So You Want To Be A Writer

[AtomicCafe1]

I wasn't sure if this should go in this section or the poetry section :(

Anyways, it's a poem by Charles Bukowski (I hope I haven't overlooked a posts already talking about it..) that gives some thoughts on this writing deal.

What do you all think of his opinions? Agree? Disagree?



So You Want To Be A Writer

if it doesn't come bursting out of you
in spite of everything,
don't do it.
unless it comes unasked out of your
heart and your mind and your mouth
and your gut,
don't do it.
if you have to sit for hours
staring at your computer screen
or hunched over your
typewriter
searching for words,
don't do it.
if you're doing it for money or
fame,
don't do it.
if you're doing it because you want
women in your bed,
don't do it.
if you have to sit there and
rewrite it again and again,
don't do it.
if it's hard work just thinking about doing it,
don't do it.

....

[Logos]

Yes you got the right forum :)

I've snipped the poem, please see:
http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?t=17515

The poem can be read in its entirety here:
http://www.poets.org/viewmedia.php/prmMID/16549

--

[mono]

Cited from (in conjunction with MLA formatting):
Poets.org: from the Academy of American Poets. Date of posting: unknown. HarperCollins Publishing. Accessed 2 April 2009. http://www.poets.org/viewmedia.php/prmMID/16549.

so you want to be a writer?
by Charles Bukowski

if it doesn't come bursting out of you
in spite of everything,
don't do it.
unless it comes unasked out of your
heart and your mind and your mouth
and your gut,
don't do it.
if you have to sit for hours
staring at your computer screen
or hunched over your
typewriter
searching for words,
don't do it.
if you're doing it for money or
fame,
don't do it.
if you're doing it because you want
women in your bed,
don't do it.
if you have to sit there and
rewrite it again and again,
don't do it.
....
Thanks for alluding to this poem, AtomicCafe1. Who could not love Charles Bukowski? To answer my own question, I have met a few individuals, actually, who dislike his raw style, at times raw to the point of perversion.
Upon analysis of this poem, its meaning seems clear - that a self-proclaimed writer sometimes has ulterior motives, particularly those of impressing or pleasing others, such as family, significant others, or even one's self. After writing a poem, a poet cannot help but feel successful, proud, and own an endowed feeling of self-worth; from time to time, we even come to impress ourselves - I have no doubt that even Lord Alfred Tennyson astounded himself when gaining the title of Poet Laureate in his time (luckily this did not seem to go to his head).
What Bukowski may infer, however, goes a bit deeper than a superficial level, how many readers tend to read the born-German poet (even though the cited site advertises him as American). Everyone can write, but writing well takes a unique talent. Can anyone learn that unique talent? Bukowksi seems to answer with a firm "no." He gives the impression that a writers' talent seems entirely innate and not learned, and he writes this in a passive tense in one of the final stanzas: "when it is truly time, / and if you have been chosen / it will do it by / itself and it will keep on doing it / until you die or it dies in you" (Poets.org, "so you want to be a writer?" by Charles Bukowski). Does he give the impression that a talent in writing seems a gift, something unlearned, but possibe to corrupt within one's self? Indeed, and he seems strong in this statement. How can something, however, inherent inside someone die? Hair color does the same throughout life; an individual born with blonde hair may eventually end up with brown hair. Equally so, learned behavior from birth to childhood may take an entirely different turn into adulthood and into elderly years from self-nourishment, or lack thereof.

[mono]

. . . I hoped this would generate some discussion. Does anyone have any thoughts? Can simply anyone write poetry? Do most 'poets' seem to write with ulterior motives (publication, fame, wealth, impressing others, etc.)? Does a poet's sense of creativity seem innate or formed, both?

[Silas Thorne]

I think that no poet, and no writer, exists in a vacuum. Of course there will be, and have been, some great writers and poets that want the fame, they want the girl, they want the power and the glory, or just human recognition, the title of 'poet'.
I also think it's good to get access to poetry early and have the words mulling through you (I don't think this is due to any innate capacity) - however that doesn't stop someone starting late and being a wonderful poet.
I agree with Bukowski in several respects: If making money is your purpose, then don't be a poet, at least a full-time one, as it's really hard to make money on this alone, which is why most poets have a day job, teaching or writing something more lucrative. You might admire other people's poetry, but you must develop your own voice. And if you only show your poetry to close relatives and friends who will smile and say how good it is, you will only deceive yourself. And poetry alone won't get the girl, though maybe it could help. Playing guitar might be cooler though! ;)
Just some ideas. Please feel free to trash them. I might disagree with them later anyway. :)

[Mark F.]

