> there's more to writing than owning
> a computer and plunking on the keys.

There are a lot of bestsellers, both high- and low-brow, showing that that's not true.

I think Blair nailed it.

A favorite basketball coach put it like this: "Most of us learn to read and write at age seven, then move on to better things."

See also Cammy's thoughts on Dick Cavett.

(And on gay marriage! She's consistent in her beliefs. Or as many here might say, she's "intellectually consistent"!)

I thought that quote was from Orwell, not Churchill. It paints a very clear picture, whoever said it.

I don't know, Amy, don't you think it's just a bit presumptious of Egan to appoint himself the gatekeeper of who is and isn't allowed to publish a book?

>> he now thinks he can join the profession of Mark Twain, George Orwell and Joan Didion.

that's like saying Washington, Lincoln and Carter.

>>>don't you think it's just a bit presumptious of Egan to appoint himself the gatekeeper of who is and isn't allowed to publish a book?

Are you kidding, Cousin Dave?

Hell, I don't mind if pop culture blips get paid mega bucks to write silly books - it's a free country and celebrity, of any sort, is a commodity.

But -absent any evidence that Joe-the-Plumber can write effectively, it's more presumptuous to assume his book will be worth reading at all.

On the other hand...
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/06/books/review/Queenan.t.html

A great article, sadly negated by the quoting of Garrison Keillor, the Randy Newman of literature. In the words of Leonard Pinth-Garnell, "Really sucks".

Re: "Writing and filmmaking and being a musician all take skill. One problem with all the technology we've got is that it makes it easy for anyone, on the surface at least, to seem skilled, and harder for a lot of people to know the difference.", link to expletive-laden rant after the break...

Said rant (don't let the kiddies look!)...
http://streetbonersandtvcarnage.com/blog/photography-is-for-jerkoffs/

"Writing and filmmaking and being a musician all take skill. One problem with all the technology we've got is that it makes it easy for anyone, on the surface at least, to seem skilled, and harder for a lot of people to know the difference."

Amy the elitist approved that message.

But it's good to hear that you're "done" with the book. Hopefully it's not full of whines about how hard it was to write. Like your blog is.

Do you think Joe actually wrote this? I see this as an employment opp. for a ghostwriter. Besides, the public will vote by buying it. Or not.

Didn't J. K. Rowling just start plinking at keys, on a manual typewriter? She wrote stories as a kid, but had no training.

>>Didn't J. K. Rowling just start plinking at keys, on a manual typewriter?

Not quite sure what you mean there, juliana?

Yes, she was writing long before she was contracted. Sure. And she was sustained with a conviction that HP was worth getting down on page after page without anyone cheering her on.

But she was plucked from the infamous slush pile because of her words, not because of some sort of plumbing public persona.

Timothy Egan confuses credentials with ability.

There are several jobs in this world that everyone thinks they could do better than the person already doing them despite a lack of experience, credentials, or training.

How many people think they could coach the local football team better than the guy with years of experience standing on the sideline?

I've heard lots of employees lament that they'd be a better CEO than the person running the company. Perhaps, but what in their experience doing journal entries in the Accounting department or taking customer calls qualifies them to run a corporation?

Add US Senator to the at list of jobs everyone thinks they can do with no experience, credentials, or training. Al Franken thinks his years of writing political jokes for SNL and mean-spirited "satire" qualifies him to be a lawmaker. At least he's running for the job. With her experience as an "advocate," Fran Drescher wants Gov. Patterson to appoint her to replace Hillary Clinton in the US Senate:

http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/ny_senate_drescher/2008/12/09/160020.html

Eh, if he wants to publish a book, who cares? I doubt that many people are going to spend their time and money on it, anyway. I'd rather he peddle books than screw up people's plumbing. I can see taking offense, though, at all of these idiots running around calling themselves "writers." Next thing we know, he'll be "Joe the Plumber, bestselling author," etc. That doesn't mean there's anything anyone could, or should, do to stop it.

