ways to make money, obviously there are bigger ways to change the world, but there are few more pervasive than to subtly change the attitudes of people who are legitimately inspired by a good book.
...and, men have no wombs.
...and, men have no wombs.
...and, men have no wombs.
I'm not claiming there is anything wrong with throwing your hat in the ring as a trying to inspire people writer, but this whole "oh it is the bestest ever" just doesn't fly if you apply logic. It has good and bad, like anything else. But if you take things out of context, and pretend that books did things they didn't because those things didn't happen the way they are commonly described that is just dishonest. In all the history I've ever read things happen in context, a bit here and a bit there over the long term. You can be a part of it or try to slow it down but it just is a slow process. Spending money is a quick focused thing.
The reason I referenced Fukuyama was because his way of thinking has a feeling of historic inevitability to it that I find echoed in a lot of what you are saying. History goes in a certain direction, we are powerless to shape it or resist.
Like, let's say that we were engineers instead of writers. Neither one of us would be Leonardo Da Vinci, we couldn't be, all of the fundamental discoveries that get the big name recognition are gone. Neither one of us gets to be Edison, neither one of us gets to be Ford (his Fordness, lol). We are probably Dilbert instead. At best, one of us gets to be the guy who put a camera on the telephone. Our names will be resigned to the dustbin of history.
And if we hadn't put that camera on the telephone, or put up with the unending idiocy of our pointy haired boss without anything to show for it, well, someone else would have.
Maybe. And this is a pretty widely popular philosophy with science fields in America, that somebody else will do it, it's geeky, it's hard, you don't get to be Edison. This doesn't help the economy much, it doesn't contribute much to society, in a lot of ways you could say it contributes to the downfall of western society.
I am not an engineer, or a chemist, or any of that. I study Political Science. I could and maybe should be out with OFA right now trying to kiss ass so I can get enough responsibility to put it on a resume, try to work my way up the campaign ladder Ides of March style, or trying to get a law degree so I can work for a lobbying firm. I would probably have a greater influence over what sort of laws get passed in this country through either one of those paths than through writing. I would also probably make more money.
But, like you are saying, these things don't bring radical change. They are cosmetic. Dump your money in, change the law until somebody else comes along and dumps their money in. Radical change is a slow process that takes place in the hearts and minds of the aggregate pool of individuals. But it happens. And it happens faster every day nowadays, mostly thanks to Dilbert style engineers none of us will ever remember. If you want to overthrow historically untouchable regimes in the middle east you don't actually have to invent Windows, just Twitter. Maybe your name will be forgotten, but you contributed your passion to the zeitgeist and had a personal influence no matter how small on the ultimate outcome. You can hold your head high as you march to Valhalla.
But I love to write. I write because I am compelled to do so, and I don't believe that it is right to assume that this poll gives anyone any insight into why the participants write. The idea that I can foster a more forward thinking worldview through literature does appeal to me, it is how I would like to use my writing. But it isn't why I write. I write for the same reason anyone else does, because I have to.
I would also like that JK Rowling money.
But what I mostly find upsetting about your worldview is just how, antithetical to my own it is, w/r/t life.
You see, I'm kind of a dreamer. And I've never been afraid to chase those dreams down no matter what it cost me.
Like, the whole attitude of doing reasonable things and limiting yourself does not appeal to me, the notion that your actions do not make a great deal of difference in the long run or when considered within the context of the aggregate. They make a difference to me. I vote for third party candidates, and maybe they don't win, but I can look myself in the mirror.
Most of the things I've tried to do have been epic failures, but that doesn't mean that they were not worthwhile as a life experience. You want results, let go, calm down, brainwash the children. The guys who wrote Captain Planet won't end up next to Shakespeare or Melville or Goethe, but they still managed to have a significant impact on how my generation thinks about the environment.
And maybe it won't mean dick when it's all said and done. If that doesn't then nothing does. And if nothing does then why not chase your dreams and test your limits. You're just being a buzz kill, and we're only high on life.
You wanna run around poaching your own dreams that's on you, but for me, I'd rather be a charred heap of failure than running around thinking it'll all go on without me and my contributions are insignificant.
They've been running those commercials with the guy that put a camera on the phone and a bunch of other "little" people like that, so maybe one of them will get some props. Although, I don't know, because I can't tell you what commercial it was or what they were trying to sell.