. . . I hoped this would generate some discussion. Does anyone have any thoughts? Can simply anyone write poetry? Do most 'poets' seem to write with ulterior motives (publication, fame, wealth, impressing others, etc.)? Does a poet's sense of creativity seem innate or formed, both?

I think that one of the interesting things about this poem is that it highlights the evolution of poetry. I agree with what Bukowski's getting at but it only really applies to modern poetry. I've been reading an anthology of 11th to 18th century french poetry and at some points in history poetry was more of a social practice than a form of art. In the "salons littéraires" it was a means of showing one's wit. Earlier, with court poetry, the poet was simply doing his job, a sort of ancestor of the modern publicist. Maybe from the 19th century onwards those trends disappeared since the place of poetry in society became less important.

[blazeofglory]

I am wordless. This is really moving.

Writing is a job not that easy. It is hardship but more than that it comes out of inspiration and a little out of perspiration.

Until you have a passion, a very deep-seated passion, and an undeterred will you can not be a writer.

Writing of course asks of us dedication, devotion, concentration, focus, and more than that writing necessitates a great amount of passion. You need to have instincts and without it you can be a writer but a superficial writer.

People takes to writing not out of choice, not out of passions for it but out of fashion more often than not.

I for one write as if I am born for writing. Of course I am now far from being perfect. First I need to educate myself, hone my style, incise its art. I must write massively. If I write during my leisures I cannot be a great writer.

Tolstoy, Bernard Shaw and the rest of other writers were not just popular and had attained easily, and there must have been a great amount of dedication, and sacrifice, and they might have lived through countless nights without sleep, and of course they might have perspired and were drenched with sweat and of course it was not that easy to be so great.

Tolstoy' war and peace is a book, indeed a great book that is without a doubt a matchless and indeed an incomparably beautiful book philosophically, stylistically, artistically and of course from all points of view.

It was not that easy to complete a book of this measure, and there is everything in this book, philosophy, art, literature, style and this is really epically grand.

Indeed a writer, a great writer of measure does not come out of the blues.

A writer definitely must have something and something grand, something
immeasurably great.

A writer must give something new, something unexpectedly noble, and the reader must feel he is given something really new.

[mono]

I think that one of the interesting things about this poem is that it highlights the evolution of poetry. I agree with what Bukowski's getting at but it only really applies to modern poetry. I've been reading an anthology of 11th to 18th century french poetry and at some points in history poetry was more of a social practice than a form of art. In the "salons littéraires" it was a means of showing one's wit. Earlier, with court poetry, the poet was simply doing his job, a sort of ancestor of the modern publicist. Maybe from the 19th century onwards those trends disappeared since the place of poetry in society became less important.
Agreed, and a lot of Bukowski's works almost only reference modern topics, except when writing of classical music, which seems rare, at least in what I have read of his poetry. I think it safe to say that almost every modern writer, whether s/he wants to admit it or not (I will, *raises hand), has at least one or two ulterior motives in terms of impressing others; this seems the only way to get published - we have to impress the publishers and editors to get approved and printed. I, myself, even admit writing many a sonnet for a few women to . . . well, you know. :D
In Groundwork for the Metaphysic of Morals, within the last few pages, Kant applied his moral philosophy to seemingly everyday scenarios, and one that I recall addressed a writer deciding whether to share his works with the rest of the world, or to hide them in a Dickinson-like manner. He stated that one purpose of art, in order to gain exposure, appeared to almost flaunt itself - why else would words make their way on to paper, rather than remain kept inside one's head; why would paint get splattered on canvas, instead of stay stagnant in an artist's imagination? At the time, this did not make me attempt publication, but it got me thinking. In order to share, we must impress, or make some sort of impact.

[Mark F.]