I don't see the Internets making it harder for people to tell good writing from bad. If they have any effect at all on reading skills, I would think it would be the opposite. The Internet puts professionally written prose into the same browser frame with the amateur product strips away the superficial differences. This makes the essential differences more apparent, not less.

Can you describe this person who can discriminate good writing in print but loses that ability when it's on a screen? I don't think he exists.

We've all heard that a million monkeys banging on a million typewriters will eventually reproduce the entire works of Shakespeare. Now, thanks to the Internet, we know this is not true. - Robert Silenski

He can write a book. He can sign a book written by someone's else. He can sell his book to whoever he wants. He can even became rich by doing so.

As long as I not forced to buy and read it, I don't care.

If I was trying to set myself up as the gold standard of good writing, I wouldn't start by using a stale cliche like "15 minutes of fame" in the very first paragraph.

In case you haven't noticed, the shelves of every bookstore in North America are groaning with books by people who can't write. If Joe wants to add his tiny contribution to that mountain of mediocrity, why should that bother anyone who loves good writing? I'm a lifelong passionate bookworm, and I can't imagine why anyone would enjoy a good book less just because there are countless bad ones out there.

It's pretty safe to say that someone out there will still be reading Twain & Churchill a thousand years from now, while absolutely no one will be reading Egan. What is truly obnoxious is not that Joe the Plumber thinks he can write, but that Egan thinks that having a bit of writing talent entitles him to wrap himself in the mantle of genius. And to spout off about who shouldn't be "allowed" to write, on top of that.

Fuck him with a cactus.

When paired with the next blog post, this item handsomely describes the psychosis of our age.

It couldn't be more obvious that broad literacy benefits everyone, not just the really smart and wordy people.

But even folks who have no superhuman gift for writing (i.e., everyone who visits the blog [or --sorry Amy-- writes for it]) wants to believe that something they've read, or some precious feeling they've had from reading, has removed them from the unwashed masses.

Toubrouk understands this, even if he(/she)'s not struck by the irony.

>>everyone...wants to believe that something they've read, or some precious feeling they've had from reading, has removed them from the unwashed masses.

I've always thought something along those lines explains your singular fandom of Paglia, Crid.

"Joe, a k a Samuel J. Wurzelbacher, was no good as a citizen, having failed to pay his full share of taxes, no good as a plumber, not being fully credentialed, and not even any good as a faux American icon. Who could forget poor John McCain at his most befuddled, calling out for his working-class surrogate on a day when Joe stiffed him."

This is a misrepresentation. Flat out - No Good as a Citizen - WHAT AN ASSHOLE.

Taxes in Ohio are placed on peoples estates and no notice is sent everyday. MANY Ohioians dont even know they have these taxes until they go to sell or refinance their homes. This is disengenious, but I am not suprised. Elitest SNOBS.

If "unknown" tax liens are the litmus test for good citizenship than perhaps this rudenik wouldnt mind commenting on Martin Nesbitt, the treasurer of Obama’s campaign, HE has tax liens. AND so do his companies.

Many would say Al Franken has ZERO business writing a book and much less running for Senator, but he is lauded, while elitests like the author attacking the Joe's out there with this article like a bunch of froathing vipers.

Ya know, I liked Joe. And being a fellow American, I have to respect the guy for having the Chuzpah to interupt the Obamafest and asking an honest question to the evasive "One". I thought his question was rather appropriate.

He is a military veteran, a single father, and a pretty down to earth kinda guy - who lost his job (which may be fair, but would it have happend to someone who asked a procotive question to McCain -HELL NO)...not to mention having a team of thugs illegally riffling through his background and personal affairs. All this because as a private citizen he asked a question - and a pretty damn good question at that. This just stinks. This article, was really unnecessary.

I wish Joe well, and as a non-envious capitalist...I hope he makes lots of money.

(This author should join Harry Reid up in the Capitol building coordining off STINKY tourists so as not to offend the "Royal Court" we have there pissing away our tax dollars and eating lobster dinners on our dime)...

Rant/off

"I've always thought something along those lines explains your singular fandom of Paglia, Crid."

I love Paglia - she nails elitests.

