Skip to main content

"Writing isn't a real job!"

As long-time readers would know, I don't get personal very often, but in light of some recent headlines, events, and chatter, I felt the need to do so.

More than any other, I think a majority of writers despise the following questions and comments: 

- "Writing isn't a real job; anyone can write."

- "When will you finally go out into the real world and get a real job?"

No, I don't know what constitutes a real job from an imaginary one or what separates real work from fantasy work, but almost nothing riles a writer more than comments and questions like these. 

Like most jobs, there are definite pros and cons to writing. A major pair of pros are convenience and flexibility. Most days, one can get out of bed, make a cup of coffee, and start working at the computer having not showered nor changed. Whether one is a morning or a night person, he or she can typically work during the time they feel most alert and productive (this of course varies depending on deadlines). What most of these writer-haters seem to forget, however, are the cons associated with the writing profession. While writers may at times take flexible hours for granted, most people whom work outside of the home may often take a social life (in and out of the workplace) for granted, which brings me to the biggest cons that comes with this job: Isolation and loneliness.

Even when working outside the home, writing is a very lonely profession. It's quite commonplace for writers, when working at the computer, to block any and everyone out until they've completed their goals for the day or week. While the work hours might be flexible from simply a production standpoint, it's difficult for most writers to ever fully take their mind off work. I can't count how many times I've woken up in the middle of the night with an idea for a book, short story, or poem, and due to being paranoid I'll forget the idea if I fall right back asleep, I'll turn the light on, grab a pen and notebook, and it's anybody's guess when I'll fall back asleep, if I do again at all that night. These are two of the reasons I think writers are more prone to alcoholism and drug abuse than the average person. While some writers may go to drugs or alcohol to inspire new ideas, others do so to slow down their thoughts and allow themselves time away from work. As bizarre as it might sound, it's fairly common for writers to consume alcohol and drugs in order to keep themselves from going crazy. However, this also leaves us more susceptible to addiction, which is never a good thing.

While it's true that it's often difficult for working people to find balance between business and pleasure, I find that to especially be the case with writers, because we're constantly at battle with ourselves, and it becomes increasingly difficult to set those inner-battles to the side throughout the course of the week and relax away from our computers and thoughts. Unless we truly push ourselves to do so, it's common to sit at the computer throughout the week, away from all others, over-analyzing what to do with our seemingly never-ending stream of thoughts and ideas.

So, writer-haters can think and say whatever they'd like about the profession, but I know I and many others would greatly appreciate if such individuals took the time to learn more about the job, how much work we put into it, and attempt to empathize with us so they can hopefully garner a greater appreciation and respect for what we do. We go to great lengths to motivate, inspire, educate, stimulate laughter, and bring about the rawest of feelings and emotions while we often times drive ourselves to the brink of insanity in the process. If that's not real work or a real job, I don't know what is.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Boycotting jukeboxes because of TouchTunes

I love music and enjoy hitting the bar(s) over the weekend, so naturally, when the mood strikes me, I've never been coy about playing some songs on the jukebox. This past Thursday, a friend of mine turned 50, so several friends of her's, including myself, all met up to celebrate the occasion. At around 9:30, a friend of mine and I both chipped in $5 to play some songs on the jukebox. Four hours and 231 skips later, we gave up on hearing the songs we had selected, and went home knowing we had just wasted $5. This wasn't the first time such a thing had happened to me (and many others), and due to that, I'll be boycotting jukeboxes. Why? The scam known as TouchTunes. You see, here's how the plot typically breaks down. A person (or group of people) downloads the TouchTunes app on his/her phone, consumes one too many adult beverages, and due to this, has less care for spending extra money to hear the songs of their choosing right NOW. That's the thing with TouchTun

The difference between "looking" and "checking out"

I may be way off with these numbers, but it's my approximation that at least 75% of individuals whom are involved in a serious relationship feel it's perfectly acceptable to "check out" members of the opposite sex they're not involved with. Meanwhile, approximately 25% either don't feel this is acceptable or aren't sure about the matter. I hadn't thought about this matter for a while, but since I've been dating a woman for about 8 months, the topic has been pondered about some. When reading or hearing others discuss this very issue, I often times hear comments similar to the following: "It's human nature to look." "There's nothing wrong with checking others out. I'm sure he/she does it too!" "It's fine to do it. Just don't tell your boyfriend/girlfriend about it or do it in front of them!" "It's natural to find people attractive." When observing the array of comments, I i

The verdict is in. To no one's surprise, Jonathan Hoenig has been found guilty of being an idiot.

Just recently, when discussing the Michael Brown shooting and whether or not race had anything to do with it, Fox News contributor Jonathan Hoenig said, "You know who talks about race? Racists." One moment while I provide Mr. Hoenig with the well deserved slow-clap. :: slow-claps for two seconds :: So, that was quite the line by Mr. Hoenig, wasn't it? "You know who talks about race? Racists." Well, wasn't he just talking about race? So, by his own words, I guess that makes him a racist. Also, if he wants to be consistent, does this mean that people whom talk about gender are sexists and people whom talk about sexual orientation are homophobes? With that line of thinking, Hoenig would engage in the following back-and-forths: Hoenig: "So, who are you voting for?" A woman: "The Democratic candidate, because he's been adamant about his support for equal rights for women." Hoenig: "You sexist feminist nazi!"