I don't totally agree with you there, nor with Kant for that matter. I've had this argument with a friend who's training to become a classical music concert pianist, so he obviously believes that the whole point of art is to share it with others. I believe the artist can create something for his own pleasure, the whole point is getting it out of your system. I know that's how it works for me.

[blazeofglory]

In fact I have a passion for writing and primarily I may have a motive for earning a little pelf and a little name in point of fact. But whatever the motive I had something intertwined with it. I have a great passion for writing. As a result I have been a dreamer, and chose to be a writer.

I can not take rest without jotting down a few words. I write everyday but it is unsystematic. I keep on writing whatever occurs to me.

Sometimes I write out of inspiration, and of course feel there is some power, a mystic power and when I start writing I get possessed by a power and at other times I feel I write just painstakingly and there is no tinge of inspiration.

Of course whether out of inspiration or perspiration I keep on writing, and this grips me fully.

[mono]

I don't totally agree with you there, nor with Kant for that matter. I've had this argument with a friend who's training to become a classical music concert pianist, so he obviously believes that the whole point of art is to share it with others. I believe the artist can create something for his own pleasure, the whole point is getting it out of your system. I know that's how it works for me.
Indeed, well said. I did not mean to imply that I fully agree with Kant, nor that I believe every art, whether literature or music, an artist should create with the intention of sharing, as the majority of my own poetry and even one of the plays I have written, composed over several months, have never seen the light of day. From what I have encountered, an artist who attempts to flaunt his/her works, especially in an immodest way, tends to end up a bit obsolete; I hate to mention him so rudely, but look at Jean-Michel Basquiat, for example.

[teashi]

Think I disagree with most of the poem. I don't see why a person shouldn't write if they don't spill everything of themselves on the page, or if they tend to rewrite a lot, or think long about using the right words.. that sounds like something many writers do.

[JacobF]

If you have to rewrite it again and again, you shouldn't be a writer? What? All published writers go through various drafts and rewrites until they get something that they're satisfied with. Some more than others maybe, and some could probably tweak their published work even more, but re-writing is a part of writing.

"if you have to sit for hours
staring at your computer screen
or hunched over your
typewriter
searching for words,
don't do it."

Same thing, many good writers go through writers block. It can happen for a couple of hours, a couple of days, a couple of years. If by "don't do it" he meant "take a break and become inspired" I would agree, but to say that you should refrain from writing altogether because you're having trouble putting the words onto the page is pretty arrogant, because I think all writers experience that at a certain point.

As for the rest of the poem, I guess I agree with it. There are writers who get published just by pandering to a certain audience, and their books are invariably bad, and there are writers who are amazingly talented but their books collect dust in the darkest corners of the bookstore. I don't really like Bukowski, though, so naturally I'm not too fond of the poem itself.

If you
can't write
prose in the
style of
verse,
don't do it.

[Mark F.]

If you
can't write
prose in the
style of
verse,
don't do it.

But he can. Anyhow, he's expressing his own idea of what writing should be and the fact that if you think about it too much it loses its charm. Of course, he's being a bit extreme about it but I understand what he's getting at.

[MissScarlett]

if you're doing it for money or
fame,
don't do it.
if you're doing it because you want
women in your bed,
don't do it.
if you're trying to write like somebody
else,
forget about it.


This is the only part I agree with. Writing is terribly hard work. Once in a while, something will come naturally, but mostly, writing is rewriting, it's searching for the right word, changing things all the time, almost getting sick over the work, working, working, working. Every writer I know feels the same way. If Flaubert had been like Bukowski advises we never would have had Madame Bovary, perhaps a perfect book.

I do agree, don't write for money or fame because that comes to very, very few. And in general, women aren't all that attracted to writers. LOL People who write should write for the love of it. Writing should be its own reward. I gave up writing because I really don't enjoy it all that much.

I don't like Bukowski, either, so naturally, I don't like the poem very much, either.

[Madame X]

I don't totally agree with you there, nor with Kant for that matter. I've had this argument with a friend who's training to become a classical music concert pianist, so he obviously believes that the whole point of art is to share it with others. I believe the artist can create something for his own pleasure, the whole point is getting it out of your system. I know that's how it works for me.