I am still miffed this jackass questions the Good Citizenship status of an Iraq War Veteran!!!!

Un-F'G'BELIEVABLE

I know two people who are aspiriing fiction writers. One approaches it as an amateur, kind of toying with the idea...occasionally tickling pages with words when the feeling strikes her. My neighbor, who's an accomplished architect and designer is now writing young adult fiction. She works her ass off, and it shows in the way her writing has improved. If you know anything about writing, you know how hard it is, and how much of a commitment it takes. J.K. Rowling didn't sit down at the keyboard and sell a book 12 seconds later.

My neighbor, who is also a stay-at-home mom and who had a successful toy company, uses every spare minute she has to write. She and I will frequently get together to go over each other's chapter currently in progress from about 8pm to midnight -- after I've had a writing day from around 9 a.m. to 7 p.m., and she's had a full day of her own, with some writing and mostly mom-ing. Friends who've become writers -- novelists, etc., also show that level of commitment.

Take Elmore Leonard, for example. When he worked at the ad agency, he would wake up every day at 5 a.m. and write for two hours before work. He wrote a page before he allowed himself to put a pot of coffee on.

Commenting that any asshole who decides to "write" a book is not a writer isn't "elitist," it's realistic.

Why is this even implied to be a simple evaluation?

Tom Clancy is a pedestrian writer, but a storyteller who put ordinary people everywhere in his books, doing extraordinary things. People want to see that. I don't know anyone who has been in the services who hasn't read at least one of his books.

CJ Cherryh and Robert Heinlein and Isaac Asimov developed "future histories" for the worlds their characters would inhabit. There's as much prep work there as there is on the printed page.

Robert B. Parker sets everything in the Boston area, which he knows well, and with speed and economy of style shows everyone a good time immediately. It's rumored that it only takes him a week to turn out a new book. OK, Spenser is formula. He sells books.

Some people with heavy credentials should never be let near a publisher. A friend at work is married to a full professor of journalism who just put out something on how hard it is for women to get ahead in the media world. It's unreadable - a sorry jumble of collected facts with only tenuous linkage, the print equivalent of leaves in the yard.

So don't forget that talent is first, effort is second, talent times effort equals results, and that literature of any kind has a flavor you might not like. Think e.e. cummings, and that no, you don't have to read it.

And you should read Strunk and White's The Elements of Style to start off.

Commenting that any hack with a talent for writing is in the same company as Twain, Churchill, or Didion isn't just "elitist", it's obnoxious beyond belief.

And yes I know Egan won a Pulitzer, but that's all he is. Al Franken's gift to the gods of literature is just one of countless junk books spewed out by leftist celebrities. If Egan is so passionate about preserving literary standards, why is he oblivious to this cornucopia of crap while he spews venom at Joe? Because Joe is a conservative, and Egan is nothing but a leftist hack who can string words together better than the average schmuck.

You're missing the point here, Amy. No one is trying to deny that good writing takes hard work and commitment.

I agree, Martin. I think writing takes an enormous amount of skill. (I enjoy Amy's writing a lot). This article, however, did a hatchet job on Joe which I found unnecessary.

Do I think Joe is probably gonna be a good writer, no. But well wait and find out.

The comment about him being a good citizen etc was just thrown in for spite...just pissed me off, personally.

> I've always thought something
> along those lines explains your
> singular fandom of Paglia

Nobody, nobody loves her because she's a great writer. First of all, she couldn't tell a joke if her life depended on it. Secondly, she has an academic mind, and those people are no fun.

The thing isn't that Paglia's a great writer, it's that she sees stuff (patterns in behavior) that other people don't see. She credits her insight to years of art study, and who am I to argue?

Also, it's not singular. There are others out there! I haven't met any of them, but there must be a few somewhere....

(BTW, what does it mean to "write effectively"? And do you think the people who bought all those books via Judith Regan over the past decade were disappointed? Or might they describe their books by Kathie Lee Gifford, Howard Stern, and the wrestling and porn stars as "worth reading"? I'd bet they were happy customers.)

One last thing.

