"Wallace Stegner, an author who served as director of the Creative Writing Center at Stanford ... [wrote an] essay "To a Young Writer" (November 1959) [that] took the form of a letter addressed to a former student—a twenty-something young woman with literary aspirations, a graduate degree, and an unpublished novel. Stegner sought at once encourage her and to give her an honest picture of how difficult her career path would be.
He began by expressing empathy for the uncertainty she must now be feeling:
To date, from all your writing, you have made perhaps five hundred dollars for two short stories and a travel article. To finance school and to write your novel you have lived meagerly with little encouragement and have risked the disapproval of your family, who have understandably said, "Here is this girl nearly thirty years old now, unmarried, without a job or a profession, still mooning away at her writing as if life were forever. Here goes her life through her fingers while she sits in cold rooms and grows stoop-shouldered over a typewriter." So now, with your book finally in hand, you want desperately to have some harvest: a few good reviews, some critical attention, encouragement, royalties enough to let you live and go on writing...
You would like to be told that you are good and that all this difficulty and struggle and frustration will give way gradually or suddenly, preferably suddenly, to security, fame, confidence, the conviction of having worked well and faithfully to a good end and become someone important to the world.Stegner warned, however, that fame, fortune, and accolades would most likely not be forthcoming. Not because her work was not good: "You write better than hundreds of people with established literary reputations." The problem, he explained, was that her writing was aimed over the heads of the mass of readers, and would therefore only ever be appreciated by a small audience of "thoughtful readers." She would thus always find herself struggling—"pinched for money, for time, for a place to work."
So was all this worth it? "I would not blame you," he wrote, "if you ... asked, Why spend ten years in an apprenticeship to fiction only to discover that this society so little values what you do that it won't pay you a living wage for it?"
But in the end, he argued, living to practice an art that one does well is its own reward:
For you ... it will have to be art. You have nothing to gain and nothing to give except as you distill and purify ephemeral experience into quiet, searching, touching little stories ... and so give your uncommon readers a chance to join you in the solidarity of pain and love and the vision of human possibility.
But isn't it enough? For lack of the full heart's desire, won't it serve?"
I think you have to just not care about what people think of you while you scribble away. Future fame or fortune are irrelevant. You do it while your family and friends shake their heads and wonder why with all that education and ability you seem to be doing nothing, and they pity you and shake their heads and you have to just let them. There is no teleology to it; simply, you have to release yourself of the books that want to be born. You labour alone, that's just the way it is. No point fighting it. Without "a product," a society based on capitalism, commercialism has no way to gage value. Until the book is written and published, there is no "product," and, therefore, no "value."
Though I don't know about you, personally I haven't found that giving up and walking away from one's muse is an option. Exigencies of the muse, though, is another topic.


Comments: 11
no wonder, it pays its writers and is one of the best literary mags about.
This kind of criticism at Gather I don't understand. The kind that is made in a derrogatory manner, and remains unexplained or substantiated even when the author asks for more clarification.
Either the article I've quoted from is useful to you or it isn't.
We'd all like to have written Harry Potter, but it's unlikely we'll ever see that kind of success. But you never know,
either.
Right?
I spent twenty years earning my way in life as a potter and sculptor. For half of those years, I more aptly starved to death as an artist, going to shows and festivals hoping to earn just enough to keep plugging on. In the mid eighties, I was in the right place at the right time to capitalize on the COUNTRY FAD that swept America as a host of shows sprung up around the decorating theme of country. Suddenly, because I was MAKING MONEY, I was deemed a success, though my talents and creative energies had not suddenly taken a leap forward.
Now, those days are gone, I sold the studio to a large company that wanted my designs. I live a fairly comfortable life as I struggle to define and find my new voice where art is concerned. Again, I find people viewing me differently, like they did in those days before I started making money. Seems to me, that in many ways we need a different yardstick with which to measure success.
Shell, sweet, that's why we're here - for each other. And we have to honour our deepest inclinations, even if they're somehow absent from the culture mapping of viable resources.
Nancy, I don't know about you, but I couldn't write that kind of book (or books) if I tried. Sometimes in the dark night I wonder what it all means... from the perspective of the artist, it all seems so irrational.
And there was Vincent, who I believe killed himself because his brother, Theo, was getting married, and Theo was supporting him and he didn't want to be a burden to the newly wed couple... and yet one of his sunflowers just went for so many millions, it's set a new record. It's all very odd, this way of measuring the worth of an artist's labour, after they're dead, when they become 'influential,' their work of 'value.'
Porgie, oh, you express the paradox of an artist's life! And I agree with you - there needs to be a different yardstick with which to measure success. The Marxist stance of each according to his abilities, each according to his means, even if it meant state art, was an approach to some sort of change to the economic system, but it didn't work. Art is iconoclastic by nature. It will always break apart the outworn structures. We are always growing, unfurling, changing, moving on.
So then I think, well, there are alternative economies, other ways of matching labour to livelihood. But those are nefarious at best. Government-supported communities of artists is an idea - but it's done here, and it's not enough.
I struggle to find a solution to this problem, the support of the artist, a living wage...
I'm moving into education, tutoring/teaching, and so am leaving the world of true uncertainty, which is a relief, but I don't regret being there for so many years either. It gave me an understanding of the irrational underside of culture that I think is crucial...
Having said all that writing is my passion, and one day that manuscript will be published.
There's a town in Ohio called Zoar. Was originally the home of the Zoarites, a religious sect...was interesting how it was set up, and I have always felt it held promise as a working model for an artists community. For instance, they had a town gardener who grew the flowers and vegetables for pretty much everyone, others had their own specialties. Without going into much detail, the basic concept was a shared appreciation barter system.
I think we all get in trouble when we measure success, and contribution by the dollars tossed into a pot. Is the person home baking bread all day any less valuable than the one bringing in a paycheck at the end of the week...do they both not contribute to making a house a home, a town a community?
Art has to struggle painfully to bloom amidst gross commerce that grows wildly all around. I hope the society will create conditions where artists can at least earn subsistence level income and need not always depend on plain luck for their talents to be discovered.