Torture-therapy. :thumbs_up :nod:

By the by; Bukowski the sage? Reeks of irony to me, but perhaps I’m giving the good man more credit than he’s worth. ;)

[mono]

If you have to rewrite it again and again, you shouldn't be a writer? What? All published writers go through various drafts and rewrites until they get something that they're satisfied with. Some more than others maybe, and some could probably tweak their published work even more, but re-writing is a part of writing.
I can definitely see a lot of truth here. Walt Whitman, for one, wrote and published multiple editions of the same poem, after series after series of editing processes; he may have well has re-written the entirety of "Song of Myself." With Zora Neale Hurston, she did extreme amounts of research for nearly every story she wrote, hence her progress in writing a short story or novel naturally took some time; I doubt it actually "poured out of her," so to speak.

"if you have to sit for hours
staring at your computer screen
or hunched over your
typewriter
searching for words,
don't do it."

Same thing, many good writers go through writers block. It can happen for a couple of hours, a couple of days, a couple of years. If by "don't do it" he meant "take a break and become inspired" I would agree, but to say that you should refrain from writing altogether because you're having trouble putting the words onto the page is pretty arrogant, because I think all writers experience that at a certain point.

As for the rest of the poem, I guess I agree with it. There are writers who get published just by pandering to a certain audience, and their books are invariably bad, and there are writers who are amazingly talented but their books collect dust in the darkest corners of the bookstore. I don't really like Bukowski, though, so naturally I'm not too fond of the poem itself.

If you
can't write
prose in the
style of
verse,
don't do it.
Bukowski had some really extreme opinions, not only on poetry, but on many subjects, and his style of writing can get a little abrasive on some readers. I have met few readers of his who think of him as "just okay" - most people either love or hate him, whether they agree with his ideas or not; the same goes for others of Bukowski's genre, such as Richard Brautigan.
I love Bukowski. He seemed a very hard, firm man, having seen a few of his biographies and interviews, masculine, uninhibited, stubborn, and occasionally violent, but in the same way as Hemingway, sensitive and emotional. In one interview with the media in his home, Bukowski even cried briefly while reciting one of his poems on a sad subject; he quickly suppressed it, however, showing that he had a very strong shell, but what got poured onto paper came from deep within that hard shell.

[Sin of Red]

Well, my views on what is considered a "poet" are propbably much more diffrent then others, as it is loosly based on the beleif that they who right for the enjoyment of writing, and write the feelings they have, are entitles to "poet" status. I'm not the kind of person who's a hardcore beleiver in "those who aren't good at writing aren't writers" mentality. Myself am not a good person at editing and grammar, in truth, it just comes to me, many times I write somthing and the grammar is just there, of course there's mistakes, but I fix those later on.

[Jozanny]

There has always been a tension, probably since Ovid's day, between the author/poet as a professional and as a creative individual dedicated to his vocation. If you want to earn a living as a poet and as a writer, then you learn how, and learn your craft. If you want to paste your poetry in a forum like this, that is fine, but in the truest sense of the word you are indulging in a hobby.

I publish, and at great personal cost, I learned that if you do not learn to treat publishing like a business, then you are wasting your time. Bukowski may have been what he was, and I did not know him personally but my editor published my byline with his, but Charles knew full well the cult of his personality sold his books. He got lucky, and luck has a lot to do with it--but so does discipline, cultivating relationships with editors and agents.

Now, poets have a counter tradition of not being professional at all, and in the post-Beat era, being nuts and on drugs. True only for those who cannot treat it as it is today, an academic career, whether you earn a salary in academics or not.

This guy (http://www.simonarmitage.com/) is one of the most popular English speaking poets in the world today. Why? He works at it.

[darkland8]

ha ha ha ha, Hi all i'm new here. actually his is my first post. =p the reason i laugh is because i have a project due tomorrow which involves annotating and analyzing a poem of my choice, and guess what i picked. i found this site jut now while doing research and i decided to join up and post my opinion.

personally i agree with Bukowski. It's not easy to be a writer you have to have some spark inside you, but in my opinion the spark and the flame inside you is created not given. I started writing poetry after a school poetry assignment where i discovered that i was actually quite decent in writing poetry and that i enjoyed it very much. Many of my past poems were always about the contrast between light and darkness and about how the human soul is evil and such, very dark and heavy stuff. this is because back when i was younger i was bullied a lot and i used those extreme emotions that i had from those times and poured them into my poems. I mean even now i find that i do my best work when i'm mad or sad and when i am the words just flow out of me i don't even have to think about it. But i don't think i would have been able to write any of my poems if it weren't for the hardships i had faced when i was younger.