I have this family senior who can't be convinced to read blogs, especially if they have comments. The obnoxiousness of the commenters offends her deeply, and so she often talks as if it's better when people believe in centralized (NYT/CBS news) information distribution, though I don't think she really believes it. But I think she's mistaken to be so dismissive.

Having a feel for how many bad comments (or books) there are out there gives us important information about human nature. I always thought it was tragic that the New York Times Book Review dismisses Christian books from it's bestseller list: We're told that if they didn't, nothing else would appear. A lot of people who think of themselves as very alert are thus deceived about the nature of the country they live in.

Besides, the majority of everything, ever, is trash. And when you come across a good blog comment, it's a pearl beyond price. Whether it's a joke, a eyewitness account, a boldfaced lie, or a weather report doesn't matter. And you never know who's going to offer that comment. All we really know is that it's probably not Al Gore. The genius that makes the world go around is contextual, unscheduled, and very broadly spread across the population.

The only difference between the web comment market and the book market is the cost of distribution. You mentioned earlier in the year that some jobs are "shitty"... Presumably, some books and blog comments are "shitty" too. But so what? There's someone out there who wants to read them, or at least write them. Same with the web.

I think bullshit books are a miracle, even when I don't read them. (I remember flying through Mexico City once and seeing a housewife read a comic-book romance. I was appalled, but she was enchanted. Who comes out ahead on that? She does.

People are getting their needs met. How condescending do you want to be about that?

It's your writing that keeps me coming back here, Amy (The fact that you share my libertarian perspective on most things and that you're oh-so-fuckable in fantasy is a bonus).

You're saying that every clown who cashes in on a book demeans the craft of writing, and insults everyone who's ever sweated blood to turn out good writing. I just don't believe that. I was a little kid when I was first carried away to a new world by great writing, and thousands of books later, my appreciation for it has not diminished in the slightest.

Someone mentioned that politics is another craft that every amateur thinks he could do as well at as professionals. Does Rod Blagojevich diminish Abe Lincoln somehow? How could a million hacks diminish Mark Twain's writing, even if they tried?

Bad writing does not diminish good writing. It makes it stand out more, and be appreciated more by those who love it.

"I actually paid little attention to the entire Joe the Plumber thing. I don't post links because I agree with every word the person said. But, I think too many people think writing is easy because typing on a computer is something so many people do these days. "

That's very fair.

You are a wonderful writer (I neglected to mention this earlier). There are very few writers out there that are able to both write AND be funny. There have been numerous posts of yours here where I was geniunely brought to tears from laughing so hard (the guy with the "dinner napkin" on his head comes to mind). Laughter is great medicine.

I am looking forward to your book.

>>I remember flying through Mexico City once and seeing a housewife read a comic-book romance. I was appalled, but she was enchanted. Who comes out ahead on that? She does.People are getting their needs met. How condescending do you want to be about that?

Your own assumptions here appear practically dripping with condescension, Crid!

Point is, it was a learning experience. I learned not to be snotty. (And learned quietly... She got off the plane never knowing what I'd thought. And I haven't thought it about anyone since.)

>>Point is, it was a learning experience.

And my point remains, Crid - that it was the lesson you appeared to take from the experience that is moist with warm condescension.

People are getting their needs met, sayeth you from on high.

The fact you were eventually silently enchanted by this touching vignette of the humble Mexican housewife and her simple choice of airplane reading material speaks volumes.

Maybe she just had bad taste?

Why must I approve of your strained approval?

"Point is, it was a learning experience. I learned not to be snotty."
HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA! I'm so glad I'm done with my coffee; it would've shot through my nose if I'd still been drinking it.

I'd say he has as much right to write as you have to attempt to learn french and speak it to frenchies. No one forces people to read, and no one forces natives to listen.

Amy, could you please post an address where aspiring writers can submit their work for your approval.
You'd really be doing us all a service. I'd be horrified if I read a book written by someone you don't consider a "writer".
And please post a review of your own book after you read it so we can know whether or not it meets your standards. Thanks so much.

