Writer or wh*re?

January 15, 2009

Novelist Geoff Dyer is quoted in an article in the Independent, saying:

Anyone who has an eye on the market is not a writer but a whore. Nothing wrong with being a whore, of course – just don’t try to make out you’re a writer. Writers sometimes talk of pressure from their publishers to do this or that in order to be more commercial. Nine times out of ten this is sophistry and cowardice… I have this existential conception of writing not as a career but as a back-against-the wall option, the thing you turn to when you’ve got no other way of making a mark on the world. In those circumstances, whether or not you’re going to be adequately recompensed is irrelevant.

This quote has aroused (tee hee) much discussion on my other writers’ messageboard. Personally I think the implication that writers of commercial fiction are wh*res (I only use the asterix to prevent unwanted hits!) is offensive. And complete rubbish too.

What do you think?

Comments

1. On January 15th, 2009 at 9:32 am
   liz Says:
   

   Oooo interesting. Just because one does what the management says ones is one of those things…however he is right in one sense. wh*res get paid and writers in his definition generally don’t. Maybe he’s a kept man or maybe he doesn’t need to eat 🙂
   lx

2. On January 15th, 2009 at 12:48 pm
   Nell Dixon Says:
   

   Mmm, I suspect most writers who write with an eye on the market are published writers. Those that don’t will have a higher chance of their manuscript staying under the bed, read only by family and the dustbunnies. Is the gentleman a literary novelist? because they don’t get read much either.

3. On January 15th, 2009 at 2:02 pm
   Ray-Anne Says:
   

   Tw*t.
   And what Liz and Nell said.

4. On January 15th, 2009 at 3:55 pm
   Tam Says:
   

   Well, if I squint really hard and bite my lip I can kind of see what he means. But I still think it’s b*llocks 🙂

5. On January 20th, 2009 at 2:48 am
   Julie Cohen Says:
   

   By that reasoning, all illustrators are whores. And journalists? And pop musicians. And television actors. Oh, and at least part of the time, people like Charles Dickens and Shakespeare.

   Glad I’m in such good company.

   It’s an old argument precipitated on romantic ideas, and it’s interesting he uses such gendered language to make it. Do I detect a hint of “writer”=”artist”=”male” vs “whore” which is generally female?

   I like the idea of back-against-the-wall writing. I just don’t think one sort precludes the other, or that one is right and the other morally wrong.

6. On January 20th, 2009 at 5:23 am
   Phillipa Says:
   

   Julie

   I absolutely agree with you – and yes, i detect a whiff of chauvinism too. Or even a strong pong.

7. On January 21st, 2009 at 9:01 am
   Laura Vivanco Says:
   

   Is it just my literary critic’s dirty mind that makes me think that the distinction between a wh*re and someone with their back up against a wall might not be quite as clear as he’s trying to make it? That’s literally the case, but also, picking up on Liz’s observation that “Maybe he’s a kept man or maybe he doesn’t need to eat,” writing saleable fiction could also be a “back-against-the wall option.” The difference is the nature of the wall.

   Whereas for some people the “wall” might be the need to make a living wage, for Dyer, the wall seems to be anything that prevents him “making a mark on the world.” I’m not entirely sure what he means by that, but I get the impression that he thinks he has important things to say, which he wants other people to listen to.

   He’s not dismissing the possibility that someone who writes in order to get their important message out to the world might also make money, but he doesn’t think money should be the top priority. Nonetheless, I think he’s seeing the situation in very stark dichotomies – either wh*re or artist. I can think of at least one other option.

   Maybe some writers are very skilled seducers of the public. They aren’t just selling the public what they think the public wants. Rather, by ensuring that their novels are attractive to readers, they make it more likely that their works will actually make “their mark on the world,” because more of “the world” will actually read those novels. Julie mentioned Dickens, and I think he’s a very good example of an author who was hugely popular, who knew very well how to appeal to his public, but who also made a “mark on the world” by exposing the extreme poverty that marred the society of his day.