But i agree with Bukowski when he says
if you're doing it for money or
fame,
don't do it.
if you're doing it because you want
women in your bed,
don't do it.
if you have to sit there and
rewrite it again and again,
don't do it.
if it's hard work just thinking about doing it,
don't do it.
if you're trying to write like somebody
else,
forget about it.
you have to realize that this stuff was witen during the second wave of the Beat Generation and that many older poetes of the time scoffed at the younger folks because they all felt that they could all be poets and such.

"There are so many," she said, "who go by the name of poet. But they have no training, no feeling for their craft. The savages have taken over the castle. There's no workmanship, no care, simply a demand to be accepted. And these new poet all seem to admire one another. It worries me and I've talked about it to a lot of my poet friends. All a young poet seems to think he needs is a typewriter and a few pieces of paper. They aren't prepared, they have had no preparation at all." (from Hot Water Music, 1995)
(http://www.kirjasto.sci.fi/bukowski.htm)

at this time it was cool and popular to be a poet. I think Bukowski was just trying preserve poetry.

one thing i do have to say is that when i read this poem i could understand, feel, visualize, and spot personal life experiences as examples for many of the things he said, and when i showed it to the members of one of my schools writing clubs they all seemed to agree with me on that.

[mono]

Any reader can say a lot about how one ought to write poetry, whether it should require effort (or draw its way onto paper aimlessly), if one should publish, if one should share, and, indeed, what kind of language to use.
Many Romantic and Victorian poets would take hours (or day, months, years . . . ad infinitum) to write one poem to find the correct words, write in rhythms, rhymes, structures, etc., so I would think it safe to say that the poems did not exactly pour out of their fountain pens; perhaps the idea of the poem came to the poets, but the language certainly did not. For one, it took Goethe decades to complete Faust, years for Lord Tennyson to complete "In Memoriam A.H.H.," and no one quite knows how long it would have taken Coleridge to complete "Kubla Khan," if he had the chance.
Walt Whitman and D.H. Lawrence sparked a lot of the formation of "free verse" in Western writing (of course Sufi poets, for one, had done it for centuries), and its initial intention focused on writing "that present moment" thoughts. Both poets ended up renowned to scratch down a poem in little to no time, with poor handwriting, due to writing so quickly, because their intention seemed to place emphasis upon thoughts at that precise moment, the seemingly infinite present time. As opposed to the aforementioned Romanticists and Victorians, these poems came almost literally poured onto paper, directly from their brains.
The correct way to write poetry? Bukowski seems to think that it ought to come flowing from the hand almost effortlessly, but explaining that to everyone from Homer and Rumi to Wordsworth and Cummings may get a bit challenging.

[kingpython]

perhaps the correct way to write poetry is irrelevant; more it is the final product that is important?

the argument in the poem is not necessarily based on the speed at which the poem is produced; the poet is telling us that poetry should be based on emotion, on the strength of feeling and if that is not there then writing poetry is pointless, empty.

of course, yeats' brilliantly carefree and unselfconscious style took many hours of crafting; he was never an 'instinctive' writer and envied those who did.

[Jozanny]

. I think Bukowski was just trying preserve poetry.

No, he wasn't. He enjoyed making money through setting up his arrogance as a counter-cultural model. Copyists *preserve* poetry. Poets write it, and they either care and recognize tradition or they don't; they either respect formalism, operate in free verse, or combine the two, and some, like Dr. Sonia Sanchez, prefer to focus on orational emphasis. She likes chants, and pushing vocalization beyond the bounds of narrative structure. Bukowski's oeuvre isn't about appreciation, but reduction to the lowest common denominator.

If you want to become a writer then you do what it takes to become one, and that includes studying your markets, not being afraid of rejection, possibly getting an MFA with any additional education credits you need to teach, and, learning that publishing is a business. Online workshops or writing samples can be bad for you, because you may end up conforming to the community rather than honing your skill, it depends, but don't romanticize it, and don't make it your life if the cost of doing so is too high. I should have listened to my father and gone into accounting, and yes, I am serious.