Sean, you're a shit. Please don't quit your day job. o.O

>>...I'd say he has as much right to write as you have to attempt to learn french and speak it to frenchies.

Momof3,
What on earth have Amy's French lessons got to do with Joe-the-plumber's publishing contract?

Am I missing something they have in common?

Flynne, Obama's not even in office yet but the stifling of dissent has already started.
Where do I get my "Dissent is the highest form of Patriotism" bumper sticker????

I'm saying, it interests you. You aren't french, but want to learn. dabble. Whatever. He isn't a "writer" -although, what is that really but someone who writes? but he is interested. Wants to dabble-through a ghostwriter I'm sure. Wants money, whatever. If someone publishes it and people buy it, more power to him. He has as much right to his dabbles as you do. What level of success he'll achieve, and what level you achieve in your dabbles, is really beside the point.

And no, I don't hate the french, or france, or people involved with either. I don't care for some of their food-I'd never eat that egg thing-but am not among the anti-french. You totally missed my point.

Italy, that's more my speed. Personally.

>>...He has as much right to his dabbles as you do. What level of success he'll achieve, and what level you achieve in your dabbles, is really beside the point.

Momof3,
Where is the bit when Amy presents herself to the paying public as a professional French speaker?

Your comment is nuts - or in-Seine, as it were!

> Your own assumptions here appear
> practically dripping with
> condescension

Kinda, but only in retrospect... The woman wasn't being shameless. She was just reading a comic book. Why shouldn't she?

You haven't answered my point about the plumber, either: Why shouldn't he write a book?

Because you don't want him to, seems to be your answer. Amy was wrong when she said this:

> there's more to writing than
> owning a computer and
> plunking on the keys.

Because actually, there isn't. I think you two (authoresses both) are trying to pretend there's some elite, magical process to it. But merely stringing a few sentences together is all that many readers will demand. Would either of you really want your works critiqued by a professor of English? (I'm reminded of Malcolm Gladwell's brilliant response to a brutal review by Court of Appeals Judge Richard Posner: "They sent a man to do a boy's job!")

> Where is the bit when Amy
> presents herself to the paying
> public as a professional French
> speaker?

How is Joe pretending to be a professional writer? There are a lot people who write books on the side, or capitalize on momentary matters of public interest. My friend who writes murder novels set in the world of Hollywood standup comedy no more wounds Shakespeare than Keith Richards injures Segovia.

People should, write, comment and otherwise express themselves as they see fit.

Enough with the assumptions, Crid!

I edit (non fiction, mainly), and you don't last long as an editor with any notions about - as you put it - writing as an "elite, magical process"!

Here's a free tip: the best manuscripts, by far, are the ones which spring to life once the judicious editor starts removing the clutter. The good stuff is already there, just buried. (Read about the greatest editor of them all, Maxwell Perkins, to see how this works.)

And this bit of yours?

"But merely stringing a few sentences together is all that many readers will demand."

Talk about snotty!

Crid wrote:Amy was wrong when she said this:

> there's more to writing than
> owning a computer and
> plunking on the keys.

Because actually, there isn't.

Crid,
What is up with you on this thread?

Are you trying to sound like the half-wit propped at the end of the bar?

Focus, Jody! Focus!

> you don't last long as an editor with

Who said anything about lasting long as an editor? You're the one saying some people just should not write books because they "won't be worth reading."

> Here's a free tip: the best
> manuscripts, by far

Who said anything about the best manuscripts? I think Joe should write a book if he wants to. I think my Mexican seat mate should read comic books if she wants to. Some of us like to whistle tunes on the street: Others like to scratch a fiddle.

> Talk about snotty!

What's snotty about it? Do you or do you not think people should write whatever they want to write and read whatever they want to read?

>>>You're the one saying some people just should not write books because they "won't be worth reading."

I think not, Crid.

I don't hold that opinion, nor did I inadvertently express it.

I wrote:

Hell, I don't mind if pop culture blips get paid mega bucks to write silly books - it's a free country and celebrity, of any sort, is a commodity.But -absent any evidence that Joe-the-Plumber can write effectively, it's more presumptuous to assume his book will be worth reading at all.

