Why I'm Not a Writer by Lev Butts

In a recent article on Cracked.com, Gladstone claims that the third most popular lie told on social media is listing hobbies (such as writing) as vocations. He claims this is a lie unless said hobby allows you to "feed [your] kids and pay [your] bills and pay down [your] student loans doing nothing but writing outside of an established organization." At first, I had to agree with him and almost went to my Twitter account to change my description before something occurred to me.

I found at least two problems with his reasoning:

1. By his definition, very few writers can describe themselves as writers. 

Richard Monaco, who as I've mentioned before, was twice a finalist for the Pulitzer Prize, no longer supports himself primarily through his writing. He still writes, he still sells novels, and he still receives the occasional royalty check from Parsival. They just don't bring in the amount of money they did in the 1980's. According to Gladstone's article, he is no longer a writer despite his two recent books, forthcoming memoir, and two new novels-in-progress.

I promise I try not to mention Monaco in EVERY post,
but so far I've had no choice. He fits every topic I've written about.

Mary Hood, who's won a whole slew of awards for her fiction, works, I'm told, in a factory to support herself (one of the major reasons she takes so long between books). I'm afraid, she's not a writer either.

Put the book down Mary;
Gladstone says you have an assembly line to work.

Edgar Allen Poe had to lie about his age and join the military because he was unable to support himself as a writer. He died virtually penniless in the streets.

Not a Writer

For most of his life, Nathaniel Hawthorne held other jobs besides writing to support his family.

Also not a writer

The truth is that the chances of making your living writing, especially in this economic climate, are, if I were to make a fairly educated guess, akin to the chance a black man has of surviving a season of The Walking Dead.   The aspiring writer may want to make nice with any well-to-do relatives or consider moonlighting as a CEO.

Spoiler Alert

“The arts,” says Kurt Vonnegut, “are not a way to make a living. If you want to really hurt your parents, and you don't have the nerve to be gay, the least you can do is go into the arts.”

And there is a lot to be said for Vonnegut’s opinion. Careers in the arts are rare and mostly poorly paid. 

I know this. I’m a writer and a humanities professor. 

In fact, nothing pleased me more than finding out my son was going to technical school to be a nurse. “You’ll make way more money than I do,” I said. “My retirement is assured.”

However, my goddaughter called me a few weeks later and told me she was nervous about growing up and entering the real world. I asked her what she wants to do.

She wants to be a best-selling novelist.

I told her she’d need something to fall back on while she waits for her novels to be appreciated by the masses. To her credit, she had thought about just that: “I’ll be an English teacher,” she said, “like you.”

Since no amount of logic can dissuade her from this plan, all I can do is be proud of her, too, and wait for my inevitable opportunity to tell her “I told you so.”

However, there's an even bigger problem with Gladstone's reasoning

2. He blurs the difference between "vocation" and "job"

Gladstone says it's a lie to list your hobby as a vocation.

 Vocation: The particular function or station to which a person is called by God; a mode of life or sphere of action regarded as so determined.

vocation

Job: work done for pay in order to live in a fairly dry wooden box, drape oneself in inexpensive fabric, and avoid starvation.  

Job

I've done a lot of things for a living in my fairly short life: drug store clerk, fast food worker, janitor, car auction driver, rental car agent. None of those things have ever defined who I am. They were just jobs I did; by and large, they did not provide insight into my soul. 

In his article, Gladstone claims that even though he does enjoy writing, since he doesn't support himself with his writing, he feels uncomfortable referring to himself as a writer. "Many people," he continues, "don't have that problem. Their [online] bios define them as painter, writer, dancer!"

Go to your local night club, pub, or fancy restaurant, (any place that is likely to provide some form of live music) and ask those performers their vocations. While most of them have day jobs, I am willing to bet they all refer to themselves as musicians. Go to a local poetry reading, ask the performers the same question. They will all call themselves poets.

And why wouldn't they? Isn't it much more satisfying to publicly acknowledge your creative side? Who wouldn't want to be a painter instead of a fast food clerk or a musician instead of an elephant-shit collector?

Yep. It's a thing.

If I spent all my free time volunteering at the nursing home and donating food to the soup kitchen, or helping under-privileged children learn to read, I suspect Gladstone would have no problem with my listing "community volunteer/literacy advocate" as my vocation, even though I would make no money at it. 

Indeed, Gladstone's article itself serves as proof of my point. I have no idea what the man does for a living. Don't even care to. For all I know he could be the world's most effective toilet tester.

Yep. Also a thing.

What I care about is reading his stuff (because, well, it's pretty freaking great). I am fairly certain I am not alone. What fan base Gladstone has is mostly based on his writing, I assume. 

My point is vocations and jobs are very different things. Sometimes they overlap (I do see my "day" job as a college professor as a vocation, too); most of the time, they don't. If someone asks me what I do, I generally say I'm a college professor and a writer; if they ask me what I do for a living, I stop at college professor.

The truth is a vocation is a very personal thing. It gives your life meaning. It fulfills you as a person, and generally makes life a little less crappy for someone else, but more than anything, it defines who you are to yourself. It may be something you do to make your living, it may only pay for the occasional night out (or, in my case, the occasional Redbox rental and bottle of Guinness), it may not make you any money at all. But what it does do is make you feel personal worth.

My point is calling yourself a writer, a dancer, a musician, an artist, or any of a thousand other things that make your little patch of the universe bearable for others and yourself is exactly what a vocation is. Whatever else he does, Gladstone is a writer.

And so am I.

Don't think of my title as a lie; think of it as verbally ironic.

Don't take my word for it, though, check out Gladstone for yourself. He also has a new novel coming out in March; it looks great. 

Oh yeah, I have a new novella out now.