[Madame X]

Arbeit macht frei, as the Germans used to say. :rolleyes:

[Jozanny]

Perhaps so Madame. I am not trying to say that sharing verse posts online isn't entertaining for some. People enjoy this sort of thing. I prefer readings. Sometimes they do not click, or I'm off, or the audience is the Bukowski version of the modern bar fly, but sometimes, the chips fall into place, and there is nothing like the transmission between your power of expression and the receptiveness of your listeners.

But this said, I have paid a high price for those evenings on my electric typewriter, writing small press editors as a substitute for conversation. When I was healthy enough to maintain the right kind of job for publishing poetry, I lacked the discipline, and remained a starry-eyed moron sluiced in day dreaming. I still do it, to some degree, holding firm that I can earn back a little on the alarming spend down on my inheritance; my faith is slightly justified because I have sold more than a handful of articles since 1999, but only slightly.

I will never really have money on the basis of my talent. People in my network who had the connections to help me, they died, and I fell out with the small press slam followers of my 80's. I did have a career, for a while, independent of freelancing, but the irony, now, is that I am no longer healthy enough to hold down traditional employment.

If anyone in this thread believes in their talent for poetry, that is great, but they would do well to become a mortician, a physician, (doctors make excellent creative writers), a lawyer, or stay in the academy and engage in scholarship or teaching. My father was trying to get it through my head to plan for financial security, and I would have done better to listen, from where I am today, and if I can sober anyone into shaking the Bukowski attraction, then that is my good deed for the morning. The Beat Movement has already been done, and I published with some of the originals before they died, Charles, as I said, and Ginsberg, and I met Creeley, in a brief flare of a happy moment, and the good Dr. Bob isn't really a Beat poet anymore. I never considered myself such, except the Beats liked me, and we all screwed ourselves up together for awhile.

Now I am alone, with too many ghosts, and a body which doesn't know which orifice does what anymore, having destroyed my reading voice from smoking. To do this the right way, stay in school, get a secure profession, then publish if you have talent.

[Madame X]

To do this the right way, stay in school, get a secure profession, then publish if you have talent.

The meat of the matter, assuming the less lucrative l'art pour l'art approach, naturally. That is to say, those aspiring artistes who cannot afford to forgo pragmatics’d indeed do well not to quit their day job. :thumbs_up

...hmm, just had a bit of a Milvain moment here, not so? :p

[JacobF]

To do this the right way, stay in school, get a secure profession, then publish if you have talent.

That sentence is something I'd like to form my career by.

I know you're referring to poetry, but since I was about seven I dreamed of writing books for a living. But a few years ago I did the research and realized how difficult publishing a book would be, let alone making money from it. It kind of depressed me, so I decided when the time comes I'd pursue a career in journalism: something that also interested me. I still plan on doing that, and hopefully as I gain experience in the field I'll write stories as a hobby and, when the spark of inspiration appears, I'll take the road to publishing a novel.

I probably wouldn't label journalism as a secure profession, especially print journalism (which I want to get into), but at least I'll get a salary (unless I go the freelance route).

And if I don't have talent in creative writing -- honestly, I don't know if I do -- I'll still have writing as a hobby. I've gotten into the habit of writing everyday, so I think that'll help if I keep it up.

I guess I just wanted to share that. This thread has interested me for a few days now.

[Jozanny]

I know you're referring to poetry, but since I was about seven I dreamed of writing books for a living. But a few years ago I did the research and realized how difficult publishing a book would be, let alone making money from it. It kind of depressed me, so I decided when the time comes I'd pursue a career in journalism: something that also interested me. I still plan on doing that, and hopefully as I gain experience in the field I'll write stories as a hobby and, when the spark of inspiration appears, I'll take the road to publishing a novel.

I became a disability reporter out of nowhere in late 99. Now, it in no way equaled my social services salary of past years, but it paid much better than anything I had earned previously as a creative writer. The problem: The internet has destroyed traditional business models for newspapers and print magazines; for me, personally, I took a big hit this year, because my public housing apartment complex is situated, uniquely, to some degree, on prime center city real estate, so the government is renovating its cheap dry wall and putty units for the low incomers, and I have not been able to get comfortable working again until very recently:bawling:.