You also ask, Crid, why I described as "snotty" this statement from you:

"But merely stringing a few sentences together is all that many readers will demand."

Why do you assume "many readers" lack the discernment you say you possess - this 'pearl-spotting' ability you've referred to?

You also wrote:

"The genius that makes the world go around is contextual, unscheduled, and very broadly spread across the population."

Well, far out man!

But - actually, books published at the behest of publishers (not self-published) are indeed "scheduled".

Joe-the-plumber's text is definitely not "unscheduled" and therein rather lies the entire point of this thread.

To be fair to you, Crid (and why not?).

I agree the sentences I wrote about editing came across oddly. My point was that if you're an editor, you have no illusions about writing being (as you insisted was my misconception, because I'm a long remainder binned author!) an "elite, magical process".

Editing is more akin to the job of a building contractor - you notice where the bricks are in the wrong place, advise on foundations, come up with ideas how to shore up a load-bearing wall, that sort of thing.

The final effect may be a marvel, but the process of achieving that effect isn't about precious pinches of fairy dust.

Jody, come off it. When Crid says, "But merely stringing a few sentences together is all that many readers will demand," there is abundant evidence for this in every newspaper, magazine stand, bookstore and library in the country.

{Edited to remove magical content, lest I be ranked up there with Bradbury.}

Hey - you know why there are more editors than authors? Because authors have the talent. This can't be ignored. The guy tuning Eddie Van Halen's guitar is 'way better than I am on strings, but he's not Eddie - who got where he is with hard work as well as talent.

For another example, here's something you could probably find on Google:

"But when I got into the Internet I realized that the potential for reader response was far greater, and the deluge could bury me. For one thing, it seems that half my readers are aspiring authors, and they all want me to tell them exactly how I did it, so they can do it too. But for some reason they are not quite satisfied with my answer that I earned my college BA in Creative Writing in 1956, and submitted stories for eight years until finally I got lucky and sold one. Yes, lucky; a writer may have infinite talent, but luck still will play about a 50% chance in his success. That, and hard work for a decade or so, can do it, though there is no assurance. Talent, persistence, and luck: there's the formula. But my readers seem to lack the patience for that chancy route. As one told me, "You don't understand. I need the money now." No use telling him to write for the sheer satisfaction of the artistry of it, without any assurance of commercial success. Reality was clearly not his strong suit."

That's Piers Anthony.

Sure, you can get lucky with some guy who knows The Elements of Style and wants to write down your awesome story about witchcraft and Warp Drive. You can sell millions of copies more than Chaucer, too. Just don't mistake market communication for significance, your "pet rock" for sculpture. And that's probably the center of Amy's objection.

> it's more presumptuous to
> assume his book will be worth
> reading at all.

I can't see your point with the word "presumptuous". Who's being presumptuous? Joe? The people who publish him? The people who read him? The people who don't? Me? Gog? What does presumption have to do with anything? Will it not be worth reading by anyone, ever?

(Do you have a lot of books in your home? Me too. Most of them are shitty; libraries are often uninterested. But throwing them away or burning them always brings a kristallnacht-y feeling. Doesn't it?)

> Why do you assume "many readers"
> lack the discernment you say you
> possess

The lesson of Mexico was that my "discernment" (perhaps "presumption") didn't apply. People should read or write whenever they want. If they say something that's wrong, maybe we'll point it out. Meanwhile, when a plumber (or a cartoonish romance*) captures the imagination of others, it's at least possible that important information is being offered about human nature.

This happens all the time. Silly example (they're all silly): In past weeks I've seen two shabby adventure movies from 2008 which underperformed at the box office: Wanted and Jumper. Were we investors in the films, we'd have serious regrets about whether or not they were 'worth watching' (or "worth reading"). Great effects, sturdy sci-fi structures, famous stars, everything in place... but nobody cared. Both have deep-but-unexplored themes of parental absence and incompetence (i.e., divorce). The commercial failure of these storylines gives hope that audiences are at least implicitly suggesting that these broken relationships can't work as plot machines without a little more emotional grease. (At least not anymore : The inexplicable suicide of father figure Obi-Wan --which divorce-weary America accepted without remark-- was thirty years ago.)