@Nick, bullseye! If I translate your words correctly, what you say is more or less what I meant with "the world changes itself". Singularly, you and me have no control on the final outcome of our intentions. But we can contribute in stirring toward a direction. That way, that's our meaning, our reason to be. The goal is being healthy atoms in a healthy organism.
I'm with you about this. Writing is my best companion since the day I became able to put letters together. This is my motivation, I don't need no other.
If my words will do any good, then the better. But shape the world? I do it already, any breath I exale.
@nathaniel: That's how he got all the way into my example, I would have forgot about him otherwise.
-
Yup, healthy cells in a healthy organism. If you want to feel insignificant you can, but it's a waste of your time and will prevent you from contributing what you can contribute or enjoying your insignificant existence. You're part of something bigger than you whether you like it or not.
Since I never made that claim, nor referenced Fukuyama I don't feel the need to address that.
I would also like that JK Rowling money, but I'd be pee my pants happy to make enough to quite my day job.
I'm sure there are plenty of things left to be built, and I'm sure there is some truth that sooner or later it will happen if it can. My argument would the that the difference you are trying to make is see if you can get it on there 30 years sooner then the next guy.
I'm not sure of anyone with a degree in Political Science who has brought change, of any type, ever. And that includes myself.I'm guessing there must be one I missed, but good luck.
If it's slow, it isn't radical. The terms are exclusive. I know that is depressing, but it is true.
I am not an engineer, or a chemist, or any of that. I study Political Science. I could and maybe should be out with OFA right now trying to kiss ass so I can get enough responsibility to put it on a resume, try to work my way up the campaign ladder Ides of March style, or trying to get a law degree so I can work for a lobbying firm. I would probably have a greater influence over what sort of laws get passed in this country through either one of those paths than through writing. I would also probably make more money.
The idea that you can change people's minds is so flawed I don't even know how to address it. There will always be bigots, killers, and people who just hate joy. If you are lucky you can get people who aren't like that to stand up to them, but I don't think that it is 'changing' anyone's mind.
If you can't accept that someone has a worldview antithetical to your own I don't see you having any future as a writer or in politics. People don't always agree on things, and it's a bit immature to get upset when someone holds another opinion.
I'm not saying don't have dreams, or that people's lives don't matter. I'm saying that being a vague doesn't matter. I have way more respect for Harriet Tubman the someone who was one of hundreds of writers who didn't have much of an affect alone on the slave trade. Dreams are fine, but most folks take them too far and I've spent too much time cleaning up after dreamers to ever take them out of the same category as 'crack heads' and 'petty thieves'. It's a harsh old world and not only is if foolish to pretend otherwise I'm convinced it's morally wrong.
Life experience is good to get you ready for a win, not a value in and of itself. Failure is like poo, it might be worth something because of what can grow out of it but by itself it is just shit.
It's not feeling insignificant to accept that people are people and change is a really hard, very slow process. I know that any change I bring about will either be small and focused or a small part of a slow larger longer process. I wonder what kind of self esteem problems folks have if they need to feel like they can really alter things quickly, without work. Is your self worth really tied up in thinking you are important to some super insaneo awesome over night world changing event? If you are okay with yourself it doesn't seem like it would be that big a deal to accept.
I'm convinced that the altitude you have is a depressing drug, so yeah I guess I might be buzz kill the same way someone who wants the Meth user to stop is a buzz kill. I've already seen too many folks who used to be good friends just check out of life because they were disappointed dreamers. Things didn't go well and after 10 or 15 years they just ended up going to work and going home literally doing nothing extra besides slowly going mad. If you accept early that things are what they are and you'll have to work like a mad man to change it, and even then it won't be a parting of the Red Sea, you don't need silly dreams.
crackhead + thief = dreamer
Looks like it's a good thing we had that James Earl Ray guy to look out for our best interests.
wow
Not what I said Utah! I said Crackhead or theif = dreamer regarding moral context!
And James Earl Ray was a dreamer, that was the problem. He envisioned a world with oppressed blacks, and followed that dream. And that ended up with M.L.K. Jr. dead on a hotel balcony. Realists would have let that dream go and got some lunch; even if they had to sit next to a black guy.
Does KY stand for KY jelly?
I stand corrected. My equation was too inclusive.
The first equation implied that "dreamer" was greater than "crackhead" or "thief". This was incorrect. Now we see they are all equal.
crackhead = dreamer = thief
Thank you for lighting my way.
You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one.
I'm just sitting here watching the wheels go 'round and 'round...