2009 is done for me though. I have to hope things will stabilize in 2010, which doesn't mean the economics of a writer's content will settle anytime soon.

More professional and established journalists have been forced to try blogging, and I will probably attempt that soon, but I might not be positive enough in tone for that, and as with anything, the market is glutted with blogs. I cannot keep up with the ones I follow, and those are from seasoned experts with a source list I'd kill for:D.

Some journalists don't believe in journalism school, but I took 11th grade journalism college track, and that was enough for me to understand how to report, query editors, so forth. Good luck with your goal Jacob.

[JacobF]

I became a disability reporter out of nowhere in late 99. Now, it in no way equaled my social services salary of past years, but it paid much better than anything I had earned previously as a creative writer. The problem: The internet has destroyed traditional business models for newspapers and print magazines; for me, personally, I took a big hit this year, because my public housing apartment complex is situated, uniquely, to some degree, on prime center city real estate, so the government is renovating its cheap dry wall and putty units for the low incomers, and I have not been able to get comfortable working again until very recently:bawling:.

2009 is done for me though. I have to hope things will stabilize in 2010, which doesn't mean the economics of a writer's content will settle anytime soon.

More professional and established journalists have been forced to try blogging, and I will probably attempt that soon, but I might not be positive enough in tone for that, and as with anything, the market is glutted with blogs. I cannot keep up with the ones I follow, and those are from seasoned experts with a source list I'd kill for:D.

Some journalists don't believe in journalism school, but I took 11th grade journalism college track, and that was enough for me to understand how to report, query editors, so forth. Good luck with your goal Jacob.

Thanks. I plan on applying to Carleton U next year for journalism. It's supposed to be one of the best journalism schools in the world, which I thought was just an empty boast. That was until my media studies teacher, who knows a professor there, helped arrange for me to go there for a day. And the things they were doing were spectacular. They were going out and actually getting real stories, with real people.

So, I guess I believe in journalism school. When I graduate the newspaper will probably be a thing of the past and I may be forced to find a job through an internet publication. If that's the case I'll probably end up doing video game journalism (either reporting on the industry or writing reviews) but I'll have to freelance for a few years if I want to end up working for big sites like gamespot or ign.

I don't think I'd ever write a blog with the intention of making money unless, like you said, I was an established journalist who already has a loyal readership. Like youtube, blogging seems only accessible as a hobby to the vast majority of internet users.

I hope things become stable for you in the near future :) If you decide to start a blog let me know, I think I'd enjoy reading it (and I'm not just saying that, I've genuinely enjoyed your posts on this board).

[darkland8]

No, he wasn't. He enjoyed making money through setting up his arrogance as a counter-cultural model. Copyists *preserve* poetry. Poets write it, and they either care and recognize tradition or they don't; they either respect formalism, operate in free verse, or combine the two, and some, like Dr. Sonia Sanchez, prefer to focus on orational emphasis. She likes chants, and pushing vocalization beyond the bounds of narrative structure. Bukowski's oeuvre isn't about appreciation, but reduction to the lowest common denominator.

If you want to become a writer then you do what it takes to become one, and that includes studying your markets, not being afraid of rejection, possibly getting an MFA with any additional education credits you need to teach, and, learning that publishing is a business. Online workshops or writing samples can be bad for you, because you may end up conforming to the community rather than honing your skill, it depends, but don't romanticize it, and don't make it your life if the cost of doing so is too high. I should have listened to my father and gone into accounting, and yes, I am serious.

actually after doing research on him i found that this poem was him being arrogant and such, but it was also his way of fighting the 2nd wave of the beat generation (whom he detested quite a bit and believed that most were untalented).

but even so i still find it funny how writers can relate to this poem so much even though it's meant to discourage people to become writers.



unless it comes out of
your soul like a rocket,
unless being still would
drive you to madness or
suicide or murder,
don't do it.
unless the sun inside you is
burning your gut,
don't do it.


also Buk was a true writer. just because he was an *** done't mean that he wasn't a writer. i mean look at that quote above, any writer can tell you that that is 100% true.

i mean honestly i can tell you that it drives me crazy when i have a good idea and can't write it down.