So I'm glad they got made and that I got to see 'em. (That they tanked is icing on the cake.)

It's much, much more fun and productive to say that people are wrong than to say that people are merely beneath you. (Of course, it's a little more work, too... Because you have to be sure you're right.)

> books published at the behest of
> publishers (not self-published)
> are indeed "scheduled".

I didn't say his book wasn't scheduled, I said his contribution to the American enterprise (broadly, "genius") had not been and could not be predicted.

> My point was that if you're an
> editor, you have no illusions

Nobody but you and Amy --you two, with some skin in the game-- cares about the publishing industry. Joe's book is scheduled, but his appearance in America's attention was not... Many, many Democrats greatly resented the little feller. If they could have headed off his appearance in our media after forewarning, they'd have done so.

> Editing is more akin to the
> job of a building contractor

Joe had to appear as a figure of interest before publishers were aroused. The real estate had to be zoned first. In the other metaphor, that's the fairy dust.

> To be fair to you, Crid (and why
> not?).

Because it makes these comments dull for everyone, that's why not.

If Joe wants to write a book, he should do it. Maybe you'll like it, maybe you wont. Either way, no injury will accrue to English literacy or the human enterprise. If life was about nourishing "marvels" to the exclusion of others, we'd know by now. Fly to Costa Rica with a stopover at MEX, and you'll see what I mean.

---

*Hello, Miss Lewinsky! Y'know, if it was just about some BJ's, most of us wouldn't have thought the narrative was "worth reading."

You know, there's another social principle that bears mentioning.

Regardless of the activity, the possibility that you are looking at the best performer, by any measure, is near zero.

This is because of the matrix of population and opportunity. We do not have a society which can identify prodigal talent and emplace it in its optimal setting - nor does our environment even allow that.

That doesn't keep us from celebrating the talent we can see.

As we applaud Poe, Lucy, Streisand, Sir Elton, Hawking or our favorite blogger, there remains the simple fact that billions of other people we don't know have aptitude for anything we might imagine. We are simply ignorant of the majority of performers.

Somewhere, there is a plumber who might be mighty. The few authors I have spoken to or corresponded with are modest because they know the environment. "Joe" either knows this or is going to find out.

You seem to be making some contradictory points, Radwaste?

Never mind.

I've never looked at the numbers myself, so I'll take your word for it when you say: "Hey - you know why there are more editors than authors? Because authors have the talent."

I know, though, that editing is a picnic compared to writing.

This bit, however:

>>"Jody, come off it. When Crid says, "But merely stringing a few sentences together is all that many readers will demand," there is abundant evidence for this in every newspaper, magazine stand, bookstore and library in the country."

Aren't we talking about Joe and his book publishing contract? (Not a magazine or newspaper article fee - there are different acceptance criteria involved).

But anyway, I'm not arguing no trash is ever published. Far from it!

In a way, you seem to be agreeing with some of what I've said?

Joe-the-plumber's celebrity represents a huge windfall of the sort of "luck" your Piers Anthony quote discusses when he talks about the factors that may bring an author to publication?

And since Joe's sort of book contract-landing "luck" is not - as far as we know - linked to those other crucial elements Anthony mentions an author needs (talent and persistence), some book buyers may feel short changed?

Especially as some of us feel we already know as much as we need to about Joe from newspapers and magazines?

(Though, we may be wrong of course!)

One thing about literature people is how horny they get about it while the rest of us pursue worthwhile enthusiasms, like scuba diving and rock collecting.

A few years ago I read the Dave Eggers book and liked it... But I couldn't understand the way some people talked about him like Elvis had returned. And this continues with other middlebrow types, like Gladwell. There's all this mediated feeling for these figures among people who want to write books, something that the rest of us haven't seen or felt since the election of the prom queen and her court. We saw a lot of it a few weeks ago when David Foster Wallace died.

If you've dreamt of writing a widely-distributed book and being beloved for it, then Joe's access to markets is a stain on the human project.

But most of us don't have that dream. So, like, if he wants to write a book, then Godspeed.

Crid,:
You quoted my comment:

> it's more presumptuous to
> assume his book will be worth
> reading at all.

Then you scolded:

>>I can't see your point with the word "presumptuous". Who's being presumptuous? Joe?

My use of "presumptuous" there was a callback to an earlier comment made by Cousin Dave (which I quoted in full for reference, before I then immediately repeated his word "presumptuous".)

You've now also noted:
"Joe had to appear as a figure of interest before publishers were aroused."

I know.

Because I noted in my very first comment:

Hell, I don't mind if pop culture blips get paid mega bucks to write silly books - it's a free country and celebrity, of any sort, is a commodity.

Then you say:

"The few authors I have spoken to or corresponded with are modest because they know the environment."

To which I can only respond: editors often have quite a different view! Some of the authors I deal with are monsters about their work in private - but they're my monsters!

Fwiw, even though I've never developed a taste for Harry Potter and I only met her briefly, everyone says J. K. Rowling is a total dream.

> Then you say:

That stuff was Raddy.

> a total dream.

Speaking of somnambulance...

Rowling's been out there for years now, and I remember the first time I took notice. In '99 I was riding the subway in Manhattan and a handsome young Wall Street type sat in the seat across. Tall, groomed, great clothes etc (the bubble hadn't burst yet.) He was reading one of the Potters.

And his lips were moving.

I shoulda shorted priceline.com that very afternoon....

"Aren't we talking about Joe and his book publishing contract?"

Yes, which is why the words, "bookstore" and "library" appeared in the same sentence.

That might be why you have "monsters".

Radwaste,
What's your problem?

I was simply saying I was referring specifically to book publishing, and not mag/newspaper journalism as well?

Your comment referred (widely) to "every newspaper, magazine stand, bookstore and library in the country". I was just specifically narrowing down to the last two?

Sorry if you thought I misunderstood?

Jody, the situation is just clear without your help, that's all.

And I'm glad not to be one of your clients, because any time one of them tries to expand on an idea, you'll step on it with what you said.

It breaks my heart to see you two bickering like this.

A Times writer reviews a book without having read it? And pronounces the author no good in advance? And politics are involved? You don't say!

The Times needed a reason for some Joe- and Sarah-bashing and Obama-loving; I can understand that. But isn't the Times nearly bankrupt? And isn't that because of what and how it writes? Such as writing reviews before reading the book?

And how hard would it have been to do a quick Google search and find out that Joe had a co-writer - a novelist? It was known back in early November.

Back in October, journos couldn't believe Joe had the impudence to want to make more money next year ("But he is not in the bracket the tax rate for which would be raised under Obama"). Now they are offended by his trying to reach higher than his pre-ordained caste. Know your place, plumber!

Amy, I understand. But the NYT article is a shameless hit piece, and a pointless one at that - the election was long over, so they just wanted to twist the knife in the losers' wounds. I was surprised that you fell for it, but that's probably because you are passionate about the subject - being a writer.

The fact is that the author and the NYT's famous layers of fact-checkers and editors failed to even Google Joe's book just to see if he might have a professional co-writer by any chance. I'm sure you know the mechanism of working with a co-writer. You give him the information - say, by way of notes, - and he does the writing, with your direction. Judjing from the public's interest in Joe's message in October, I'm sure many people will find the book interesting. I think you even had Joe in PJM ads earlier today on your site.

One more thing: after arrogantly telling Joe he doesn't want him writing books, the author writes: "Not when too many good novelists remain unpublished." Is this really the case? I'd think that if you bring someting with potential to a publisher, you'll get noticed, get an advance - isn't that how the system works? Publishing is about selling books for profit, not keeping talent down. Or am I missing something, and there are indeed too many good writers who for some reason can't get published?

Your blog is very interesting, and it's the first time that I've found something on it with which I disagree strongly enough to bother you with comments.